homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » Why do religious people... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Why do religious people...
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 06:12      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
want to teach the rest of us their creation myths as fact? What is the point in trying to force religion, by calling it "intelligent design" and "creation science" into science classrooms? Why isn't it sufficient to cover belief systems in classes like "Survey of World Religions" and let different people, of different faiths, teach their religious beliefs about creation in their Sunday Schools and church groups?

(I'm genuinely curious, why the need to force your beliefs on everyone?)

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Snaggy

Sir Snaggalot!
Member # 123

Member Rated:
5
Icon 3 posted April 20, 2008 08:40      Profile for Snaggy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Writers of religions tend to make it a requirement of the religion they are developing, build it into the story, so that the religion will spread and grow. Add a little fire and brimstone and guilt, and it's a very powerful viral incentive for those who are easily influenced.

It's a lot like those facebook pokes. [Razz]

Posts: 8111 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 12:35      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Simple... when a belief isn't supported by facts, it must be taught as being absolutely unquestionable and no contrary facts can be allowed to be taught, lest the belief be questioned, examined and refuted.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 14:18      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_________________________ I had a dear friend, and also a Southern Baptist Preacher. espouse the best response, to Darwin and the Bible. It is stated that God does not count time as we do, so what is a day to God, So if a day to The Creator is not the same as to man why do we expect to not find evidence, of prior beings that are now dead? So maybe God came here many times and tweaked evolution a bit and then left for a few eons. Came back again and again until the job was right, and maybe will return again to tweak some more. Think about it he has the time. Thats my take on the question.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 14:40      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
_________________________ I had a dear friend, and also a Southern Baptist Preacher. espouse the best response, to Darwin and the Bible. It is stated that God does not count time as we do, so what is a day to God, So if a day to The Creator is not the same as to man why do we expect to not find evidence, of prior beings that are now dead? So maybe God came here many times and tweaked evolution a bit and then left for a few eons. Came back again and again until the job was right, and maybe will return again to tweak some more. Think about it he has the time. Thats my take on the question.

My question was actually why (some) religious people feel it's necessary to attempt to force their creation beliefs into science classrooms and on those who do not share their belief system, rather than let it be taught in religion classes or Sunday School, not what those beliefs are.

(Though I think your minister friend's take is an excellent example of someone who reconciles their faith with scientific evidence in a way that makes sense for them, which I think is much healthier and more balanced than trying to suppress ideas that might seem to contradict one's faith. But that's just my opinion.)

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Dave
Geek
Member # 1977

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 18:36      Profile for Mr. Dave     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
(Though I think your minister friend's take is an excellent example of someone who reconciles their faith with scientific evidence in a way that makes sense for them, which I think is much healthier and more balanced than trying to suppress ideas that might seem to contradict one's faith. But that's just my opinion.)

Unbeliever! Foul heretic! May His Noodly Goodness have penne on your soul!

Actually, as a devout agnostic, I see no inherent conflict between Evolutionism (effect) and "Intelligent Design"-ism (cause), although personally I tend to favour Stochasticism as a causality.

Incidentally, "heretic" derives from a Greek word meaning "able to make a choice," which makes it a bit feeble as insults go...

--------------------
I'm not normally like this, but then I'm not normally normal.

Posts: 193 | From: Leverkusen Institute of Paleocybernetics | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 20:26      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
Simple... when a belief isn't supported by facts, it must be taught as being absolutely unquestionable and no contrary facts can be allowed to be taught, lest the belief be questioned, examined and refuted.

I'm assuming you're referring to intelligent design here, knowing you, because the same could also be said of the evolutionistic origin of life.

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 20:57      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No it couldn't, Rhonnie. For starters, evolution is about how life changes and develops over time, not about how it began.

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
óMiss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted April 20, 2008 21:15      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
Simple... when a belief isn't supported by facts, it must be taught as being absolutely unquestionable and no contrary facts can be allowed to be taught, lest the belief be questioned, examined and refuted.

I'm assuming you're referring to intelligent design here, knowing you, because the same could also be said of the evolutionistic origin of life.
Evolution theory teaches that life evolves to survive and that simpler forms of life can, but do not necessarily, evolve into more complex forms.

Evolution theory does not teach how life began and, while there have some suggestions, there is no working theory for the origin of life. In the world of science, this simply means that more research needs to be done in order to develop a working theory.

How do you refute the statement that we don't know how life began and that we need more research to develop a working theory?

Please don't try compare scientific method to the hand-waving God-did-it-and-that's-all-we-ever-need-to-know dogma that creationists push.

Also, please don't say "evolutionistic" when you mean "evolutionary." English is a nice language that never hurt anyone and it doesn't deserve to be mutilated.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 01:58      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
Simple... when a belief isn't supported by facts, it must be taught as being absolutely unquestionable and no contrary facts can be allowed to be taught, lest the belief be questioned, examined and refuted.

I'm assuming you're referring to intelligent design here, knowing you, because the same could also be said of the evolutionistic origin of life.
1. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. Darwin's book is not called The Origin of Life.

2. "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with science, it's "faith-based." It doesn't stand up under the scientific method, which I assume you learned about somewhere in junior high, in science class, unless you went to a religious school. It's not a theory, it never makes it past hypothesis. (And that's giving it more credit than it probably deserves.)


So why do you think that it belongs in science classrooms, rather than in the Sunday School of your favorite denomination or in a religion class?

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 03:17      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
_____________________ fs I'm sorry I read your question, thought of Brother Don, and sidetracked myself.

I myself have no problem with my Faith or Science. I also do not feel that faith or sudoscience should be shoved down childrens throats.

In support of Darwin, look at the Northern American and Eastern Russian dog breeds. Malamutes Akitas, and Siberian Huskies will not go out on bad ice. I like taking our Siberian ice fishing, however if she will not follow me out onto the Ice we both get back in the truck and go back home. The Siberians in the breeding pool knew enough about Ice to stay off the bad stuff.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 04:17      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
No it couldn't, Rhonnie. For starters, evolution is about how life changes and develops over time, not about how it began.

But that's the whole point. Evolution doesn't answer how life started. Intelligent design does.

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 04:18      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:

Also, please don't say "evolutionistic" when you mean "evolutionary." English is a nice language that never hurt anyone and it doesn't deserve to be mutilated.

Yeah, I knew that wasn't a real word, but I couldn't think of the right one at the time.

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 04:57      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Evolution doesn't answer how life started. Intelligent design does.

No it doesn't.

ID just replaces the question

"How did single-celled pond-scum arise?"

with

"How did the designer of pond-scum arise?"

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 05:02      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
No it couldn't, Rhonnie. For starters, evolution is about how life changes and develops over time, not about how it began.

But that's the whole point. Evolution doesn't answer how life started. Intelligent design does.
Not scientifically. You can take intelligent design to the point of hypothesis (see below chart since you obviously didn't look at my links) assuming that you are granted the inclusion of philosophy and mythology as "research" (which already means that we've had to give intelligent design special treatment). Would you like to explain how you're going to do an experiment that shows God created life?

 -

This conversation is about why religious people feel that this belongs in science classrooms. Not about the particular belief. If intelligent design holds up under actual scientific inquiry, then by all means put it in a classroom, but until then, it's just another crackpot hypothesis with no evidence.

Maybe you can now answer the original question: on what basis do you think a religious belief belongs in a science classroom?

(Third time's the charm, right?)

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 05:53      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
why do religious people want to teach the rest of us their creation myths as fact?

Drunk....lamppost.....support....illumination?

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 06:05      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
why do religious people want to teach the rest of us their creation myths as fact?

Drunk....lamppost.....support....illumination?
For us, or them?

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 06:34      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
No it couldn't, Rhonnie. For starters, evolution is about how life changes and develops over time, not about how it began.

But that's the whole point. Evolution doesn't answer how life started. Intelligent design does.
Rhonwyyn, you're setting up a straw man here. You said that the evolutionary origin of life is set up so it can't be questioned or else people might believe something different when evolution doesn't even address that question. Then you use that criticism to say that since evolution has the same problems as intelligent design then both are valid when that's just not true.

I grew up religious, in fact if you look at my early posts here at GC you will see some very different views on certain subjects than I hold now. But when I was growing up and learning about science and religion and the creation of the world I assumed from the start that evolution was the means God used to create the world as it is today. I even remember telling my mom in the third grade that in order to know everything you can about the universe you needed to study science and the Bible.

I'm more or less agnostic today, but the "belief" in evolution came first. (For that matter, in case my dad finds this, I became a Democrat first, became politically pro-choice first, and decided that it doesn't affect me one bit if two men or two women want to get married first.)

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
óMiss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DoctorWho

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 392

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 07:08      Profile for DoctorWho     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My high school biology teacher was a very religious man (I saw him in church every Sunday without fail). When we were going over evolutionary theory in class one of the students asked him how life began. He said that any answer he gave would just be an opinion as there was no scientific theory to answer this question. I still think that was the best possible answer he could have given.

Finding out the answer to this question doesn't solve anything theologically anyways. Suppose someday we learn that life began because "X" happened. X could have happened on its own but X could also have happened because of a supernatural force. Neither one could be proved or disproved because those that want to believe that God caused X to happen will believe it. In any event, if we ever do figure out what it would take to create life it will be hard to sell as abiogenesis was rejected in 1859.

--------------------
Laughter is like changing a baby's diapers. It doesn't solve anything but it sure improves the situation. Leo F. Buscaglia

Posts: 1694 | From: The TARDIS | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 07:16      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CrawGator:
My high school biology teacher was a very religious man (I saw him in church every Sunday without fail). When we were going over evolutionary theory in class one of the students asked him how life began. He said that any answer he gave would just be an opinion as there was no scientific theory to answer this question. I still think that was the best possible answer he could have given.

I really love the real-life examples of people that are able to separate science from faith, while having a profound respect for both. I know some people who are very good scientists and also very devout, and they have a similar understanding of the difference. Maybe it's an understanding of what science is, and what it isn't, that allows people like that to make the distinction between the two? I guess if someone doesn't understand how science works, and just assumes that proclamations are handed down from on high to scientists, who then chisel them into papers and bring them to the masses, it would seem reasonable to treat them as the same thing. I guess my biggest confusion arises from the fact that science may contradict specific points of dogma (the sun rotates around the earth), but it does not address the existence of gods at all, not to confirm, and not to refute them. It leaves the questions of faith to religion. Why can't religion do the same?

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 09:28      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think part of the answer is what a theology professor of mine called a "God of the gaps." He used Isaac Newton as one of the earlier examples of this mindset. Newton's theories didn't completely explain the orbits of the planets, so he decided that God must just be stepping in and nudging them back on course.

The problem is, in a theology where the answers to the gaps in our knowledge are "God did it," new theories that explain away the gaps also seem to explain away God. This isn't the whole story, but I think it's a big part of the reason for the hostility towards science that some exhibit.

It's also why I think Intelligent design is a poor theological choice, and destined for failure.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 10:33      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rhonwyyn wrote:
But that's the whole point. Evolution doesn't answer how life started. Intelligent design does.

I'm afraid I'm going to be a bit antagonistic here.

Evolution theory doesn't answer how life started, so you propose that we throw the entire theory out out and accept intelligent design and creation instead.

I propose that, since the bible and God don't explain how the 1040A tax return form works, we throw them out and accept the IRS instead.

Sounds pretty damned stupid, doesn't it?

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 11:32      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What really baffles me -- and I'd appreciate any response from GC's resident ID-ers on this -- is why must there be this notion that ideas in Science are entrenched, that scientific edicts get passed down from on high in the community, and all the little sciencey minions have to lap it up and observe it like scripture? Where does this fantasy come from? There is no part of Science that operates like this -- how do we know this? Would a hopelessly entrenched culture have even listened to the radical hypotheses of Eintein, Galileo, or even Darwin himself? If Science is such a dogmatic, closed sub-world, how did Darwin's out-of-the-blue ideas ever get taken seriously in the first place?

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted April 21, 2008 12:11      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Evolution is not some sort of bioloigical theory of everything. Evolution describes how living things have changed and become what they are now. It has no bearing whatsoever on how life came to exist in the first place and anyone who says so needs to return to introductory bio and get slapped by a thousand wet noodles.

All current evidence points to all currently extant life on earth having evolved from a single common ancestor: LUCA, the last universal common ancestor. Where did LUCA come from? Were there other lineages that died out? That's a whole other set of questions for a whole other field of study. Maybe it was a lightening strike in a puddle of primoridal soup. Maybe we got seeded from space. Who knows.

I kinda like the space idea. I can't and won't call it a hypothesis as even hypotheses have some basis in fact. Think of it as a bedtime story. There is a planet orbiting a dying sun. On this planet, intelligent life forms exist. Maybe they look like us, but maybe not - we are the products of the environmental stresses we and our forbears all the way back to LUCA were subjected to. Anyway, these ancients decide to save some remnant of themselves and pile onto a starship along with samples of their plants, animals, and microbes. The then take off into space, aiming for a star with a hospitable planet. The day they leave their world, they are dead to those they left behind. By the time they reach their new home, those they left behind are likely dead for real. Anyway, they find their way to our solar system. And something screwed up happens and they crash into Earth. All that survives are a few microbes, and of those, only one lineage survives. Or maybe they land nice and neatly as planned, because the ancient Earth met their standards for "hospitable planet", except for one reason or other nothing survives except for that one lineage that everything that now lives has in common. Or some other scenario my imagination isn't able to work out. No matter what, one lineage was left, and we are the children of a dying star.

Maybe I should dress that story up and sell it. [Razz]

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stereo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 748

Member Rated:
5
Icon 12 posted April 21, 2008 12:50      Profile for Stereo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Or some other scenario my imagination isn't able to work out.

Gah, you left out the most probable one: some explorers, just as goofy about ecosystem protection as we can be, didn't properly wipe their feet when they came visiting our "just created" planet, and contaminated it. They left, unknowing of their "gift" - and their descendants will soon DIE AT THE HANDS OF THEIR FOOLISHNESS' CONSEQUENCE! BWAHAHAHA! [crazy]

Ahem. [Embarrassed]

quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
No matter what, one lineage was left, and we are the children of a dying star.

Maybe I should dress that story up and sell it. [Razz]

Go ahead, I'll be the first in line to buy a copy! (And if you ever decide to make it into a cult, I want to be part of your "enlightened ones".)

--------------------
Eppur, si muove!

Galileo Galilei

Posts: 2289 | From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam