Fairness Born Out Of Nothing - Evolution's Contradiction
(I apologize in advanced if my post seems a bit disjointed. Working graveyard does that, you know?)
In response to an article I posted from my pastor, an atheist (Anonymous) joined us to discuss his objection to pure “religious opinions” making policies and laws in government. Needless to say, Ehud and I met Anon’s challenges on a variety of subjects that stemmed from his objection. If you have not read the discussion, you can find it here.
There was a challenge put forth by Anon that was left unanswered. It was not because we didn’t have an answer or that it was unimportant, but because we felt the other issues were core to his objections. Here is my response to his unanswered challenge:
In his response to my question, “what makes ‘good’ good and bad ‘bad’?”, Anon replies:
Evolution favors the groups that reproduce the most, so from that perspective "good" is what causes an increase (or prevents a decrease) in population. When members of a social group worked together for a common good, their group was able to out-populate other groups.
Ok, let’s presuppose this thought. Keep this in mind as you read his challenge:
It's obvious we're not going to get anywhere on the "what the Founders wanted" debate. So let's talk about what's right. You are advocating an unfair system of government that favors one group over others. I would still like answers to the following questions:
- If followers of the Christian Science religion were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw medicine?
- If Muslims were to become the majority, do you think that that should be able to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or to make all women cover their faces?
- If atheists were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw religion?
Anon believes he is advocating a fair system of government, yet fails to see that his own atheistic, evolution-based worldview undermines what he thinks is right. For each of the scenarios, the majority figures must have been doing “good” since they “out-populate other groups.” Evolution has favored them! And here, Anon, the evolutionist, wants to take away that favor by having a fair government. Anon cannot have it both ways. He cannot advocate evolution, then seek to destroy it (or to put it mildly, prevent increase) by having a fair system of government.
Of course, what is the escape for Anon here? That we’ve evolved enough so that we do not cause grief towards the minority? Nope, there isn’t an escape there either. How can morality and ethics evolve from a system that had none of it in the first place? When Beast A killed and ate Beast B, how could it just suddenly develop remorse for its actions? How could it know it was remorse it felt? As an empiricist, Anon needs to prove this in order to justify his position, otherwise, he has no genesis of ethics within his worldview. If we really want to get to the root problem with his worldview, Anon needs to prove that intelligence can develop from non-intelligence (victims of public school curriculum does not count as proof). Until then, Anon cannot account for the ethics in his belief system. Anon accused Christians of having a blind faith, yet his is truly the classic case of having such a faith. (And he says he’s not religious? :-) )
Moving on…
Anon wants a fair system of government based on the “rule of law”, but his own definition of evolution, as we saw above, just won’t let him have it. Evolution has no “rule of law”, but Scripture teaches it, and within it implies religious tolerance and minority rights (not entitlements!):
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15
He who makes the rules, wins. Atheism cannot account for the “rule of law”, but Christianity can. Christianity wins! Is it a wonder why atheists like Anon don’t like the idea that the Constitution was born out of Christian beliefs? To acknowledge it and to live under it is to “impose” Christianity upon them. Rather than having that, they are bully on having a system of fair government where there is a “wall of separation between church and state”.
But seeing how his empiricism is core to his worldview, and is paramount in determining what can be allowed in government, he is, in fact, advocating an unfair system of government. All other religious opinion must bow down to his religious opinion in the arena of law-making. Well, that’s evolution for you, eh? The moment all non-atheists give up their highest standard and adopt the atheist’s standard of empiricism, then non-atheists have functionally become atheists, thus increasing the population of atheists. How fair is that to utilize a fair system of government in order to tip the scales to favor the religious atheist worldview?
And how fair would a practically atheist government be towards the religious? Ehud has already pointed out the logical implications of such a worldview. Anon can contend that such a case would not happen here in America because we have the Constitution to protects the rights of the minority against the majority, but even he acknowledges that lines are being crossed. Without a set standard for ethics that transcends time and people (aka God's Law), the deterioration of the atheist government would be rapid. Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. And you can forget religious tolerance and minority rights.
So now, where are we in all this? Anon cannot account for his ethics, but the Christian can. Because of the Christian ethic, as far as humanly possible, a fair system of government was formed (the anti-Federalists would point out the flaws, but since we presuppose the sinfulness of man, it goes without saying that any human government will have its flaws). With the historical witness of the past 230 years in America, Christian ethics has produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. For Anon to advocate government by empiricism, he is advocating an unfair system of government. Any usurpation by any other worldview that is antithetical to the Christian worldview would, in fact, by historical witness, deteriorate rapidly due to the lack of a transcendent moral standard. We are witnessing the fruits of this today.
To Anon:
It is not hard to see the failures in your worldview. By presupposing your worldview, it cannot hold itself together when consistently applied. By assuming your system, Ehud, myself, and other Christians, understood your worldview and found it wanting. To hold to such a belief is to truly hold to a blind faith. To promote such a belief is to bring erosion to our way of government and to America at large.
But we do not wish for you, nor others to hold on to such a blind faith. The Christian faith is a faith of reason, when properly understood. We admit that there are horrid caricatures of what it means to be a Christian, but that does not mean Christendom is void of real character. Seriously, if you want to understand where we are coming from, then I would implore you to believe first so that you may understand. Believe in God and believe that He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for the sins of His people, and that He rose from the dead. Believe that by believing in Him as your Lord and your Savior, you are saved from your sins and saved from the wrath of God that we all deserve. Believe that He will send His Holy Spirit to you so that He would help you in your unbelief. And believe that He has given us His Word found in the Bible, so that we may understand Him, His world, and our place in it. (wink to Agozino)
May God grant you faith and repentance through all this.
In Christ,
Victor
In response to an article I posted from my pastor, an atheist (Anonymous) joined us to discuss his objection to pure “religious opinions” making policies and laws in government. Needless to say, Ehud and I met Anon’s challenges on a variety of subjects that stemmed from his objection. If you have not read the discussion, you can find it here.
There was a challenge put forth by Anon that was left unanswered. It was not because we didn’t have an answer or that it was unimportant, but because we felt the other issues were core to his objections. Here is my response to his unanswered challenge:
In his response to my question, “what makes ‘good’ good and bad ‘bad’?”, Anon replies:
Evolution favors the groups that reproduce the most, so from that perspective "good" is what causes an increase (or prevents a decrease) in population. When members of a social group worked together for a common good, their group was able to out-populate other groups.
Ok, let’s presuppose this thought. Keep this in mind as you read his challenge:
It's obvious we're not going to get anywhere on the "what the Founders wanted" debate. So let's talk about what's right. You are advocating an unfair system of government that favors one group over others. I would still like answers to the following questions:
- If followers of the Christian Science religion were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw medicine?
- If Muslims were to become the majority, do you think that that should be able to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or to make all women cover their faces?
- If atheists were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw religion?
Anon believes he is advocating a fair system of government, yet fails to see that his own atheistic, evolution-based worldview undermines what he thinks is right. For each of the scenarios, the majority figures must have been doing “good” since they “out-populate other groups.” Evolution has favored them! And here, Anon, the evolutionist, wants to take away that favor by having a fair government. Anon cannot have it both ways. He cannot advocate evolution, then seek to destroy it (or to put it mildly, prevent increase) by having a fair system of government.
Of course, what is the escape for Anon here? That we’ve evolved enough so that we do not cause grief towards the minority? Nope, there isn’t an escape there either. How can morality and ethics evolve from a system that had none of it in the first place? When Beast A killed and ate Beast B, how could it just suddenly develop remorse for its actions? How could it know it was remorse it felt? As an empiricist, Anon needs to prove this in order to justify his position, otherwise, he has no genesis of ethics within his worldview. If we really want to get to the root problem with his worldview, Anon needs to prove that intelligence can develop from non-intelligence (victims of public school curriculum does not count as proof). Until then, Anon cannot account for the ethics in his belief system. Anon accused Christians of having a blind faith, yet his is truly the classic case of having such a faith. (And he says he’s not religious? :-) )
Moving on…
Anon wants a fair system of government based on the “rule of law”, but his own definition of evolution, as we saw above, just won’t let him have it. Evolution has no “rule of law”, but Scripture teaches it, and within it implies religious tolerance and minority rights (not entitlements!):
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15
He who makes the rules, wins. Atheism cannot account for the “rule of law”, but Christianity can. Christianity wins! Is it a wonder why atheists like Anon don’t like the idea that the Constitution was born out of Christian beliefs? To acknowledge it and to live under it is to “impose” Christianity upon them. Rather than having that, they are bully on having a system of fair government where there is a “wall of separation between church and state”.
But seeing how his empiricism is core to his worldview, and is paramount in determining what can be allowed in government, he is, in fact, advocating an unfair system of government. All other religious opinion must bow down to his religious opinion in the arena of law-making. Well, that’s evolution for you, eh? The moment all non-atheists give up their highest standard and adopt the atheist’s standard of empiricism, then non-atheists have functionally become atheists, thus increasing the population of atheists. How fair is that to utilize a fair system of government in order to tip the scales to favor the religious atheist worldview?
And how fair would a practically atheist government be towards the religious? Ehud has already pointed out the logical implications of such a worldview. Anon can contend that such a case would not happen here in America because we have the Constitution to protects the rights of the minority against the majority, but even he acknowledges that lines are being crossed. Without a set standard for ethics that transcends time and people (aka God's Law), the deterioration of the atheist government would be rapid. Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. And you can forget religious tolerance and minority rights.
So now, where are we in all this? Anon cannot account for his ethics, but the Christian can. Because of the Christian ethic, as far as humanly possible, a fair system of government was formed (the anti-Federalists would point out the flaws, but since we presuppose the sinfulness of man, it goes without saying that any human government will have its flaws). With the historical witness of the past 230 years in America, Christian ethics has produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen. For Anon to advocate government by empiricism, he is advocating an unfair system of government. Any usurpation by any other worldview that is antithetical to the Christian worldview would, in fact, by historical witness, deteriorate rapidly due to the lack of a transcendent moral standard. We are witnessing the fruits of this today.
To Anon:
It is not hard to see the failures in your worldview. By presupposing your worldview, it cannot hold itself together when consistently applied. By assuming your system, Ehud, myself, and other Christians, understood your worldview and found it wanting. To hold to such a belief is to truly hold to a blind faith. To promote such a belief is to bring erosion to our way of government and to America at large.
But we do not wish for you, nor others to hold on to such a blind faith. The Christian faith is a faith of reason, when properly understood. We admit that there are horrid caricatures of what it means to be a Christian, but that does not mean Christendom is void of real character. Seriously, if you want to understand where we are coming from, then I would implore you to believe first so that you may understand. Believe in God and believe that He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for the sins of His people, and that He rose from the dead. Believe that by believing in Him as your Lord and your Savior, you are saved from your sins and saved from the wrath of God that we all deserve. Believe that He will send His Holy Spirit to you so that He would help you in your unbelief. And believe that He has given us His Word found in the Bible, so that we may understand Him, His world, and our place in it. (wink to Agozino)
May God grant you faith and repentance through all this.
In Christ,
Victor
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 5/05/2006 02:06:00 AM
19 Comments:
I find this discussion ironic. I believe that there are no actual atheists, just people claiming to be atheists and, on the other hand, the 'atheists' I have known have been very nice people.
The other problem I have had is an opposite-of-C.S.Lewis mini-quandry: namely, where Lewis was an atheist whose favorite art was created by Christians, thus precipitating his conversion, I have lived in a time where atheists have created the most significant and thoughtful art and Christians have created bad music, ugly buildings and trite visual and literary art.
I have always held that 'if there is no God, everything is permitted'(Doestoevsky?), good fair government is also possible within those strictures but I am very uneasy with a government that doles out rights and priviledges and believes itself to be the last word on who receives what 'priviledge' or 'right'. These atheist governments are clearly informed by a religious (usually Christian) heritage.
I'm baaaack. Did you miss me? ;)
I see that you've all been busy. Sorry I left so abruptly, but I was facing important deadlines and had to avoid reading your posts lest I feel the need to take time to respond. Plus, to be perfectly honest, I've been questioning the wisdom of spending time here considering the fact that we can't even agree on very simple definitions. And the fact that I'll never convince you of anything, no matter good of an argument that I make.
First off, I'd like to apologize to everyone but Ehud. My previous comments were primarily meant for him. I'd also like to point out to Ehud that most his arguments are not really arguments at all, but appeals to the opinions of historical figures. The fact that some guy said something hundreds of years ago doesn't begin to convince me. His argument may, but just mentioning his name will not.
Now, on with the fun:
Anon cannot have it both ways. He cannot advocate evolution, then seek to destroy it (or to put it mildly, prevent increase) by having a fair system of government.
Ok, perhaps I was overly simplistic in my comments. Evolution doesn't necessarily favor what is "better", it favors populations that reproduce more. I do not "advocate" that; evolution just is. In my view, religion is a good example of bad evolutionary results. Religion has prospered because it creates societies that outpopulate other societies. This fact outweighs the negatives (evolutionarily).
Atheism cannot account for the “rule of law”
True enough. Atheism is not a system of beliefs but, rather, a lack of belief in a god or gods.
, but Christianity can
I hate to break this to you, but there was "rule of law" long before Christianity.
Is it a wonder why atheists like Anon don’t like the idea that the Constitution was born out of Christian beliefs?
Christian and other philosophies may have influenced the Constitution, but the document itself is not Christian. Since it's not apparent to you from the text itself, please check the Treaty of Tripoli.
With the historical witness of the past 230 years in America, Christian ethics has produced the most prosperous country the world has ever seen.
I would contend that the personal freedoms provided by the Constitution and historical happenstance had more to do with that than Christianity. It's like giving credit to Paganism for the ascendance of ancient Greek civilization.
For Anon to advocate government by empiricism, he is advocating an unfair system of government.
No, but suggesting that non-Christians should be forced to follow a set of rules based on the unverifiable scribblings of ancient people is.
Ehud, myself, and other Christians, understood your worldview and found it wanting. To hold to such a belief is to truly hold to a blind faith.
YOU are accusing ME of blind faith? Wow. I base my worldview on verifiable fact. You base yours on the ancient claims of people who had very little understanding of the world around them and invented superstitious answers to satisfy their curiousity. You are the ones who are 100% certain about the way that the world works. I make no such claim.
"You are the ones who are 100% certain about the way that the world works. I make no such claim."
Nor do I.
Welcome back, Anon! I guess we should just get right down to it. Shall we?
I’ve been questioning the wisdom of spending time here considering the fact that we can’t even agree on very simple definitions. And the fact that I'll never convince you of anything, no matter good of an argument that I make.
Well, so far you have offered no reason for me to agree with your definition since all you have done is assert your position. From all that you have asserted, this is what I gather you are saying:
To be religious, you have to be in a religion.
Here’s the definition of religious:
religious - adj. 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity; 2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
Explain to me where in the definition of religious does it say that you have to be in a religion. Explain to me why I would have to take your definition over what is simply explained in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. And explain to me how an empiricist can ignore the evidence from the dictionary.
Assertions is all that you have offered, which is not good argumentation. Unless you can explain your position, there is no reason to agree with your points.
I'd also like to point out to Ehud that most his arguments are not really arguments at all, but appeals to the opinions of historical figures. The fact that some guy said something hundreds of years ago doesn't begin to convince me.
Well, that would explain why you really don’t care for the opinions of the Founders. But then again, for the Founders to have written the Constitution, all they had done was write down their agreed opinion as to what makes for a good government. But you certainly wouldn’t want to dismiss that, would you?
Your contention with Ehud on historical figures, I would surmise, is selective, unless you wish to start dismissing history and historians altogether. I seriously doubt you would do that, though that is the logical implication if you aren’t being selective as to what would make for a good historical argument.
Atheism is not a system of beliefs but, rather, a lack of belief in a god or gods.
And just when you thought you weren’t being oversimplistic before! Seriously, Anon, are you saying that there aren’t common beliefs that is shared within your worldview? Have you read the Humanist Manifestos? Does your worldview lack a common philosophy by which it is derived from observed rules from ultimate reality?
I hate to break this to you, but there was a “rule of law” long before Christianity.
You’ve misunderstood my remarks. Christianity can account for why there is a “rule of law”. There is a “rule of law” because it is founded upon the just and immutable nature of God. Atheism cannot for the “rule of law” and you have admitted this. Since atheism cannot account for it, then atheism has no justification for its existence nor its permanence. It’s “just is”. But why is it “just is” when your worldview is born out of chance (Materialism/Evolution) and human frailties (Humanism)? When your worldview is held consistently, the “rule of law” cannot exist. Your worldview is nothing but “survival of the fittest” and swaying pragmatism.
Christian and other philosophies may have influenced the Constitution, but the document itself is not Christian. Since it's not apparent to you from the text itself, please check the Treaty of Tripoli.
I’ve never said that the Constitution is Christian and I’ve never argued that our nation was a Christian nation. This is a straw man argument on your part and certainly confirms that you don’t like the idea that the Constitution was born out of Christian beliefs.
But in response, I offer this:
”• The treaty was revoked a few years later anyway
• The clause was not included in the original version of the treaty. It was mysteriously, perhaps fraudulently, inserted by Joel Barlow, the Algerian Consul who was a condemner of Christianity.
• The original Arabic version is on file at the State Department, although it is Barlow’s English version that was ratified by the Senate and signed by Adams.
• The treaty states several times the phrase, “Praise be to God.”
• The treaty was made primarily to save the lives of American hostages. One can conclude that if the treaty said the moon were made of green cheese it would have been ratified by the Senate and signed by Adams.
• A Spanish translation of this treaty references treaties with Christian nations -- meaning in this case the US.”
I would contend that the personal freedoms provided by the Constitution and historical happenstance had more to do with that than Christianity.
*sigh* Anon, Anon, Anon. If it weren’t for the Christian beliefs (as inconsistent as they may be) of the Founders, the very Constitution you so hold dearly would have been written far different. You may continue with your disconnect and dichotomy, but if the Founders were Muslims or Christian Scientists, do you think the Constitution would be worded the same? I think not.
It’s like giving credit go Paganism for the ascendance of ancient Greek civilization.
More like pluralism. But then again, I wouldn’t call debauchery much of an ascendance.
Ok, perhaps I was overly simplistic in my comments. Evolution doesn't necessarily favor what is "better", it favors populations that reproduce more. I do not "advocate" that; evolution just is. In my view, religion is a good example of bad evolutionary results. Religion has prospered because it creates societies that outpopulate other societies. This fact outweighs the negatives (evolutionarily).
No, but suggesting that non-Christians should be forced to follow a set of rules based on the unverificable scribbles of ancient people is.
YOU are accusing ME of blind faith? Wow. I base my worldview on verifiable fact. You base yours on the ancient claims of people who had very little understanding of the world around them and invented superstitious answers to satisfy their curiousity. You are the ones who are 100% certain about the way that the world works. I make no such claim.
(I’ve put all these quotes together since they all tie-in together with my response.)
Your responses here do nothing for your position. Why? Because all you have done is respond to mere snippets of my post rather than tackling the larger context by which they are found. You are an evolutionist and to say that you don’t advocate all aspects of it is to bias your position. You only advocate it when it is good. Yet, you have shown nothing to prove from your worldview on what is “good” and what is “bad”. At best, what is “bad” is what you don’t like, thus making morality solely founded upon your opinion. To quote:
In my view, religion is a good example of bad evolutionary results.
When you did try to define how you determine what is “good” and what is “bad”, you retract and say that you were oversimplistic. But your clarification does nothing to resolve the original issue of “good” and “bad”! All you have shown is that “good” and “bad” is based only on personal feelings.
But we’ve gone that route, haven’t we? Yes we have:
Feelings and results are not reliable indicators to determine good or bad. For you, it may be reliable enough since you rely on empirical evidence, but feelings are subjective and results are conditional.
What a dangerous proposition to place trust upon frail and fickle men to determine the moral compass of a government and how it should enforce it. And since your worldview cannot account for the “rule of law”, all we are left with is the “sliderule of law” as men go to and fro trying to figure out the best thing for the moment.
And how much more unfair to those under such a government that shifts to what it feels best. What certainty is there for any group to be free from the tyranny of “sliderule of law” when laws can change so much? We see that now in our world, and look what a mess that is.
We should hold to the Constitution, you say? I ask, “Why?” After all, it was good back in their day, why should we hold to it now? What reason, within your worldview, is it “good” for us to stick with the Constitution? Fairness? But what is “fair” and “good” in a worldview that defines them based on the individual? And how do you verify that it is “fair” and “good”? Empiricism? Well, wouldn’t you have to know what is “bad” and what is “good” before you can verify that they are such? Feelings? Around and round we go on the circular argument.
And has empiricism proven evolution? Has it proven that intelligence can develop from non-intelligence? Where is the verifiability of this? Since you believe in evolution, you must have some empirical evidence to prove it, right? Without it, you would be, in fact (verifiable, if you can’t provide proof), have a blind faith in evolution.
I don’t claim to know 100% how the world works, so I don’t know how you can even pin this on me based on what I’ve written. My claim is that in my worldview, I can account for it. Yours cannot. I can account for the “rule of law” and what makes “good” good and “bad” bad. Yours cannot. I can account for laws of science and laws of logic. Yours cannot. I can account for these things because they are established by God. You cannot because permanence and lines of demarcation cannot be established on a philosophy of chance and human weakness.
You can cling tenaciously all you want to these things and make them a part of your worldview, but it would be in contrary to it, not because of it.
As much as I hate to do this, I must retreat (from writing, not reading) from the blog as well for a few days, due to some other priorities in my life. I should be back by the weekend! If the other readers have not engaged with you in discussion, Anon, you can be sure I will. :-) Or maybe Ehud will grace you with his crassness before I do. ;-)
In Christ,
Victor
Seriously, Anon, are you saying that there aren’t common beliefs that is shared within your worldview?
You guys seem to be really confused about my worldview. Perhaps I haven't explained it well enough.
First off, you seem to be lumping atheism, materialism, Humanism, and Evolution all together. These are all separate ideas that don't necessarily overlap. For example, I'm not a Humanist. I agree with Humanists on many things, but not everything. And there are plenty of Humanists who aren't atheists.
My philosophy centers around the desire to maximize the well-being of humanity. The doctrines of fairness and freedom of thought (among other things) come from that. "Rule of law" is important because it protects against the negative tendencies of humans (corruption of power, etc.). I supposed you could call me a rule (not act) utilitarian, although I haven't studied enough to know whether that philosophy exactly matches mine.
I only believe in things that have strong evidence to support them. I believe in the Theory of Evolution because scientific evidence supports it (I do not "advocate" it, it just is). I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. I also don't believe in the supernatural because, of all of the thousands of supernatural claims that have been made, not one has been verified. But I do keep in mind that new evidence that challenges my beliefs (or lack thereof) could come to light at any time. None of my beliefs are set in stone.
I believe that all religion is man-made. Religion is a way to control society. That control gives a society's leaders more power and, thus, makes that society more powerful. It also incorporates universally understood "good" principles to make it more appealing to the masses.
Hopefully that helps.
P.S. I also want to address a couple of issues:
The difference between faith and trust
Trust is earned. Faith is given blindly. And, no, I don't trust anything or anyone blindly. That would be foolhardy.
Religion/Religious
There is much disagreement about the exact definition of religion. Dictionaries aren't necessarily trustworthy, because they tend to reflect a word's popular usage more than actual meaning. The divergent defintions of atheism in popular dictionaries is one example.
But, assuming your preferred definition of "religious" ("faithful devotion to acknowledged ultimate reality"), I still do not fit the description. I do not blindly adhere to any particular worldview.
Anon is a proselyte
I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism, materialism, etc. I simply want to try to convince you that forcing your religious views on me through action of government is wrong. If you want to try to convince me that Christianity is truth (or is best, even if it is not truth), fine. But don't have the government do your dirty work. Jefferson once said that he doesn't care if his neighbor has ten gods or no god, becuase it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg. But the government is currently picking my pocket to support Christianty (faith-based charity, vouchers, etc.) and you guys want the government to threaten me physically by making it criminal to not follow your ideology.
The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's a theory, yet you still believe it because it just is.
Evolution is a scientific theory. In science, that's as good as it gets. Gravity is also a scientific theory. In fact, we understand evolution more than we understand gravity. Would you toss that out as well?
Greek...debauchery, Islam
I love how you dismiss all non-Christian cultures that had a significant positive impact on the advancement of knowledge. And, yes, for its first 400 years the Muslim world was the center of scientific progress. What it has become is, to me, a good example of what happens when a society becomes ruled by religion.
"You are the ones who are 100% certain about the way that the world works. I make no such claim." Nor do I.
Oh really? I thought that any doubt in the Christian worldview put your immortal soul in peril. Please elaborate.
Until you can make some cogent account of the Laws of Ethics & Laws of Logic, your worldview is nonsense.
I've come to realize that you will automatically assume that any worldview other than yours in nonsense, no matter what.
You are assuming that ethics and logic are immutable laws of the universe that had to have a supernatural origin. When you assume anything, then you will always conclude the same no matter what your reasoning.
You say you believe religion is man-made. Since you only believe in verifiable facts, how do you verify the creed that religion is man-made?
I come to that conclusion from the fact that many different incompatible religions have existed throughout human history. It seems that ancient human society tended toward a religious structure to satisfy its curiousity and provide social control.
Plus, flaws and inconsistencies exist within religions. If there was a perfect entity behind them, why would that be?
How is the fact that it is right to maximize the well-being of humanity verified?
It is based on inate reactions. Things that make people happy are good, things that make them sad are bad. And when I say people, I mean humanity as a whole, not the individual.
Peter Singer, and others who believe animals to be equal to humans may take issue.
The animal issue occurred to me right after my last post. Animals certainly need to be taken into account. Perhaps congitive ability should play a role in determining how much.
What would suffice as evidence for you to believe in God and why?
Evidence that he/she/it/they interact(s) in some way with the natural world would be great. Good luck with that.
[paraphrased] Should I be allow to vote against abortion?
Although most opposition to abortion is religion-based, I think that secular arguments can be made as well. So perhaps that's not a good example.
You should be able to vote how you choose. However, if your vote lacks real-world justification and takes away the rights of others, the law should protect society from it.
Maybe we should call him a 'homo' again.
>>"You are the ones who are 100% certain about the way that the world works. I make no such claim." Nor do I.
Oh really? I thought that any doubt in the Christian worldview put your immortal soul in peril. Please elaborate.<<<
That was me. Thanks for noticing. Anyone that claims to be 100% certain about the way the world works should be ignored. I don't think anyone here believes that. There is definitely room in Christianity for questions and doubts and obviously, divergent views.
Just for the record -- there are people at your church who don't believe in gravity. I went to a church sanctioned class where it was taught. There were about twenty people there.
They were not levitating but they made no claims as to the reason that they were not. As I recall, they weren't too crazy about the periodic table either. It had something to do with only asserting things that are directly asserted in the Bible.
Pianka (let's just assume he truly thinks 90% of the human population should be destroyed in the interest of lizards and bacteria)
Pastor Paul, I've already corrected your mistaken viewpoint about Pianka's statements through email. The link below should remind you. Why do you continue to promote the lie?
Texas Academy of Science statement on Pianka
A hypothesis is hypothetical idea. It is granted theory status if you can demonstrate that is can be tested and proven. It is granted fact status after implementing the scientific method (usually, test, measure, observe, repeat). The scientific method cannot be applied to evolution. It is a hypothesis and requires faith.
In science, nothing can be proven. At best, there are strong theories that haven't been disproven. Evolution is such a theory. Both micro- and macro-evolutionary processes have been verified in laboratory settings. It has survived 150 years of scientific scrutiny. Evolution is the basis of modern biology. Without it, biology doesn't make sense.
I know that evolution threatens your worldview. That's why you work to discount it by ignoring uncomfortable facts.
I found it farcically ironic and amusing that a point you were citing as a given (gravity) was under contention at your own church. My odd sense of humor.
I am not a scientist and I believe questions of the origins of the creation have been considered a philosophical question rather than a scientific question before the Creation Vs. Evolution debate. Obviously, we need billions of years to observe what really happens over a billion year period.
As an aside, in Joseph Heller’s novel “Picture This” one of the characters is Plato, who gets very annoyed that the Jews ‘came up’ with a God who created everything by willing it. He thought it was brilliant and wished he had thought of it. The very idea of trying to determine the origin of the universe is a uniquely Judeo-Christian occupation. Most cultures simply don’t care.
To me, both creationism and evolution seem preposterous theories but I do tend to have a bias for a omnipotent creator God. Not to play a numbers game again but evolution is a theory in decline. When Tom Wolfe was going to several Ivy League Colleges to research his novel “I Am Charlotte Simmons” he noted a growing movement away from evolution and claimed it was a dying theory in academia.
As a nonscientist, I find the following points interesting:
-Written language appeared almost entirely intact about 5000 years ago.
-Mathematical models used for determining populations, when used in reverse, go back to two people about 5000 years ago.
-Language seems to be the great divider of creatures on the Earth. It seems there should be some sort of transitional creature between humanity and monkeys. humans seem to have made amazing and dazzling verbal achievements without a great deal of effort. The so-called lower primates after immense amounts of human effort are only able to make small gestures that they have been trained to believe would deliver them food. If left alone they are generally content to pull bugs out of their fur and eat there own poop. Shouldn't there be some transitional creature with moderately developed language and toolmaking skills.
Your citation from the Texas Academy of Science ends with: "The scientific method cannot be applied to Evolution. It is a hypothesis and requires faith." (Was this originally PP’s citation?)
Yes, that was PP's citation. It was not from the article. Please pay attention.
Are saying that because religions are incompatible, it necessarily follows that none of them are true?
No, but I do think that history indicates that religion was a natural development of ancient societies.
What makes Christianity the "one, true religion"? A person's religion is largely determined by his/her family and/or the society around him/her. Children are introduced to a particular religion before they have developed the capacity to think for themselves. They are told what to think and threatened with grave consequences if they do not. How do you know this isn't why you are Christian? How do you know that you weren't brainwashed?
I would still like an example.
I was keeping my requirement as broad as possible to make it easier for you. Here is is again: Evidence that he/she/it/they interact(s) in some way with the natural world would be great.
>>>Was that the Bible study on Newton Street?
No. Gramercy.
classic!
ehud
The ferocity of your personal attacks leads me to believe that you might be a tad bit insecure about your beliefs.
The whole point that I've been trying to made is that any taking away of a person's civil rights must be justified by real-world, not supernatural, evidence. That applies to anyone: atheist, Christian, or whatever. You're just throwing a tantrum because you want the privilege of imposing your mythical worldview on others.
I realize that I will never get through to you. You've already made your choice, and you will rationalize away anything that disagrees with it.
And all of you are falling into the trap of power and moral certainty. If you look at history, you'll realize that those two elements are the common attributes of any tyrannical leadership. It's not atheism, religion, communism, etc., but a belief that the "truth" is known and, therefore, force is justified to promote that "truth".
pp: My comments were meant for ehud. Note the fact that I prefaced my post with his name. I do not consider any of the rest of you to be guilty of personal attack.
P.S. Congratulations on the new addition! I hope that all went well.
pp: for me the dialogue is over
Agreed. Nothing can be gained by this discussion. All of you will continue to rationalize away anything that contradicts your worldview and will continue to try to use the force of government to impose that worldview on others. It would be nice if we could come together to work towards the common good but, alas, you will not have it. So, I will have to continue to fight you at every turn. It's a shame because these internal struggles weaken our country.
I realize that I haven't communicated my worldview adequately. I'm disappointed but not really surprised given my history of poor communication. In the end, all I've managed to do is give you fodder to use against me. But I'm also convinced that it wouldn't matter how well I argue my points. You're certain of your worldview, so anything that contradicts it is automatically false. I will, however, summarize the points you've made for future reference.
I am firmly convinced that you know that God exists and refuse to acknowledge it. You are somewhat acquainted with the Scriptures. I am firmly convinced that you know the words of Christ are true yet refuse, as of yet, to hear.
You've been in my prayers (I don't say that in a condescending manner but with compassionate sincerity).
You need to quit resisting what you know to be true. You need to go to a Christian, Bible-believing church which has high regard for doctrine and rational discourse. You need to trust in Jesus Christ and walk in truth and wisdom.
I didn't find the prayers condescending, but the rest of that was. Let me turn it around for you:
I know that our mortality can be scary, but don't be so quick to accept promises of immortality just because someone promises them in exchange for your obedience. Immortality is not something that anyone has to offer you. In your heart, you know that your beliefs are false, but you won't allow yourself to critically analyze them. Please realize that our one life is all that we have, and that we should all work together to make it as comfortable for everyone.
In parting, I'd like to address a couple of things:
Radio-Carbon dating. Once modified to the production cycles of C12 in the stratosphere (instead of the assumption of one static level-), nothing dates older than 7000yrs. And it resolves all the obvious problems which plague the "orthodox" method-- such as 20yr. old hunting trophies dating to 400,000yrs.
C14 dating is only good for dating organic material less than 50,000yrs old. That's why other types of radioisotopes are uses for older material. It has been validated back to about 11,000yrs with tree ring histories. For more info, see Talk Origins website on Geochronology.
Rule of law
You claim that the "rule of law" must have some supernatural origin. Let me pose this to you: Where do the rules governing sports or board games (etc.) come from? A god? No, they were developed by humans to make the games playable and fair. The same goes for society's laws. They were developed by humans to make society function.
Adios.
"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God"
Yes I know it's an incomplete quote. But after following this discussion I'm very happy to be one of God's foolish.
And Ehud... you wield your cudgel well. Sometimes too well. Subtlety is not your strong suite, but hey, it's good to know I have you at my back when I need something smashed to dust.
Anon "Please realize that our one life is all that we have, and that we should all work together to make it as comfortable for everyone."
If this is our one life and there is no God and no afterlife, why do I care what happens to anyone but me while I'm here? I'm answerable to no one but me. My ultimate motivation is my own happiness, so why don't I just step on everyone I can to achieve my happiness? To hell with everyone else. I'm going to enjoy my life while I can.
because without God and his law, I have no reason to care about you or little Johnny down the street. Please tell me what is my motivation to "work together to make it as comfortable for everyone."
Post a Comment
<< Home