Support NeoGAF

[karasu]

God, evolution, or both. I still can't come up with a reason for why it should matter to me either way.

 

[theBishop]

God, evolution, or both. I still can't come up with a reason for why it should matter to me either way.

 

[Zoe]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2.jpg[/img]

I'm so tempted to get one of those logos for my car, but I think I'll wait until I'm a permanent employee before professing my beliefs like that :lol :lol :lol

 

[NZNova]

Cool article. I love teachers who are passionate about what they teach. I had a mathematics teacher like that, once.

 

[hockeypuck]

One of these days when I have more time I would love to sit down and watch a well done documentary on the evolution of Christianity.

By today's standards, thanks to some of the weirdest things Science has given us, a person doesn't have to be born female to BE female anymore. They can just get some operation and claim a different gender, so by twisting the natural order a person could create "wiggle room". However, none of those variables existed during Jesus' time so we have to assume that the definition of marriage applies to the natural order that Male and Female were created to join together in body and spirit by the act of marriage.

Does the Bible explicitly define what male and female mean? What determines gender? Because embryologically, all of us started out as "females;" only later in the development cycle do males differentiate.

Given that unfortunate natural conditions such as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome exist (and most likely existed 2000+ years ago as well), what is to determine who is male and who is female? I doubt karyotyping existed back then.

 

[spielcaster]

Only Church I'll ever go to again. I'm there at least three nights a week (Sunday, Wednesday, and then Thursday). If I could afford it, I'd go to their Bible College, but I'm just going to learn Hebrew+Greek on my own as the local store has really good books and a nice selection of Hebrew Bibles and Septugents.

So if you're so enamoured of the original Greek... and we're talking church Greek here, which is not current Greek, why aren't you joining the Orthodox church... where everything is in its original, unchanged form?

Just curious.

 

[spielcaster]

I really don't see why people are so threatened by evolution. It doesn't even say that God doesn't exist, just that life forms change over time.

Why can't God create things through evolution?

Because we were supposed to be created in our perfect, ultimate, form from the outset.

 

[SoulPlaya]

To me this is absolutely the key. It's a shame that "Bryce" was ultimately unable to separate his personal beliefs with scientific reality but people need to understand that even if they have strong and sincerely held religious beliefs if those beliefs are contradicted by science they shouldn't necessarily throw out their beliefs or ignore what science has established, instead it's more productive to realize that you believe what you believe but science is science. Two separate realms entirely.

Exactly right, I just came in here to say that for most Christians, evolution is accepted or, at the very least, a nonissue. Please remember that strict Evangelicals in the south do not constitute a heavy part of Christianity.

 

[HolyCheck]

Then you are not a Christian. You are a spiritualist.

Wow, Ok arguing and discussing is one thing. but do not tell me what I am.

or your god will smite you.

I am Christian, just not in the wacky American sense.

yes I do think there was a christ, he was probly just a normal every day guy, he did alright, probly averaged a strike rate of over 100.

 

[KevinCow]

I remember the first time the topic of evolution came up with a person who didn't believe in evolution. My mind was blown.

 

[Lesath]

Exactly right, I just came in here to say that for most Christians, evolution is accepted or, at the very least, a nonissue. Please remember that strict Evangelicals in the south do not constitute a heavy part of Christianity.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

I think 51% constitutes a majority, and 30% represents a minority within the United States.

 

[SouthernDragon]

all I gotta say is:

I applaud that teacher for doing his god damn job.

 

[itsinmyveins]

That article is an interesting read. I liked it.

 

[Mash]

Honestly, that has nothing to do with this at all. You need to stop "pushing" that idea into everything thread that mentions faith as I've seen you do it a lot.

I'm an atheist and, even though I find it to be idiotic to teach something related to faith in an educational environment, I feel that if one end of the spectrum is taught, the other should be at least discussed as well. Whether or not the person chooses to believe in it is one thing, but as the professor smartly put, they should at least understand it.

But the existence of God does not belong in the science classroom, it should be reserved for a philosophy seminar or some lame religious education class (which should be usurped by philosophy in high school), Science teachers just need to teach the natural explanation, they shouldn't have to do anything else, it's not metaphysics, it's physics. If these kids want to discuss the issue of first causes and transcendent truths then their science teacher, technically, isn't equipped to handle these questions.

 

[TheHeretic]

Exactly right, I just came in here to say that for most Christians, evolution is accepted or, at the very least, a nonissue. Please remember that strict Evangelicals in the south do not constitute a heavy part of Christianity.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Jocchan]

This thread has officially blown my mind.
I knew a lot of people in America still believe everything in the Bible has to be taken literally (which it absolutely doesn't), but I hoped people who have access to the Internets were informed enough to know this is not the case.
And this comes from a Christian who still thinks FACTS you have before your eyes might be a bit more credible as facts than metaphors written on a book 2500 years ago, when people's instruments, knowledge and culture weren't quite as advanced as now.

 

[djkimothy]

This thread has officially blown my mind.
I knew a lot of people in America still believe everything in the Bible has to be taken literally (which it absolutely doesn't), but I hoped people who have access to the Internets were informed enough to know this is not the case.
And this comes from a Christian who still thinks FACTS you have before your eyes might be a bit more credible as facts than metaphors written on a book 2500 years ago, when people's instruments, knowledge and culture weren't quite as advanced as now.

This thread is nothing. Visit fark.com when anevolution/creationist article pops up.

 

[Gallagher]

"Evolution is telling you that you're like an animal," Bryce agreed. "That's why people stand strong with Christianity, because it teaches people to lead a good life and not do wrong."

Well... we are the biggest animals... ^^

I hate people who think "iam a human, iam better than every animal. Lets kill it!"

 

[deepbrown]

Wow, Ok arguing and discussing is one thing. but do not tell me what I am.

or your god will smite you.

I am Christian, just not in the wacky American sense.

yes I do think there was a christ, he was probly just a normal every day guy, he did alright, probly averaged a strike rate of over 100.

I have no God to smite me. Look if you don't believe in the Bible, but only believe there is a higher power - then I'd call you a spiriatialist who admires Christianity. Why you'd want to call yourself a "Christian" rather than a human being who thinks there's a higher power is beyond me. Perhaps it's to avoid God "smiting you"?

 

[Lesath]

Well... we are the biggest animals... ^^

I hate people who think "iam a human, iam better than every animal. Lets kill it!"

Well, the more correct line of thinking would be, "I am human, and like any other animal, the continuation of my species is placed over that of others."

Of course, that would inevitably involve the killing of animals, but sustainable harvest of resources from the environment (which would be the best way to ensure the survival of our species) would be preferred over the destruction of ecosystems because of some divinely given right.

 

[onipex]

Uh no. Find me a Christian who believes in ALL of the teachings in the bible. You don't get your morality from the bible, let alone the New Testement. It's a very simple argument, and a very famous philosophical argument at that. You have a moral compass BEFORE you encounter the bible.

And noone is "ATTACKING" Christianity. Why is it when people place religion against sound reasoning, it's called attacking? But when philosophers and scientists disagree and provide counterexamples to their theories, it's called logical debate?

Unless I misunderstood, it was your words that said Christians should believe what is good by what is in the Bible. Then you asked how they can pick and choose.

I never said Christians believe in all the teachings for the Bible. What I did say is the religion is based on the New Testement. Please stop trying to twist my words.

Your reasoning makes no sense since there is nothing in the Bible that states you get your morality from the Bible. The only people I ever hear bring that up are those who are trying to attack the religion. I apologize if that was not your intent. The religion also believes that you are born with the spirit of God in you and that it guides you (not a universal belief among them though). The Bible even has stories of people that had high morals before they encountered the religion, heard from God or whatever. This seems to be ignored by you, the scientists and philosophers whenever the morality argument is raised.

 

[HolyCheck]

Because to me "God" is just the very everything of life. God isnt some figure who made the earth in 7 days. God, is a metaphor for.. all the good in life. its not like i can pick up a block of cheese and say this is my god.

My god, if i should even call him that. isnt a god. its just, to me, physics is god, gravity is god, biology is god, miyamoto is god. anything that makes life worth living, is what makes it God.

so my god will not be smiteing me either, as he has no powers whats so ever. He is a metaphor, an Idea.

I kinda realized now we're both on the same side im just arguing for the sake of it.

I do not beleive anything in the bible to be true, theyre just stories. I do not beleive there is a GOD. ie the ONE GOD. as nutters believe. God is just a word, if some one asked me what i thought it was, i use to describe the essence of everything.

ugh i really dont even know what my point is lol.

Do i believe in God? No.

Am I catholic? Yes.

 

[Ptaaty]

When will fundementalist/literalist religious folks learn? In the end it undermines the faith, it makes them look like ignorant backwards fools.

The earth is flat....the earth is flat....how long?

The way for a religion to survive and be relevant is not to cling to an understanding or translation for specific words and sections.

For starters, even in modern language it is often difficult to accurate translate language with full meanings, without nuances which go completely out the window. Ever think how hard it can be to pick up sarcasm on someone's post? Take that same concept...multiply by absolutely immense culteral and time differences, multiple translations, and languages.

It just isn't right to read Genesis and take a Western English word for word translation. Anyone with the slightest piece of sense should realize this as there are two creation accounts back to back in Genesis, and when you take a literal interpretation they cannot coexist.

This doesn't mean there is no God, doesn't mean there is. A belief system can influence your testing, methodology and results, and as such should be at least understood by those undertaking scientific endeavors. But creationism is not a testable hypothesis, it is not science. Evolution is. That still doesn't mean that we fully understand evolution, or there can't be errors, or even if you can conclusively say life went from amoeba to man.

For Christians stuck in your own interpretation...how dare you limit God based on your understanding. If I learned anything in my upbringing it is that God doesn't fit into what your human brain can understand...if he does, what kind of a God are you left with? The way DNA can adapt, organisms can survive in spite of an ever changing world, isn't that a miracle enough? Could not God have been a little creative and allowed a self sustaining, interesting and changing creation?

Oh well I digress, I am not much of a believer myself, but I know better than to be arrogant enough to box God in, I also learned from talking with my parents that if you don't want to listen you will never hear.

Christianity does not have to mean a closed mind, 5000 year old earth, no evolution, no room for abortion no matter what the greater good, etc. I hate how an alternate interpretation is automatically labelled the great evil of "relativism" that there is no truth.

 

[Evlar]

Unless I misunderstood, it was your words that said Christians should believe what is good by what is in the Bible. Then you asked how they can pick and choose.

I never said Christians believe in all the teachings for the Bible. What I did say is the religion is based on the New Testement. Please stop trying to twist my words.

Your reasoning makes no sense since there is nothing in the Bible that states you get your morality from the Bible. The only people I ever hear bring that up are those who are trying to attack the religion. I apologize if that was not your intent. The religion also believes that you are born with the spirit of God in you and that it guides you (not a universal belief among them though). The Bible even has stories of people that had high morals before they encountered the religion, heard from God or whatever. This seems to be ignored by you, the scientists and philosophers whenever the morality argument is raised.

Most Christians, by the doctrinal statements or teaching authority of their churches, do "believe in all the teachings of the Bible" (if by that you mean they believe God inspired all of the Bible, from Job to Revelation, and that every portion of it can be valuable for learning about how to live a moral life). The Catholic Catechism, for instance, states:

"The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures."

Protestants, particularly those who lean harder on Sola Scriptura, put great emphasis on 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (KJV). Both positions, and the doctrinal statements of other Christian groups such as the Orthodox, consistently affirm that the entire scripture- both Old and New Testament- have teaching authority. The opposing view, that only portions of the Bible are inspired and useful, or that the Bible is a record of various people's contact with the divine (not inspired by a deity at all) is, demographically, a minority opinion.

Christ himself seems to argue the same way, from the famous passage in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17-20: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (NIV)

As to your last point... I grew up in a very conservative, proudly Fundamentalist family. I attended one of the prominent fundamentalist colleges in the nation. I don't know what contact you have with the literalists but in my experience they very strongly believe all legitimate moral authority flows from God to people through the Bible.

 

[Azih]

Everyone in thread didn't care whether you thought Dawkins was an asshole or I was an asshole.

That's odd as the only thing I ever said in that entire thread was that Dawkins acted like a dick and is a bad communicator outside of his base because of it. That was it, the totality and entirety of my point. You're the only one who disputed it by stating his answer was 'respectful' and thus we had the debate.

We were more concerned about his answer which seemed to strike a nerve.

And I kept on stating that I had no problem with his answer, but I did and do have a major issue with his delivery of it. I stated flat out "Douchebaggery has no relation to correctness", I was concerned with the first word of the sentence, you kept on talking about the last one.

Let's get this straight . . . I said things like "Well what did you want him to say? Something like this . . . . . "
I kept asking you questions and you wouldn't respond

I did respond by stating that it wasn't *what* he said, but *how* he said it. I then stated what it was about his manner that was of issue and then gave the counterexample of Carl Sagan and even noted a clip of Neil DeGrasse Tyson in which he states the exact same concern that I was expressing. You kept on assuming a *What* even though I kept repeating, in different ways no less, my criticism was of the *How*

And I said that there is ample need for all different voices using all different styles. Why choose between styles when all can be used?

Because Dawkins' style pushes away the very people it is intended to reach, by polarising debate it *harms* the dialogue. The OP article with Bryce highlights this. There is no way that Dawkins' would have gotten through to Bryce, but David Campbell did. In fact I will point to one of the opening lines in the OP article

"If I do this wrong," Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, "I'll lose him."

 

[PhlegmMaster]

But Azih, the Carl Sagan method obviously doesn't work. You're proof of this. You've read The Demon Haunted World, and you're still a Muslim.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Well, the more correct line of thinking would be, "I am human, and like any other animal, the continuation of my species is placed over that of others."

Of course, that would inevitably involve the killing of animals, but sustainable harvest of resources from the environment (which would be the best way to ensure the survival of our species) would be preferred over the destruction of ecosystems because of some divinely given right.

This would be true in a world where we would have no self conciousness and be driven only by our genes. We simply are animals though.

 

[ckohler]

That's odd as the only thing I ever said in that entire thread was that Dawkins acted like a dick and is a bad communicator outside of his base because of it. That was it, the totality and entirety of my point. ... And I kept on stating that I had no problem with his answer, but I did and do have a major issue with his delivery of it. I stated flat out "Douchebaggery has no relation to correctness", I was concerned with the first word of the sentence, you kept on talking about the last one.

I hate the fact that religion always gets special treatment. You're more than welcome to be aggrieved when someone criticizes your favorite video game but nobody says, "You are a douchbag being straightforward about your hatred of my favorite video game!" Well, some might but they aren't being very fair.

My point is, choosing NOT to dawn kid gloves when debating religion is hardly a form of douchbaggery. It may seem that way to people who think religion deserves some kind of special reprieve, but I stand with Dawkins who says that if it isn't universally observed that religion deserves special reprieve, then it doesn't get it.

 

[onipex]

Most Christians, by the doctrinal statements or teaching authority of their churches, do "believe in all the teachings of the Bible" (if by that you mean they believe God inspired all of the Bible, from Job to Revelation, and that every portion of it can be valuable for learning about how to live a moral life). The Catholic Catechism, for instance, states:

"The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures."

Protestants, particularly those who lean harder on Sola Scriptura, put great emphasis on 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (KJV). Both positions, and the doctrinal statements of other Christian groups such as the Orthodox, consistently affirm that the entire scripture- both Old and New Testament- have teaching authority. The opposing view, that only portions of the Bible are inspired and useful, or that the Bible is a record of various people's contact with the divine (not inspired by a deity at all) is, demographically, a minority opinion.

Christ himself seems to argue the same way, from the famous passage in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17-20: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (NIV)

As to your last point... I grew up in a very conservative, proudly Fundamentalist family. I attended one of the prominent fundamentalist colleges in the nation. I don't know what contact you have with the literalists but in my experience they very strongly believe all legitimate moral authority flows from God to people through the Bible.

While I don’t disagree with you I think you missed my very unclear point. As Matthew 5:17-20 states Jesus came to uphold the old law. It is my understanding that the law was taken out of the hands of man when he came. The cast the first stone if you don’t have sin incident is an example of this since Jesus is the only one without sin. Also since Jesus came to wipe away our sin those who break the old laws are forgiven if they follow the path for forgiveness. Being called last is not as bad as not being called at all.

Christianity in a since does not have to worry about the old law. The Old Testament is still taught in churches, but all the eye for eye, stoning, ect. is null and void. It is mostly just stories and lessons of the old way. I don’t mean to imply that the Old Testament holds no value to Christians or is looked upon as not being the word of God. Christianity should follow the guidelines spoken by Jesus in the New Testament.

See my first paragraph. For every time you put "randomly" or "somehow" there's a theory backed by facts you simply don't want to know about.

None of it is random. It's random to you, because you don't understand it. The whole point of Science is to explain things, not to say they are "random occurences." And is everything that isn't started by an intelligent being random? Is a leaf falling off a tree random? Or is that there was a gust of wind, or the connection between the leaf and tree had sufficiently hardened?

We can all use "random" to make something sound absurd: Randomly an intelligent being that is randomly not made of matter, came into being, and randomly decided to make the universe... etc.

I always see extremely religious people point to this as some kind of proof of the illogical nature of science and proof that science doesn't have all the answer

As someone who has been interested and followed science all my life I assure you that I know the theories and facts. I was simply replying to a stupid post with a dumber one.


I have no problem with science and I usually don’t respond when someone tries to use science to attack someone’s faith. The post I responded to was just plain dumb though.

I do have a problem with the thought that a person can only disagree with science because they either don’t understand it or it goes against their faith. Science has been wrong in a lot of cases. If you accept something as truth just because most scientist give you facts to prove it then you need to know that as we advance a lot of things you all are calling facts could change. A lot of them could hold up over time as well.

At a very young age I was told by a scientist that “no self respecting scientist should ever go around saying that a theory was a fact. Facts do not change no matter how many times there are tested. Theories change and evolve over time. Calling a theory a fact does nothing but hinder the scientific process. Every theory should be questioned and someone in the same field should try to counter it on principle alone. When every scientist in the world agrees that a theory is an unchanging fact then science has failed. It’s a good thing we have crazy religious people like you to keep us on our toes.”

 

[Azih]

But Azih, the Carl Sagan method obviously doesn't work. You're proof of this. You've read The Demon Haunted World, and you're still a Muslim.

Well, Carl Sagan didn't want me to become an atheist, so that's ok. Dawkins does though so I'll read the God Delusion and get back to you.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Well, Carl Sagan didn't want me to become an atheist, so that's ok. Dawkins does though so I'll read the God Delusion and get back to you.

Carl Sagan wanted you to become a skeptic. Being a skeptic about the question of God's existence means being an atheist, or at least an agnostic.

 

[Buttchin]

tis ashame no one attempted to watch the NOVA episodes very informative and a great watch.... oh well least its available for all free of charge...

 

[Kai Dracon]

Carl Sagan wanted you to become a skeptic. Being a skeptic about the question of God's existence means being an atheist, or at least an agnostic.

To me, it seems as if there's actually a pretty formidable gulf between being a true atheist and being an agnostic. I sometimes think those who posit the virtues of skepticism have already decided the answer in advance (such as "there is no god, there is none of what I consider to be the supernatural", etc) and merely hope that by making people skeptics, people will inevitably come to the same conclusion as said skeptic.

I say this, ironically, as someone who understands the value of skepticism and practices it daily. Sadly I also still truck with a lot of ideas that would be considered "weird shit". Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Oh well.

It was a great article in the OP and yeah, Cambell demonstrates what a teacher is really supposed to be doing. But, one of this questions to the students does make me wonder how the strong atheists (or the rabid attack atheists) would answer the question:

"If I could prove that sometimes what we can observe as the ordinary physical laws could be superseded by an event that happens outside our observable context - what humans have traditionally called "miracles" or the "supernatural" - would that shake your faith?"

("Your faith" here, being the belief that when things in the observable, physical world interact in a certain way, they will continue to do so in a way that can be tested, extrapolated upon, and called science.)

 

[Karakand]

Do i believe in God? No.

Am I catholic? Yes.

:lol I can relate to this one.

 

[Big-E]

:lol I can relate to this one.

I think this describes most Catholics to be honest, at least for me.

 

[avaya]

Well, Carl Sagan didn't want me to become an atheist, so that's ok. Dawkins does though so I'll read the God Delusion and get back to you.

No Dawkins doesn't want you to be an Atheist. His position is exactly the same as Sagan. Dawkins however fails to pull any punches and his use of logic, backed by pioneering work in the scientific field, his status as a Oxford professor plus his supreme command of the English language can cause people to take offence.

Dawkins simply steamrolls people. Relentlessly. No mercy.

Offence, it's a sort of last resort - as Dawkins would say.

 

[Azih]

No Dawkins doesn't want you to be an Atheist.

Er I do believe in the intro or prologue to the God Delusion he states that he hopes someone who isn't an atheist at the start of the book will be one by the end.

 

[ckohler]

"If I could prove that sometimes what we can observe as the ordinary physical laws could be superseded by an event that happens outside our observable context - what humans have traditionally called "miracles" or the "supernatural" - would that shake your faith?" ("Your faith" here, being the belief that when things in the observable, physical world interact in a certain way, they will continue to do so in a way that can be tested, extrapolated upon, and called science.)

I'm a naturalist athiest and to me, your proof would have to constitute natural evidence; ie. evidence that is real and a part of the natural universe. The idea of there being "supernatural evidence" is an oxymoron. Evidence either exists in the natural world or it doesn't and if it does, then that evidence was created by way of a natural force in our universe. That's how I see it.

 

[Hunter D]

I went to catholic school all the way through HS and they only taught ID in religion classes. I live in NYC. Is it so hard for the rest of the US to teach ID in religion classes or as an elective outside of science only?

 

[tak]

I have no problem with science and I usually don’t respond when someone tries to use science to attack someone’s faith. The post I responded to was just plain dumb though.

I do have a problem with the thought that a person can only disagree with science because they either don’t understand it or it goes against their faith. Science has been wrong in a lot of cases. If you accept something as truth just because most scientist give you facts to prove it then you need to know that as we advance a lot of things you all are calling facts could change. A lot of them could hold up over time as well.

At a very young age I was told by a scientist that “no self respecting scientist should ever go around saying that a theory was a fact. Facts do not change no matter how many times there are tested. Theories change and evolve over time. Calling a theory a fact does nothing but hinder the scientific process. Every theory should be questioned and someone in the same field should try to counter it on principle alone. When every scientist in the world agrees that a theory is an unchanging fact then science has failed. It’s a good thing we have crazy religious people like you to keep us on our toes.”

Look, I know about the scientific process. I am going to graduate school in a scientific field, physics, and I'm doing research in a field that has theories that are hotly debated in the physics community. My post was an over simplification of the scientific process, but I was trying to make a point based on the foundation of what science is built on, that it is not something you need faith to believe in and it is not something that is simply made up (not trying to imply anything about religion).

The thing that makes me mad more then anything else is when people point to a very well understood part of science and completely dismiss it because it has the word theory attached to it. Theory doesn't mean what they think it means, and they're showing me that they don't understand the scientific process, at all.

 

[avaya]

Er I do believe in the intro or prologue to the God Delusion he states that he hopes someone who isn't an atheist at the start of the book will be one by the end.

His position on that is somewhat indifferent. He has states this many times in his documentaries, all he wants you to do is question. As soon as you question you inevitably end up being an atheist since the logic never fails.

 

[SoulPlaya]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

What did I say that was wrong? For most Christians, it is accepted. For most other Christians, it's not that big of an issue.

 

[Azih]

Carl Sagan wanted you to become a skeptic. Being a skeptic about the question of God's existence means being an atheist, or at least an agnostic.

Well Carl Sagan didn't like being identified as an atheist, and was very clear that he was an agnosic as he defined it. In any case there is no reason to believe that one cannot be skeptical and also have faith at the same time.

By my thinking the most logical and consistent view of the world by far is Sagan's agnosticism which does not concern itself with God as there is no evidence *for* it or *against* it. As he said

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence....To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem(s) to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.

Yes I am certainly muslim, but being muslim hardly means being a part of some group thinking hive mind. There is a reason that I identify myself as an Agnostic Theist.

Would Sagan be happy with my position at the end of reading his book as opposed to the start? I have no idea as he was the only one who would be able to answer that. His own views were very very nuanced after all.

I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if you ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no. You have to specify which of the countless kinds of God you have in mind

 

[PhlegmMaster]

To me, it seems as if there's actually a pretty formidable gulf between being a true atheist and being an agnostic. I sometimes think those who posit the virtues of skepticism have already decided the answer in advance (such as "there is no god, there is none of what I consider to be the supernatural", etc) and merely hope that by making people skeptics, people will inevitably come to the same conclusion as said skeptic.

It's a fact that people who only believe things that are supported by good evidence do come to the same conclusions. Not about everything (because there's some leeway about what constitutes good evidence, and become some people are ignorant of certain facts), but about most things. This is why I mentioned agnostics even though I know they're wrong.

It was a great article in the OP and yeah, Cambell demonstrates what a teacher is really supposed to be doing.

I would say that a science teacher should be teaching the real scientific method, instead of perverting it to spare his students' sensibilities. That said, I see a certain value in the claim that the best way to convince a creationist that evolution is true is to present him with a weak, distorted version of the scientific method.

But, one of this questions to the students does make me wonder how the strong atheists (or the rabid attack atheists) would answer the question:

"If I could prove that sometimes what we can observe as the ordinary physical laws could be superseded by an event that happens outside our observable context - what humans have traditionally called "miracles" or the "supernatural" - would that shake your faith?"

("Your faith" here, being the belief that when things in the observable, physical world interact in a certain way, they will continue to do so in a way that can be tested, extrapolated upon, and called science.)

There's nothing even remotely faith-based about naturalism. All the evidence we currently have points to a universe that is fully understandable by those who inhabit it. If there was evidence that pointed the other way, my belief would change accordingly. Of course, there's the question of what kind of evidence could possibly 'prove' that the cause of an event is inherently beyond our understanding (as opposed to a cause that is merely extremely difficult to understand).

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Well Carl Sagan didn't like being identified as an atheist, and was very clear that he was an agnostic as he defined it. In any case there is no reason to believe that one cannot be skeptical and also have faith at the same time.

By my thinking the most logical and consistent view of the world by far is Sagan's agnosticism which does not concern itself with God as there is no evidence *for* it or *against* it. [...]

Yes I am certainly muslim, but being muslim hardly means being a part of some group thinking hive mind. There is a reason that I identify myself as an Agnostic Theist.

I shouldn't be surprised that you managed to fit two absolutely self-contradictory statements in such a short post, but I am. I guess I'm an optimist at heart

First, you believe that the most logical worldview is Sagan's brand of agnosticism, which was most definitely not theistic, and yet you believe in Islam. Wow. That's like saying that while you acknowledge that the most nutritious fruit is guava, you personally believe that the most nutritious fruit is apples.

Second, you say there is no reason that one cannot be skeptical and also have faith at the same time. Actually, there's a very good reason: Faith is the antithesis of skepticism. A person who believes nothing on faith is what a skeptic is.

Another way of putting it is that a skeptic only believes what he knows, whereas an agnostic theist acknowledges that he doesn't know and yet believes anyway. In a sense, a gnostic theist like Hadji is closer to true skepticism than you are, because he believes what (he thinks) he knows.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence....To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem(s) to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.

It's amusing to me that Carl said that you have to ask people what they mean by "God" in order to know what they believe, and yet he didn't bother to say what he meant by it in that paragraph. If by "God" he meant an incredibly generic concept that includes everything from "the ground of being" to "the laws of nature" to a species of incredibly advanced aliens, then I agree with him, we should be agnostic about God. But that's not what most people mean by the word. To most people, God is a supernatural entity who designed our universe, intervened in our history, communicates with his believers, and so on and so forth. That's the God I believe doesn't exist, and I'm fairly certain that Carl would have agreed with me.

While evidence is always required to believe that something exists (if you're a skeptic), it's not always required to believe that something doesn't exist. To use Sagan's favorite example, there can be no evidence for or against the existence of an invisible, undetectable dragon living in my garage. Does this mean a rational person should be agnostic about this dragon? Should he always keep in mind the possibility that he might be eaten alive whenever he visits my garage? No. The rational (skeptical, scientific) position with regard to a invisible dragon in my garage is belief that it does not exist. Strong a-dragonism, if you will. The same reasoning applies to the God of theists.

 

[onipex]

Look, I know about the scientific process. I am going to graduate school in a scientific field, physics, and I'm doing research in a field that has theories that are hotly debated in the physics community. My post was an over simplification of the scientific process, but I was trying to make a point based on the foundation of what science is built on, that it is not something you need faith to believe in and it is not something that is simply made up (not trying to imply anything about religion).

The thing that makes me mad more then anything else is when people point to a very well understood part of science and completely dismiss it because it has the word theory attached to it. Theory doesn't mean what they think it means, and they're showing me that they don't understand the scientific process, at all.

I understand what you mean. I’m not a scientist or studying to be one. It has always been just a hobby of mine, so I’m sure you know more about the subject than I do. I get upset with people over the same thing, but I get just as upset when I read and hear scientist say that evolution is a fact no scientist disagrees with. It just happens that a scientist on TV just said that on some Discovery Channel show.

Edit:
Oh it's the part about no scientist disagreeing with it that bothers me, because that is not a true statement.

 

[tak]

I understand what you mean. I’m not a scientist or studying to be one. It has always been just a hobby of mine, so I’m sure you know more about the subject than I do. I get upset with people over the same thing, but I get just as upset when I read and hear scientist say that evolution is a fact no scientist disagrees with. It just happens that a scientist on TV just said that on some Discovery Channel show.

What? Evolution is something that the vast majority of sane scientist agree on and have very strong evidence to support it. That is why everyone basically considers it fact, it's pretty safe to assume it's fact.

I don't think you read my post.

 

[Slavik81]

I think this describes most Catholics to be honest, at least for me.

In my experience, that describes most Christians.

 

[onipex]

What? Evolution is something that the vast majority of sane scientist agree on and have very strong evidence to support it. That is why everyone basically considers it fact, it's pretty safe to assume it's fact.

I don't think you read my post.

I specifically stated (after an edit that I’m not sure you saw ) that him saying that no scientist disagreed with it was a problem for me. Also why does a scientist have to not be sane to disagree with evolution? Yes it is fact that species change over time, but that does not mean that scientist do not have the right to disagree with certain aspects of the theory.

I’m not talking about scientist that promote intelligent design.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I specifically stated (after an edit that I’m not sure you saw ) that him saying that no scientist disagreed with it was a problem for me. Also why does a scientist have to not be sane to disagree with evolution? Yes it is fact that species change over time, but that does not mean that scientist do not have the right to disagree with certain aspects of the theory.

I’m not talking about scientist that promote intelligent design.

Because he is a scientist, and therefore thinks logically, and thusly has no issue with the theory of natural selection.

There are no scientists that disagree with the basics of natural selection, though I don't know what you mean by "certain aspects."