Evolution VS Bible

[treezy z]

i don't understand why believing in a higher power is always tied in to the bible. i believe in God and pray every day, and have spiritual experiences on occasion, and i look at the bible as a 1000 page guilt trip.

and atheism vs. spirituality is a pointless debate. either you have faith and feel the presence of God, see coincedences, etc, or in the Supreme reality, etc. or you don't. i have seen "proof" that God exists, and felt his presence, but there's no way i can empirically prove these things as it's entirely based on my subjective experience, the same way atheist base their beliefs on their lack of this same subjective experience, and the lack of scientific evidence for God that i think we can all agree on (although the amazing series of coincedences that created this planet and ways various forces interact with each other etc. strengthens my belief.)

Spiritual beliefs are not in conflict with science, and the bible is only against science if you take it literally (although a lot of christians, i wouldn't say the majority but who knows, do take it literally.) and by not in conflict with science, i mean science can't prove the lack of a higher power. it stands completely outside of science, for it is beyond physical reality, and at the same time it is every aspect of physical reality.

 

[Portillo]

Please do not talk shit about Wikipedia. Regards.

 

[rantNrave]

Ya know a long time ago I watched a debate between Jerry Falwell and Carl Sagan on Nightline and the subject was Creationism vs The Big Bang. Carl Sagan was far more gracious that night than Jerry Falwell was. And the debate was really rather embarassing because Jerry Falwell wasn't even willing to hear Carl Sagan's point of view. He was really rather rude to Carl Sagan. But dispite all this, at the end, Carl Sagan said to Ted Kopol and Rev. Falwell probably the most profound statement of the whole debate. He said, " In Genesis, it says that God created the heavens and the Earth in six days, it doesn't say HOW he did it. And it also doesn't say how long a day is to God"

It is an ignorant and arrogant assumption to presume that a being such as God would keep time according to one small insignificant planet in a far off corner of the universe.
I thought at the time of the debate that it was very gracious of Carl Sagan to not take the atheistic view and refute the existance of God. And to allow room for Rev. Falwell's beliefs within the context, which is far more deference than he gave to Mr.Sagan.
But thats kind of the jist of this whole debate. Truth is, those not blessed with the gift of faith, don't resent people of faith. But those who have belief do take offense to those of us who do not believe. My lack of belief is not a personal affront to those who do believe.
It's kinda like that saying about tattooed people.
The difference between those with tattoos and those without, is that tattooed people don't care that other people don't have tattoos.

 

[yougene]

On a side note -- I'm always a little baffled about the loathing many people display for Dawkins.

What Dawkin’s likes to do is find the most ignorant fundamentalists around and have a “dialogue” with them. I know of at least one occasion where Dawkin’s crew turned off the cameras because they weren’t interested in actual rational dialogue.

The previous week I had sent Richard copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.

Richard seemed uneasy and said, “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence”. “Why not?” I asked. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” The camera stopped.

The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.

He’s like the Jerry Springer of Neo-Atheism. I think his work produces a lot of rabble and noise but little civil dialogue.

 

[zorn]

<crickets chirping>

Strange how creationists always seem to get really busy elsewhere whenever someone shows some of the evidence for evolution. Except it's not strange at all. Just a little sad.

-----

Impacto,
I looked at the "Richard Dawkins goes apeshit" thread, and I have to say, I was pretty shocked. I expected to see some video where Dawkins lost his temper and started screaming at someone or calling them names. But there was nothing of the sort. Instead it was about... Dawkins writing a book called "The God Delusion." This, apparently, was a horrible crime, because -- well, it's not clear why.

That's what I'm talking about when I say that the loathing some people have for Dawkins seems bizarre. When I have heard him speak, or read anything he's written, he's come off as calm, smart, self-possessed, practiced, and certain of himself. At the talk I heard him give (on religion!), he was in no 'wild-eyed' or 'fanatical' -- he didn't shout, he didn't revile or heap names on religion, he didn't really even exaggerate or dramatize. He just laid out his case against religion and its effect on people, in the style of an [excellent] academic speaker -- confident, measured, and often humorous; but never riled up or impassioned. He certainly has strong opinions about religious belief, and articulates his position clearly and forcefully. So I can easily see lots of people (not just the religious) would disagree with him.

It's just hard to see any reason for loathing him. Look at the language people used in the "apeshit" thread -- loathing, psycho, hatemongering, pedophile, drivel -- and then look at the reasons they give. The problems with Dawkins are...: his book title is too inflammatory. He doesn't display respect for the religious. He's not likely to convince religious people with such a forward approach. His critique of religion is mostly about organized religions, or fundamentalists, and not "all-roads-are-equally-good"-type mysticism. It's wrong to try and change other people's beliefs. Telling religious people they're wrong will just "inflame tensions." Etc.

---

yougene,
The thing you linked to I don't understand at all. Isn't it just one guy's side of a disagreement between him and Dawkins about whether/how Dawkin's show should talk about him? I think it'd be pretty naive to take a story like that at face value, but even if you do, it would mean that Dawkins didn't want his show to be about Rupert Sheldrake's methodology. It's a rather large leap to "he's not interested in actual rational dialogue."

Incidentally, your comment back above ("the modern synthesis is another matter") doesn't make any sense. (You don't believe in DNA? Genes are a fraud?) Where is this coming from? Is there some sect or ideology out there that holds up "the modern synthesis" as a great mistake? Or is complaining about it a hobbyhorse of Sheldrake or someone else, who you're taking seriously as an accurate guide to biology? Or something else?

---

rantNrave -- thanks! I appreciate it!

 

[RedLeader]

zorn, I know we diagreed a bit in the other thread, but I think you're doing a great job in this one. Bravo! (Though IMO Dawkins is a tool).

 

[L2R]

<crickets chirping>

Strange how creationists always seem to get really busy elsewhere whenever someone shows some of the evidence for evolution. Except it's not strange at all. Just a little sad.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the other streams of conversation going on in this thread. Our one seemed to come to a natural end or pause

Impacto,
I looked at the "Richard Dawkins goes apeshit" thread, and I have to say, I was pretty shocked. I expected to see some video where Dawkins lost his temper and started screaming at someone or calling them names. But there was nothing of the sort. Instead it was about... Dawkins writing a book called "The God Delusion." This, apparently, was a horrible crime, because -- well, it's not clear why.

Actually, I refer to seeing him talk in a "documentary" called "the root of evil" (easily found online). In it he portrays the behaviour i most object to.

That's what I'm talking about when I say that the loathing some people have for Dawkins seems bizarre. When I have heard him speak, ....He certainly has strong opinions about religious belief, and articulates his position clearly and forcefully. So I can easily see lots of people (not just the religious) would disagree with him.

Actually, one does not need to be foaming at the mouth to be propagating ignorance and hate. Yes, i said ignorance (i'll get back to that shortly). As mentioned in the other thread (in which i admit to getting a little too chuffed), Dawkins has a clear disrespect for the subject matter he is supposed to be studying (in this new field of his). Without respect or without a touch of compassion, he's set himself up a futile task in trying to assess anything with even the remotest objectivity.

His critique of religion is mostly about organized religions, or fundamentalists, and not "all-roads-are-equally-good"-type mysticism. It's wrong to try and change other people's beliefs. Telling religious people they're wrong will just "inflame tensions." Etc.

But he approaches the matter in a way that offends ALL spiritual beliefs. If it were truely as you say then he's not addressing the actual psychological and sociological problems at the heart of extremism. As it currently stands he propagates the notion that all believers of god or followers of religion are the same as the fundies. This completely ignores the plethora of decent spiritual practices and multitude of decent followers/believers.

It's sad that he feels that he has to resort to the same methods of those of whom he is criticising, but that act displays more negativity about militant atheists than anyone else. I agree that evolution should be taught in schools, but to reach that end, trying to dispove god is the wrong way to go about it. It's futility and in the long run creates more problems than it fixes.

 

[yougene]

yougene,
The thing you linked to I don't understand at all. Isn't it just one guy's side of a disagreement between him and Dawkins about whether/how Dawkin's show should talk about him? I think it'd be pretty naive to take a story like that at face value, but even if you do, it would mean that Dawkins didn't want his show to be about Rupert Sheldrake's methodology. It's a rather large leap to "he's not interested in actual rational dialogue."

If he doesn't want to have that conversation then he is completely mis-representing what he is doing. In these documentaries he is talking from a position of academic authority. But he's only interested in producing dialogues where he is talking down to crazed eye fundamentalists. He takes legitimate issues with the traditionalist/modernist clash and injects it with smears, spin and pidgeon-holing a whole spectrum of people in the process. He's so pre-occupied with trying to convince other people that he compromises his own integrity. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have way more to offer in actual substance. Their profiles of fundamentalists are actually well thought-out and amount to more than straw-man arguments.

Incidentally, your comment back above ("the modern synthesis is another matter") doesn't make any sense. (You don't believe in DNA? Genes are a fraud?) Where is this coming from? Is there some sect or ideology out there that holds up "the modern synthesis" as a great mistake? Or is complaining about it a hobbyhorse of Sheldrake or someone else, who you're taking seriously as an accurate guide to biology? Or something else?

I'm of the camp that thinks it's an outdated construct. The Modern Synthesis was created while molecular biololgy was still in its infancy and D.N.A's structure was still unknown. The Modern Synthesis asserts that evolution is a gradual process which is true enough when looking at the macro scale. On the molecular level however you have a set of discrete bits( nucleotides ) and evolution is happening through a discrete sequence of events. The problem is gradually changing the bits that code proteins doesn't usually gradually change the proteins properties. If this wasn't the case, we'd have much better luck in simulating proteins. This construct of gradation doesn't translate very well onto the molecular scale. We erroneously end up projecting our intuitions of the macro scale onto the micro scale.


The fact that we can see gradation from species A to species B does heavily support the theory of evolution. The Modern Synthesis however fails to address the mechanisms of evolution on the level that really matters.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Actually, one does not need to be foaming at the mouth to be propagating ignorance and hate. Yes, i said ignorance (i'll get back to that shortly). As mentioned in the other thread (in which i admit to getting a little too chuffed), Dawkins has a clear disrespect for the subject matter he is supposed to be studying (in this new field of his). Without respect or without a touch of compassion, he's set himself up a futile task in trying to assess anything with even the remotest objectivity.

But he approaches the matter in a way that offends ALL spiritual beliefs. If it were truely as you say then he's not addressing the actual psychological and sociological problems at the heart of extremism. As it currently stands he propagates the notion that all believers of god or followers of religion are the same as the fundies. This completely ignores the plethora of decent spiritual practices and multitude of decent followers/believers.

It's sad that he feels that he has to resort to the same methods of those of whom he is criticising, but that act displays more negativity about militant atheists than anyone else. I agree that evolution should be taught in schools, but to reach that end, trying to dispove god is the wrong way to go about it. It's futility and in the long run creates more problems than it fixes.

These are basically my thoughts as well.

I made that thread. I was at a different place than I am now, in some regards. I archived it because it's probably the thread on this site about which I've had the strongest emotional reaction. It was the first time I got up the balls to be vocally pro-religion on BL, and the only time I've woken up multiple times during the night to read and reply to a thread here. But I'd be lying if I said I was entirely proud of the thread. I definitely made some arguments against RD that were weak, instead of getting right to the heart of the matter, like impacto just did. If it were now, I don't know if I would have made that thread, because my dislike for RD is more visceral than rational.

It's kind of like driving a car around with an amplified subwoofer, blaring drum n' bass wherever you go. Some people like it, and that's fine. But most people don't, and won't ever, appreciate the finer points of drum n' bass. To them, it's noxious. Likewise, I don't think the worldview RD advocates is one most people could, or should be expected to, cotton to. Plus his snarky delivery and high media presence only adds insult to injury.

I've made peace with the guy by just deciding not to read him. I don't drop his name in conversation or ever reference him. Ignoring someone entirely is the best from of unflattery. Plus, I don't think there's anything to be afraid of with RD. It's not like he's going to turn the world materialist, and I'll be the only one left over. There will always be people who seek a person connection with some sort of higher power, and hold out relentless hope for a top-down order to this world we live in.

After all, zorn, you're right: the guy does have the right to speak his mind and not be censored. I'm an advocate of free speech. I'm no libertarian, but it's fully my own responsibility what I choose to put in my brain.