Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
creetur
climber
CA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 01:40pm PT
|
i don't see anything wrong with magical thinking if it is secularized. call it mythopoesis or fascination--curiosity, maybe--and you have one of the foundational creative forces in human culture. interesting to think that the idea of "enchantment" is itself a result of human evolution.
the frightening thing is the need some people, many people, seem to have to savagely root out all scientific thinking and *replace* it with sacred beliefs. that tension is the one worth addressing--neither seems to me essentially dangerous when it stays within its epistemological sphere.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 02:20pm PT
|
Absolute truth is absolute truth. The problem is in the perception and then description of same. A lot of magical thinking is poetry, metaphors to help grasp the seemingly unknowable.
I don't think there was a historic Jesus as presented in the bible. There was propably someone with similar enough name with some of the classic 'facts' more or less true to start something around. 'He' became the glue around which to plaster a lot of well meaning and often worthwhile stories, notions, and 'laws'. that he did not exist as presented, in no ways diminshes 'his' importance. There are worse role models.
It ain't science, though.
I don't think the writers of the various conflicting gospels (only a few of which fit the mold 'they' selected for the agenda peice known as the bible) had any idea that they would be taken as literal history, that is so beside the point.
Science is an attempt to get the facts more or less in order and figure out the mechanisms, it is ideally with out 'shoulds' except in a predictive sense.
It stumbles along, correcting it's mistakes; "o yeah that inheritnece of acquirred characteristics, and spontaneous generation stuff? forget that, we were wrong, blame Lamarck and Cuvier(?), though using that helped us think in a way that helped us come up with some other stuff, that we are further refining."
Religon (and philosphy's) realm is more, what is good? what is the right thing to do? Why do it? I know that was simplistic but purpusly so, to indicate the boundaries of the arenas.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 03:14pm PT
|
Rick. Our NY Times finally arrived. "Mildly critical" or maybe a touch more than mildly is an apt description. I was a little disappointed, but what can you expect. Dawkins will always be better at describing evolutionary science than debunking religion...I'm definitely going to read it, though.
creetur, I suppose I'm being a little provocative with the being scared by people who absolutely believe in things that cannot be known bit. I'm naturally pretty much a live and let live kind of guy. But you have to make a stand when, people in positions of power vocally espouse certain beliefs. Regardless of how much somebody might want to "save my soul" I don't want a person in a position of authority in America who thinks that I'm going to hell because I don't believe the same thing that he/she believes in. I would contend that that, possibly well-meaning individual, is a nutball. And this is the view of most fundamentalist Christians. Obviously, it's all an order of magnitude worse in theocratic states like Iran.
Jaybro. I think religion should be underneath the larger umbrella of ethics...not above it or on equal ground with it. If the tenets of the religion are not compatible with helping out the human condition, then throw 'em out!
Awright, I've monopolized this thread more than I should have. I've had my say. Let me just end with how I began, Darwin should be the hero of every rationale human being. It'll be reason and rationale thinking, not adherence to this or that religious belief, that will ultimately allow humans to survive and make for a better world.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 03:34pm PT
|
Blight kept insisting to be shown visual proof of a new gene creation or a spontaneous generation of a new appendage. That is not what "evolution" is really about. Where as there have been deformaties that could be interpreted as spontaneous limb growth. Evolution is really just successfull adaptations over the long haul to attempt on going survival.
Thus I would contend that every thing "evolves". From consciousness to the cosmos all is a state of on going changing and rearranging. The planet we live on is always in change. Even to the subatomic level evolution is occuring. There is no absolute truths because there are no absolutes. Truth is transitory and lasts only as long as the conditions that fostered it. That could be a generation or a millenium or a great deal longer. The very material of matter is never the same. When you plant 'Granny' in the back yard in a box built of wood fertilized by the remains of 'Great Grand Dad' rest assured, while quaffing an essence of Attila that your own mortal remains will probably end up in the core of a Star some day. The difficulty for observers like us who are conditioned to 60mph travel and 15sec sound bites is that it just goes sooo slow. By comparision glaciers move with super charged dragster speed. We are also inherently arrogant enough to think we should know the answers to questions that will inevitably be irrelevant. But the search is what counts. The process of observation and investigation and the dissmissal of falsehoods. They are important as a journey because we can answer questions along the way that do enhance our own continued survival. Answers that while transitory do increase our awareness and understanding. The 'scientific process' does not prove "truths" it diss-proves "truths". Theories are models to explain observations and as such Darwin's has stood the test of time better than most. Even under the skeptical spot light of the 'scientific process'.
|
|
no_one
Social climber
Hurricane, Utah
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 06:47pm PT
|
I can't believe I just read that whole thing!
Some well thought out opinions!
My opinion however is based on a life of brain washing and constant indocternalization. So for what it's worth, here it is......
Science is awsome! I love the Discovery channel! But, using science to disprove God! Come on! Science is just the persuit to understand God.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 04:37am PT
|
Blight kept insisting to be shown visual proof of a new gene creation or a spontaneous generation of a new appendage. That is not what "evolution" is really about. Where as there have been deformaties that could be interpreted as spontaneous limb growth. Evolution is really just successfull adaptations over the long haul to attempt on going survival.
If you believe evolution caused species with no legs to turn into species with legs, you believe that at some point, new limbs must have spontaneously appeared.
All I'm saying is, why not demonstrate this process? Or replicate it in a lab?
And if you can't, then why are you believing in a theory which has no experimental evidence to support it?
It's a simple request guys. Instead of getting all angry amd upset and shouting and calling names, just show us all the rock-solid, cast-iron, totally convincing evidece which leads you to believe unconditionally that species with no legs can turn into species with legs, or something analogous.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 08:30am PT
|
I meant that last post was my second-to-last...
I just want to say READ that link to Wired Magazine in cintune's last post. That's a much better (less biased in my opinion) treatment of what Dawkins is all about. OK, I'll admit it...I'm a Dawkinsphile. And mothers, don't let your babies read Darwin...it may inevitably lead them down the path of no return.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:26am PT
|
Cintune, your first article comes in two parts:
A part about deliberately modifying the genes of existing animals to make them look like other animals.
And a part about how some animals already look a bit like other animals.
Neither of these is anything even close to evidence of a new limb or organ evolving spontaneously.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:28am PT
|
"mothers, don't let your babies read Darwin...it may inevitably lead them down the path of no return"
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Almost everyone knows the basics of darwin's theory. Yet less than half a percent of the world's population is atheist.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't get too overwhelmed by the power of his work to convince and motivate.
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:43am PT
|
Settle down there, Blighty. Limbs don't evolve spontaneously, but they do evolve. Or, as in the case of marine mammals, devolve. But if the science is really beyond your comprehension, feel free to stick with whatever meets your emotional needs.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:58am PT
|
Blight, you know Darwin wasn't an atheist either, he was an angelican. (I know, he's on some of the lists)
ps I know, that can't be proven because it happened before our time, like the forams, that are still around today in everchanging forms, new species in the course of my own lifetime.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:01am PT
|
Yes, that's right Raymond, the first link you posted says:
"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference"
Yawn all you like.
That or actually read your own cources.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:06am PT
|
Blight, why dont you read my third source? To many numbers maybe?
Blight, I understand that this is difficult for you but this is taken from my first source.
"who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)."
This is not the same as saying that the numbers of atheist is less than 0.5 % in the world.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:10am PT
|
Limbs don't evolve spontaneously, but they do evolve.
Really?
Then why don't you just show experimental evidence of it happening?
And if you don't have experimental evidence, then how do you know that "they do evolve"?
Do you feel that asking you to back up your claims with evidence is unreasonable in some way?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:12am PT
|
This is not the same as saying that the numbers of atheist is less than 0.5 % in the world.
Um, yes it is actually.
If the proportion of actual atheists is 0.5% in countries where a lot of people express no religious preference, then that number will be even smaller in countries where a lot of people do express religious preference.
Therefore the world total will logically be below 0.5%.
Oh, and I did read your third link. In common with many sources they combine "Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religion)" under the general heading "atheist".
The reason for this is simple: there are so atheists that they're very hard to find let alone count. This is why your first source has that special note about them.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:17am PT
|
"then that number will be even smaller in countries where a lot of people do express religious preference."
How do you know that?
Most europeian countries are more secularised than the US. More than 5 % is atheist in europe according to my third reference.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:23am PT
|
"How do you know that? "
Well, because atheism is non-religious.
So if a country with a lot of non-religious people has 0.5% atheists, then a country with fewer non-religious people will have fewer atheists.
Obviously.
More than 5 % is atheist in europe according to my third reference.
Again, read the note from your first reference. What they group as "atheists" is a collection of various beliefs, not just atheists. Only the first source actually gives a figure for atheists as opposed to "atheists plus a bunch of others to bulk up the numbers to measurable levels".
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:34am PT
|
"Well, because atheism is non-religious.
So if a country with a lot of non-religious people has 0.5% atheists, then a country with fewer non-religious people will have fewer atheists."
Are you seriously saying that The two most non religous countries are USA and Australia?
Your sentence also implies that the percentage of atheist to non religous people are the same in all countries. That is definitely not true.
But I remember that you have a big problem with logic.
I dont know the clear definition of atheist that you use and I dont care either. The important number is the people that dont belive in a God. You might be correct that less than 0.5 % is atheists according to you definition but you haven't give any reference for that claim.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!