Iliad wrote:Just because Science has explained a lot about us, but not completely everything is not a reason to believe in talking snakes.
Yes not everything is explained. But this is Science. It will never be. Each answer will only give us two more questions. We have progressed a lot from say a thousand years ago, but Science, unlike religions, changes. That's the whole point of it. Testing and changing.
This is where many atheist lose credibility, fall into a realm of poor critical thinking.
You plain and simply cannot leap from belief in moderate Christianity or any of the big, major religions and belief in "talking snakes".
Religion is not outside of logic just because it is not physically proveable like most science is. Humans think of things in many ways.
Is an artists expression less valid, somehow "stupid" because it is not a purely scientific view? Of course not. And to try and claim it should is to diminish both science AND art.
I don't suggest you have to believe religion, except that atheism is itself a religion. But to condemn outright others thoughts just because you don't agree smacks of the same unthinking ideas for which you criticizze the religious.
heavycola wrote:jim to be fair to ol' dicky, he's never said evolution is unchallengeable - anyone as wedded to science and scientific method as he is would be unable logically to do so.
Therein lies the basic difference between an unshakeable belief in god and one in science - belief in science means being willing to accept better ideas and models as they come along. Religion brooks no such flexibility. Which is part of the reason why it can be so dangerous.
This is certainly the danger, but religion actually is quite flexible, particularly Christianity. If it were not, it would die off. Christianity has only a few basic, unshakable tenants. You love God, Christ is our Savior, etc. Even the ten commandments are interpreted different ways at times. For example though Christians commonly learn "though shalt not kill". Jews say "though shalt not murder".
This can be said to be a criticism of religion, IF you believe that religion starts out as giving us everything at once, in a package. But, this is where it gets tricky in ways that many atheist just like to dismiss. As Christian, for example, I fully do believe that in many senses, the Bible contains "all" we need to know. But, our understanding as humans, as society changes. So, even though I would say that the Bible provides all, the "on the ground" truth is that this means different things to different people. As a Christian, I see that as a strength. I can agree with many here on some points, but disagree on others yet we all still consider ourselves Christian and, with some exceptions, generally accept that it is quite likely we will all see each other someday in heaven. The differences are quite intentional, needed differences that make our world work the way it does (good and ill both). There are fanatics in any belief system, not just religion. ANY kind of fanaticism is by definition blinding to anything outside. In Christianity, in the Bible, if you look carefully there are many "checks' against this sort of thought process. The problem is that if people want to "overlook" those thoughts ... they will ... and will claim they have the "real" truth, no matter what is actually written.
A classic example, already brought up many times is the Creation story. Just from the outset, if Genesis were to be taken as a "scientific" text, to be read the same way you would a math problem, then why would there be 2 versions of the story? Most Christians (Creationism is growing, but still in the minority, for now) accept that the goal of Genesis is to teach us that God is in control, etc.
Ironically, this is what is often wrong with strong atheistic proponents, such as Dawkins. ANY time you pursue one set of ideas and start completely dismissing whole other trains of thought, or when it comes to wholescale dismissal of "religion" (in general), whole modes of thinking, you are headed down a dangerous path.
I don't know Dawkins specific thoughts on Evolution. I absolutely believe that things change over time, that the Earth was created gradually. The details ... are up for debate (to a point), but if he is really not willing to admit, in the far reaches of his mind, that there is a slight possibility that Evolution and the entire universe might not work as we currently think ... then he is not a true scientist.
On the other hand, at this point, disbelieving Evolution requires dismissing entirely whole bodies of science .. most of physics, Chemistry, biology, etc... and, more importantly requires complete dismissal and disbelief in the Scientific process. So, sometimes that “Evolution might be wrong bit” is really just a technicality. Unless discussing details, it is as much fact as the probability that the sun will rise tommorrow.
Frigidus wrote:To see what I mean, listen to the proponents of intelligent design, watch Jesus Camp, or read some Qutb (one of the main inspirations for the modern Jihadists
Of course, these folks are hardly representative of Christianity or Islam. Too many atheist don't want to make that distinction.
Frigidus wrote:Yes! Thank you brooksie, we needed a good thread like this.
This is the bottom line.
We don't have to agree. How boring life would be if we did. But, to be able to sit down and dicuss, helps us all. My goal is not to convince anyone they are wrong and I am correct, with a few exceptions (mostly to do with an unwillingness to
consider other viewpoints OR plain, outright mis-statements of fact). My goal is to see if I can get other people to at least
understand viewpoints that differ from their own, and that I should do the same.
So, thank you for this thread.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
and maybe toys really do come to life when we aren't looking ... 
