Knowing the mind of God

[Cornish Steve]

They behave themselves because they know it's the right thing to do.

Define 'right'. Why is it 'right' to allow the severely disabled to live and not die? It contradicts everything about "survival of the fittest".

Deny it or not, we each have a conscience, and it's something that transcends "survival of the fittest". It was 'put' there for a reason.

 

[cjd]

I used your term 'directing force'. I am not implying the need for a known end or even a path to it. Evolution is blind; it happens regardless. It is not controlled by anything other than the enviornment and the competition for resourse in it.

You may well hear everyday that evolution explains modern human culture but I don't; and anyone actually knowing anything about it would never say such a dumb thing.

Not much of history is about humanists organising themselves into groups and waging bloody war against believers is it? In fact maybe rather the reverse?

In this case Steve, your need to 'challenge everything' is valid so long as it isn't done to the point of simple denial of evidence. Evolution is only a threat to those that literally believe in the bible, it doesn't say there is no god (or that aliens didn't put the germs of life here 1 billion years ago for that matter).

You seem to be in a state of unnecessary state of denial over it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Not much of history is about humanists organising themselves into groups and waging bloody war against believers is it? In fact maybe rather the reverse?

If we avoid rewriting history, most wars come about because of personal pride. Robert Massie's book Dreadnought is a wonderfully vivid explanation of the years leading up to World War I - "the war to end all wars". One of the main reasons for that war was the pride of the German kaiser. World War II came about because of the Nazi sense of superiority. Those two wars alone killed more people than all other wars in history combined. After that, Stalin brutally murdered millions because of personal pride. Mao slaughtered most intellectuals in his country because of a political movement. Millions were killed in Rwanda because of tribal pride. The list goes on.

In this case Steve, your need to 'challenge everything' is valid so long as it isn't done to the point of simple denial of evidence. Evolution is only a threat to those that literally believe in the bible, it doesn't say there is no god (or that aliens didn't put the germs of life here 1 billion years ago for that matter).

Odd though it sounds, I really don't feel threatened at all. Maybe I should, but I don't. The evidence we have remains so open to interpretation. I admit to becoming irritated that the 'establishment' accepts just one worldview right now and tries to ridicule all others. This is what papal authority did in the past, and it irks me. I do hope that I always remain teachable. For sure, I don't think it will be possible for me ever to lose my scientific mindset - much as my wife gets annoyed by my constant challenging of everything: "For once, can't you just shut up and be quiet?"

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm happy to discuss further this issue of randomness, because the only alternative to randomness is order of some sort. Even local order in a world of randomness, without some kind of directing force, remains randomness over aeons of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is randomness? Is there any such thing? The outcome of tossing a coin is thought to be random with two possibilities. But if I toss a coin with very little force and not too high in the air, I can determine the outcome in the same way as a chef tossing a pancake. If the facilities I possess for doing that were more advanced, I might be able to call higher coin tosses correctly every time, and randomness would seem to be undefined because I can plan for the outcome.

If I spin the coin high into the air, then the outcome will appear to be random. If I toss the coin five or ten times, the distribution of outcomes between heads and tails will probably still appear random. But if I toss the coin 100 times, the distribution will start to settle to around 50 heads and 50 tails.

Already we can see some order starting to emerge from what we initially thought to be random, and I can argue that order is not an alternative for randomness, but rather a result of randomness.

A collection of dice thrown randomly can closely approximate to even more complicated and beautiful patterns.

This is all very real, and I cannot understand why some people think that natural order has to be deliberately designed or created by some conscious thinking force similar to a human brain. Why can't it all just "happen" according to the laws of nature?

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

This must sound nuts to some people, but I remember vividly the first time I realised that I can tell immediately whether a coin was spun an even or an odd number of times. Before then, I'd thought of coin tosses as being random. As you point out, there are only two possible outcomes.

The trouble is, however, that statistical probabilities become almost close to impossible when we look at the implications of current scientific thinking. As we discussed before, the human eye is a complex arrangement of many components, each of which alone serves no purpose and would be discarded by the "laws of nature". The chances that the human eye, or the heart, or many other parts of our body, evolved over time due to the 'directing force' of "survival of the fittest" is beyond anyone's comprehension. It's stupendously small number. And that's just one part of a very very long chain of events.

Of course, the answer usually is that anything can happen over billions of years, which is a hand-waving cop-out. Another answer is that it must be possible because it happened, which is a circular argument.

Sorry to re-hash old arguments, Dave.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Why is it 'right' to allow the severely disabled to live and not die? It contradicts everything about "survival of the fittest".

I've asked this question many times during our discussions, and no one has yet chosen to answer - which is rather scary. Can someone please explain to me the logic behind why, as a society, we don't just terminate human life at birth when the infant is severely disabled or deformed? Why spend all that money and 'ruin' the lives of parents and others just to keep that person alive? Isn't it just a drain on society and contrary to the principle of "survival of the fittest"?

 

[cjd]

I've asked this question many times during our discussions, and no one has yet chosen to answer - which is rather scary. Can someone please explain to me the logic behind why, as a society, we don't just terminate human life at birth when the infant is severely disabled or deformed? Why spend all that money and 'ruin' the lives of parents and others just to keep that person alive? Isn't it just a drain on society and contrary to the principle of "survival of the fittest"?

You ask many difficult questions (which is great) and many of them have been answered; but never to your satisfaction. Your response to an answer to a specific question is an unevidenced rebuttal followed by a non related question.

This is a case in point. The development of the eye question has been answered; the question was originally a good one but it's been answered along with bacterial flagella and other creative spokes in wheel irreduceable complexity arguments. The fact is that your standard of proof goes beyond what is reasonable.

The only answer that WILL satisfy you is 'god did it'.

The answers to the 'why we don't kill deformed infants' might be because god told us not to but it seems the most unlikley of all possibilities. Particularly if the god we are talking about is the blood thirsty and sadistic one of the bible who wouldn't hesitate (and didn't) to exterminate a whole tribe of believers in a different god. These days we call it ethnic cleansing.

There are evolutionary answers to why we don't kill deformed babies now (which I take as a metaphor for 'why are we good not bad?' but I don't find them awfully convincing as they are really only speculation - they involve the development of group altruism, kinship and reciprocation if you wish to follow it up. But to my mind evolution should stick to the facts - which are, by the way, utterly convincing - of how species evolved. We are highly unlikley to find fossil evidence for morality.

But we don't need either Darwin OR God for an explanation of morals - for that we need to philosophy and there's stacks of it to puzzle over.

It has been shown that atheists have the same set of moral values as believers in god - and so far I have failed to murder or rape anyone. An atheist is no more likely to kill a deformed baby than a believer.

Morality changes over time; it is not absolute and we do, at the moment kill human babies that are likely to be severely handicapped. Once born though we don't kill babies; directly. But sometimes we let them starve to death by removing life support. Morality is quite flexible sometimes.

There are still cultures that DO kill deformed babies and I supect most cultures always have. How do we answer that? Is it really likley that god only gives that particular version of morality to some groups of humans and not others, and only recently?

The reason that modern western civilisations don't kill deformed babies once born is because we have progressed enough in our thinking to feel that it is the wrong thing to do. No more, no less.

However, I can foresee a better world, where we have the knowledge to know that a particular child is in terminal pain where nothing can be done and we find the moral courage to kill her - for her sake.

 

[Cornish Steve]

As always, your responses are so well reasoned - thank you. That doesn't stop me from responding to them with "an unevidenced rebuttal followed by a non related question" though.

The only answer that WILL satisfy you is 'god did it'.

Really, it's not the case. I'm sure that, if I'd have lived in the era of Newton, I would have changed my answer to why planets rotate around the sun to be from "god did it" to "gravity did it", but then I'd want to know why the gravitational constant is set at the precise value needed to support human life. That's part of the joy of an "I don't know" answer rather than unquestioning acceptance of a majority opinion - which I think we agree on.

There are evolutionary answers to why we don't kill deformed babies now (which I take as a metaphor for 'why are we good not bad?' but I don't find them awfully convincing as they are really only speculation.

Thanks for your honesty. I have no intention of criticising your answer as not being an adequate 'defence' of evolution because we're discussing world views and not 'fact' - as the media likes to claim. It's OK to live in the grey areas.

Morality changes over time

Funnily enough, I agree with this - at least the implementation of morality. That's because my faith is based on a person and not on any rigid set of rules - which is why I view the famous Ten Commandments as a description of a personality rather than as a system of law.

at the moment kill human babies that are likely to be severely handicapped.

This is a practice with which I fundamentally disagree. My wife point-blank refused to undergo the amniocentesis test that British medical authorities tried to enforce on us. It's unethical for doctors to say they won't treat you if your refuse the test or if test results imply something is wrong. There are many healthy people living today as a result of parents who understood that test results can be wrong. Anyway, even if the test results were right, we could be murdering the next Professor Hawking. Yet again, if the child was destined to be ugly, stupid, and cruel, its life is just as precious as yours or mine.

The reason that modern western civilisations don't kill deformed babies once born is because we have progressed enough in our thinking to feel that it is the wrong thing to do. No more, no less.

I'd say there is a little more: Our conscience tells us what's right and wrong. Sometimes we try to suppress it, but that inner voice just won't shut up.

However, I can foresee a better world, where we have the knowledge to know that a particular child is in terminal pain where nothing can be done and we find the moral courage to kill her - for her sake.

Government knows best? That's a slippery slope. What if the child wants to live?

 

[cjd]

As always, your responses are so well reasoned - thank you. That doesn't stop me from responding to them with "an unevidenced rebuttal followed by a non related question" though.

God help us.

......my faith is based on a person and not on any rigid set of rules - which is why I view the famous Ten Commandments as a description of a personality rather than as a system of law.

I would like you to explain what you mean by that. It might help me understand why you have trouble accepting what I see as simply self-evident fact.

My wife point-blank refused to undergo the amniocentesis test that British medical authorities tried to enforce on us. It's unethical for doctors to say they won't treat you if your refuse the test or if test results imply something is wrong.

And that is quite obviously right and I will stand by your shoulder with a machette in hand defending you and your wife's position. So what?

There are many healthy people living today as a result of parents who understood that test results can be wrong. Anyway, even if the test results were right, we could be murdering the next Professor Hawking. Yet again, if the child was destined to be ugly, stupid, and cruel, its life is just as precious as yours or mine.

That's the wrong argument and beneath you. We could equally be murdering the next Hilter or Bin Laden - if it's wrong it's wrong; the fact that a future celebrity might die is irrelevant - life is life.

I'd say there is a little more: Our conscience tells us what's right and wrong. Sometimes we try to suppress it, but that inner voice just won't shut up.

The inner voice, conscience, knowledge of right and wrong - it's all the same thing. Your implication that it's god telling us it's wrong is just, well, silly. Sorry :-(

Why do you feel that we can't design and live by our own moral code? Why do you feel that it's imposed by something external to humanity? To me that seems, well, silly. :|

 

[Cornish Steve]

I would like you to explain what you mean by that. It might help me understand why you have trouble accepting what I see as simply self-evident fact.

Sure, I'd be glad to. The imperative to "not steal" can be, and has been, interpreted in many ways. For some cultures, for example, personal property is sacrosanct. For others, government can purchase compulsorily whether we like it or not. For me, the command describes a person for whom stealing is wrong. In the context of this thread (i.e., knowing the mind of God), it tells me that God will not steal my soul, for example; it must be willingly given. Taken together, the Ten Commandments and other laws given to the Jews create a pointillist image of a person - a shadowy image that we can see only in part.

So, when Jesus said that he had come not to do away with the law but to fulfill it, that's tantamount to saying that the pointillist image had been transformed into a complete picture. The shadowy image was now a living and breathing human being. Not every Christian would agree with this, but to me it makes perfect sense. It changes entirely my perspective on what the law means. Instead of obeying every letter and living in fear of missing the mark, I can choose to share a person's values because I love that person and know that forgiveness is possible.

Does that help?

We could equally be murdering the next Hilter or Bin Laden - if it's wrong it's wrong; the fact that a future celebrity might die is irrelevant - life is life.

It's not irrelevant to the person whose life was cut short based on the opinion of others.

Why do you feel that we can't design and live by our own moral code? Why do you feel that it's imposed by something external to humanity? To me that seems, well, silly.

I'm sure it must seem silly if you believe that all faiths are based on fairy tales. Believing that your conscience is god-given would be like being good for the few days leading up to Christmas in an attempt to win favour with Santa Claus. However, the conscience is a funny thing. It often contradicts majority opinion and what might seem 'natural' in certain circumstances. In fact, it is sometimes a pain in the neck because it contradicts what, deep down, I want to do. It reveals a moral conflict in my day-to-day life that, in many ways, I wish was not there.

For me, the explanation is that the conscience is a moral compass instituted for our general good and a reminder that a moral creator is out there - but that's based on my world-view of things. It doesn't seem silly to me. In fact, it makes perfect sense and explains what otherwise I could not explain.

 

[SillyJokes]

Why don't we kill disabled babies?

I have a more simplistic answer of course. One answer is that in some places they are. In fact even healthy babies are disposed of because they are female because of cultural or government pressure.

The evolution answer, which I am confident you will refute goes something like this.

The size of the human brain means we are born before we can forage and walk. This requires that human parents care for the child more intensely than any other mammmal and for a longer time. This is supported by an enormous nuturing instinct which means that no matter how the child is when it is born the parents must care for it. Surely you also felt an astonishing surge of love for your newborn when they arrived which impelled you to protect and nuture him or her?

Unfortunately, while you state that caring for disabled babies goes against evolution this is not the case. It is part of the overwhelming urge to care for your offspring no matter what.

Surely you have been presented with a less than lovely baby which looked like it had been beaten within an inch of it's life with the ugly stick and thought, "That's got a face only a mother could love,"? I know I have.

PS. Refusing an amniocentisis is common practise. I also refused one. I refused a hospital birth too. But I had faith in my body doing the right thing. Which it did. However I did ensure I got good doses of folic acid to try and reduce my chances of other problems.

 

[cjd]

Does that help?

Not at all I'm afraid. I can find nothing in all that except confusion and pseudo-religious babble. [That sounds offensive, you'll have to take my word for it that it's not meant to]. It seems to me that you are trying to shoehorn your modern life into the 2000 year old Jesus story. What I get out of what you say you believe is:

1. It's wrong to steal. I agree
2. Killing babies is wrong. I agree.
3. That you should try to get on with other people. I agree.

You would be hard pushed to find a society on the planet that would disagree. Those beliefs are common across all religions and also those humanists you worry unecessarily about. Believers and non believers have the same moral compass you talk about suffering from and have the same moral dilemmas to deal with.

It's hard to not conclude that Jesus has precious little to do with it don't you think?

Even if you refute this, it is totally unnecessary to feel that evolution is incompatible with your Christian values. You appear to have to deny proven science for an obscure religious reason that I don't understand and I suspect that is part of your increasing anguish.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The trouble is, however, that statistical probabilities become almost close to impossible when we look at the implications of current establishment thinking. As we discussed before, the human eye is a complex arrangement of many components, each of which alone serves no purpose and would be discarded by the "laws of nature". The chances that the human eye, or the heart, or many other parts of our body, evolved over time due to the 'directing force' of "survival of the fittest" is beyond anyone's comprehension.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I could sit down tonight and write a program which would output some very beautiful patterns which would appear complicated to many people. They would think that these patterns could only be created by a clever designer with deep thought, passion, and sophisticated instruments. A pre-historic person might even put them down to a spirit God. But patterns such as these can appear out of what we call pure randomness! Since nature is much more powerful than I, why can't she use randomness within her own methods of implementing evolution?

But my coin-tossing demonstration was not meant to be an explanation of how such complex structures could have been developed over a certain period of time. I was merely trying to show that randomness and design are not necessarily seperate phenomena in nature, assuming of course, there is such a thing as randomness.

I agree with you that there are definitely forces at work other than those we already know about which are at work to produce the complexity that we observe. I would also agree that evolution is, currently at least, beyond our comprehension. But, unlike God, it is investigatable, although it may ultimately turn out to be unfathomable. The theory of evolution, or nature, does not insist that we accept it faithfully without question. There is no dispute that there is a "directing force". The debate is about whether the directing force is conscious and thinking like we are, or is a property of nature. I admit that evidence for the latter is sparse compared to what we need to convince everyone, but to me it is a hell of a lot more powerful than blindly accepting the writings in some dictatorial book and simply putting it all down to God.

Dave

 

Have any of you actually seen a miracle take place in front of your very eyes?
I have, many times. You say that we live by a 'blind faith' that we just go on the words of the bible and accept it as the way things are and because of 'the book' ...then God exists. This goes in the same mentality of reading a science book an accepting that what it says is the way things are without actually experiencing it in action.

I was a complete out and out atheist until 7 years ago, I believed what I was told about evolution and that God did not exist etc etc, all the text book beliefs I dutifully followed and became one the 'normal' people.

When I eventually 'challenged' that God existed, that is when I experienced the reality that God is real and is still in the business of changing peoples lives today just as he did thousands of years back in history.

All of my world taught views suddenly went belly up and I began to see everything differently. Now seven years later I have seen people healed of pain, cancer, infirmities in thier bodies, sickness in general, addictions, habits, depression and many other things. There is no way you can tell me that these things just 'happened' anyway. I'm talking instant results here, people being cured right in front of your eyes, people you have known and know their illnesses cured there and then.

I'm not talking about a religious experience here or some kind of wacko church that plants stooges in the audience tp convince people, I am talking real people, real lives changed by God.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Since nature is much more powerful than I, why can't she use ...

I would also agree that evolution is, currently at least, beyond our comprehension...

Dave, I think you completely hit the nail on the head. These two phrases probably sum up the problems I have with evolution - although you probably didn't mean them that way.

Evolution started out as a set of ideas to explain some of the indisputable facts around us. The ideas were radical, and it took a brave, clever, and honest man to make the case for them. As with all scientific ideas, they were tested, modified, tested again, challenged, and so on. The scientific method was being followed: model => hypothesis => theory ... So far, everything is OK.

But at some point, and I'm not sure when, evolution changed. It ceased to become something primarily scientific and took on a new life as a world view. The establishment (and I'm not quite sure what establishment even means in this context) saw a way of ruling out the need for a creator. Evolution became the atheist's dream, and suddenly evolution was expressed using different terms.

"Since nature is much more powerful than I". You're implying that nature itself is a powerful, directing influence - in other words, that God equals nature and that God is the universe. I'm not criticising that view at all, but the phrase implies a philosophy or a belief.

"Evolution is beyond our comprehension". See how the tables have turned? Instead of evolution being a useful tool to help our understanding, it has suddenly become a 'fact' that we do not comprehend. This is exactly what I mean when I say that it takes faith to believe in evolution as much as it takes faith to believe in intelligent design. Proponents of both have faith in something.

Let me take that one step further. The new order is as follows: Evolution is fact => Let's look for evidence to fathom out a little more of evolution. This is the very reverse of the scientific method - and in fact it's a flaw in modern science itself. This phenomenon was pointed out in the retirement speech of the then-president of the British Astronomical Society in 1952 (if I remember correctly). He worried that we'll start out with what we want to be so and then fit the data to 'prove' we're right. Compare this with the greatest scientists in history, for whom science was a great adventure with no presuppositions.

I hope this makes sense. It explains why I challenge mainstream evolution. I'm challenging the philosophical version more than the scientific version, and this is why I have no hesitation to claim that, in scientific terms, it remains a hypothesis. While it may explain a majority of evidence, it is contradicted by other facts. A 'theory' cannot be a theory until it explains facts and predicts in a reliable way. This challenge is dismissed, not so much on scientific grounds, but on philosophical grounds - and I refute that.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Hedgehog wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You say that we live by a 'blind faith' that we just go on the words of the bible and accept it as the way things are and because of 'the book' ...then God exists. This goes in the same mentality of reading a science book an accepting that what it says is the way things are without actually experiencing it in action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speak for youself. If you read a text book without questioning it or trying to improve it, that's your fault, not the author's. I've read a few of the Open University's text books now, and whilst the quality is very good, there is definitely room for improvement. The course teams accept this, and is the reason why the texts are revised occasionally to accommodate errata and suggestions for improvements picked up by students. Science is "open source".

I don't see any clergy-people daring to even suggest that the bible or koran is similarly amenable.

There have been a few remarks in this thread which imply that anyone who does not believe in God is narrow minded, passive, and ready to accept anything without question. This is ridiculous and quite insulting. Science is about investigation, and if this requires existing theories to be modified or dismantled to accommodate new theories and ideas which give better explanations, then a *proper* scientist will not be afraid to try this, and nor will he be afraid to have his own work scrutinised in the same way.

Proper science is all about honesty, truth and impartiality as far as these are possible within the constraints of our human and natural emotions.

And anyway, I doubt that there is any intelligent person on earth who denies that there is an intelligent force at work in the universe. The debate is about what form this force takes. Some believe it is a human-like intelligence, and others say that intelligence can be defined in a wider sense. For example, why does something have to have the properties of life as we know it on earth to be intelligent? Why can't the universe be thought of as a living being? Of course we would also have to expand our thinking to define life itself, which incidentally, even biologists do not profess to have done yet! So if we cannot yet define or pinpoint the properties of a living organism, how can we possibly define something like intelligence?

I think it is very arrogant to create gods in human form, and even more arrogant to create them with a dominant gender! The "being" that I believe in is nothing like a human, and I am big enough to admit that I know hardly anything about it. But, as I've already said, at least my God is investigatable and will allow anyone to change their opinions and theories about it. Indeed, it is totally indifferent to such thoughts, and will always offer us an interface, mathematics, to encourage us to get to know more about it.

Hedgehog wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believed what I was told about evolution and that God did not exist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sounds like you have been reading some very poor quality text books. I have not yet read one serious scientific author which would be arrogant or dogmatic enough to attempt to influence someone's beliefs as you suggest. But that is not to say he shouldn't be allowed to inform you about whether he is a believer if it is in some way relevant. As I've already suggested, there is no room, or at least very little room, for dogma in science. In this respect, religion is the opposite in going as far as possible to scare people into towing the line by implanting visions of eternal pain into children's minds. I find that downright wicked and evil.

Hedgehog wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have any of you actually seen a miracle take place in front of your very eyes?
I have, many times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't believe you. But I am not calling you a liar because I believe that you believe they were magic. That's up to you and if it comforts you then good for you and I hope it continues to make you happy. For more open minded people like me, it's just not sufficient. I want to have at least some idea of how things happen. Even if I cannot fully fathom them, I want to be confident that there could be a chance of getting to the bottom of natural mysteries, that is, we can understand things at least in theory.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

Not at all I'm afraid.

Sorry. I tried.

the 2000 year old Jesus story.

Because I don't believe that person is dead (which is a fundamental difference from other faiths), it's the modern-day Jesus story to me.

I hope we haven't strayed too far from the previous lines of thought.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The evolution answer, which I am confident you will refute goes something like this.

I won't refute it because you stated your case well.

 

When I refer to being told about evolution you only have to look at the textbooks that are full of the 'evolution' theroy on life and that the aythors are always confident that ' millions of years ago' blah blah blah'. This is what is being fed to the kids and it has absolutly no balance on it from the other side of the coin i.e. any talk of creationism is discarded and cast into the RE lessons.

You cannot prove the theory of evolution and you cannot prove the planet and life was created any other way. Man has tried and tried and tried. The Bible on the other hand has never been proven wrong. Not a bad track record huh!

Sorry if my views appear simplistic and not as 'educated' as your's and Steves but the Bible and Chistianity are not complicated issues they are simple to enable all people to know Jesus in a personal way. The more you focus on complicating the Bible, the further from Christianity you end up.

 

[Top Hat]

any talk of creationism is discarded and cast into the RE lessons.

That's because it is RE, it's not science.

 

[Rob Holmes]

Well I'm stuck.

I'm looking at both arguments (which I have to because I'm moderating <smile>) - I'd be REALLY grateful for a couple of answers ...

Evolution doesn't say how everything started (for me it goes as far back as big bang) - maybe cjd you can tell me what banged to make big bang and the origins of the thing that made big bang then work back detailing the origin of the origin of the origin etc etc - until we go right back to the beginning (or even tell me if this is possible and if so what the answer is - and if theres no answer then I'd like to know at what point you have to make an assumption and trust that assumption)

Same for creation...

Creation - I know the creation story that God made the world etc etc - but I'd like to know where God came from and who made God. (If you don't know, is this where faith comes in?)

Just a couple of minor questions in my tiny mind...

Rob

 

[cjd]

Hedgehog, I wish there was some way I miraculously get you to understand the difference between science and belief. It's really simple and it doesn't require you to compromise your beliefs in any way.

Try this.

I can say to you 'there is a table'. If you say to me 'prove it'. I can obviously do so. And what's more I can do it tomorrow and the day after and others can replicate my methods. (Which was hitting you over the head with one table leg at a time followed by laying you out unconscious on the top of it. That's science and it's obviously a lot of fun.

If you say to me 'there is a god' and I say to you 'prove it'. You can't - all you can do is get me to read a book or come to a church and listen to someone telling me there is a god 'trust me I talk to him'. Your hypothesis is untestable - it's a matter of faith whether I believe you.

That's why science needs to stay in the science class and creationism in RE. It really is that simple. I really have no idea why you think creationism is scientific, it doesn't fit sciences rules.

 

[Top Hat]

Evolution doesn't say how everything started (for me it goes as far back as big bang) - maybe cjd you can tell me what banged to make big bang and the origins of the thing that made big bang then work back detailing the origin of the origin of the origin etc etc - until we go right back to the beginning (or even tell me if this is possible and if so what the answer is - and if theres no answer then I'd like to know at what

Evolution explains life on earth, from the 1st simple replicator, it has nothing to say about the start of the universe or the how the 1st replicator came into being. In other words it explains the complex life around us from the most simple of beginnings, not how the universe started or how life started.

The start of life and the start of the universe do have theories (several), but they are on very much more shaky ground than evolution.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But at some point, and I'm not sure when, evolution changed. It ceased to become something primarily scientific and took on a new life as a world view. The establishment (and I'm not quite sure what establishment even means in this context) saw a way of ruling out the need for a creator. Evolution became the atheist's dream, and suddenly evolution was expressed using different terms.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any true scientist would never be so dogmatic as to assert that current theories on evolution are enough to explain how complex organisms arose. It should be obvious to anyone that more discovering needs to be done. For example, the different ways in which genetic mutations can occur are too few, and they cannot be relied upon to produce enough successes which will be selected for environmental adaptation. Furthermore, the successful mutations which do occur in real time owing to the "known" methods would be, as you suggested, too few to account for what we currently have.

Statistical analyses confirms this using WHAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW. I emphasise this because what we currently know does not equal what we can know in the future after more research and discovery. Nobody, including scientists, knows what is around the corner. But this does not mean that we should so greedy and arrogant as to attempt to satisfy ourselves right now by attributing everything to an uninvestigatable force such as God. How could anyone be so impatient and lazy? Surely nobody would deny that mechanisms such as natural selection contribute to our ongoing evolution and development as a species. Now that really would be silly.

For me, the current theories on evolution provide a far sounder foundation on which we can build than a "personality" which zaps down ten rules from the heavens. Incidentally, I find it strange that there is exactly ten. Why not eleven, a hundred and seventeen, or six? And why is this figure so inflexible as to prohibit anyone adding to this list or taking away from it?

Dave

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It ceased to become something primarily scientific and took on a new life as a world view. The establishment (and I'm not quite sure what establishment even means in this context) saw a way of ruling out the need for a creator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you know that approximately 60% of people will believe in, or advocate something just because they are informed of, or ordered to do something by someone in a white coat? It's true. The same sort of thing happens to television viewers who listen to people wearing shirts and ties. We are all guilty of conformity without just reason sometimes, no matter how much we like to think of ourselves as individuals. Conformity is actually beneficial to a species, but sometimes produces situations such as that you have described above. Just because you might at times feel as though you're sailing on a ship of fools, doesn't mean you cannot steady the ship.

I do see your point, but I think we should all try to think for ourselves.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Since nature is much more powerful than I". You're implying that nature itself is a powerful, directing influence - in other words, that God equals nature and that God is the universe. I'm not criticising that view at all, but the phrase implies a philosophy or a belief.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How can it be merely a "philosophy or a belief" when we can all see that the universe actually exists and does things? If I want to call it nature, God, smelly-dung-beetle or Rupert Rigsby that's up to me. My "belief" or "philosophy" lies in where it came from, and I don't believe it came from anywhere because I believe it was always there, just as you believe your human-like God was always there. Or maybe I don't believe anything for certain, maybe I'm just *accepting* that a certain amount of matter with a certain amount of energy was always there because we have nowhere near enough proof to be certain of anything so profound.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Evolution is beyond our comprehension". See how the tables have turned? Instead of evolution being a useful tool to help our understanding, it has suddenly become a 'fact' that we do not comprehend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not to me it hasn't. Sorry if I wasn't clear, what I should have said was that "Evolution is *currently* beyond our comprehension". And indeed, it might always be that way. But that doesn't mean to say we should stop investigating it. Oh I'm sick of saying this now, but even "established" theories are not 100% set in stone, and any *proper* scientists should invite everyone to try and improve on them.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is exactly what I mean when I say that it takes faith to believe in evolution as much as it takes faith to believe in intelligent design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I've already explained to hedge, even most biologists admit that they have not yet defined "life", and therefore our notion of "intelligence" is too specific to define it too. The debate should be about whether the "intelligence" is human-like (as you believe), or unconscious of itself (as I believe).

You are right to challenge current theories in evolution, and anywhere else you see fit. I think you are wrong to throw it out altogether just because some of its dogmatic exponents are misbehaving.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

I love these debates because of how genuinely open and honest everyone can be at these forums (which, I haven't forgotten, are business forums!). Initially, each of us digs in our heels and issues statements cast in cement of our own making. Then, instead of just throwing insults as might happen elsewhere, something else happens - I would venture to say because of the calibre of people here. We begin to accept what's known and what is not, what is 'negotiable' if you will, and what is not. Dave, your message was very well put and I appreciate your candour.

Did you know that approximately 60% of people will believe in, or advocate something just because they are informed of, or ordered to do something by someone in a white coat?

I agree wholeheartedly. In its worst form, this is why otherwise intelligent Germans were duped by the Nazi propaganda machine. We see someone with apparent credibility who espouses something we didn't know before, and suddenly that person's opinion is part of our body of opinion. It doesn't take much for us to become strong followers of a trend.

Mind you, there's a danger here of me sounding arrogant (what's new, you ask!). I remember years ago, someone on Question Time told Robin Day that the general population shouldn't believe the government about something. Robin Day asked if the questioner was gullible, and he replied "no". Then good Sir Robin asked if he was just smarter than everyone else, to which the questioner was dumb-founded. Yes, I can believe that 60% of people will accept an apparently credible opinion, but am I arrogant enough to say that I don't? Probably, in many areas of life, I am just as guilty. Maybe it depends upon our education: In what fields can we claim enough knowledge to be independent thinkers and in what other fields are we lazy and just go with the flow.

Oh I'm sick of saying this now, but even "established" theories are not 100% set in stone, and any *proper* scientists should invite everyone to try and improve on them.

Hear, hear! Please don't get sick of saying it because it's true. I'd go even further and say that *proper* scientists should invite everyone to challenge, break down, and even destroy current theory. We do that in other areas, but anyone who attempts that with evolution is made to look and feel like a religious nutcase. That's philosophy speaking, not science.

even most biologists admit that they have not yet defined "life", and therefore our notion of "intelligence" is too specific to define it too.

Thank you! The problem is that the media never says this, and those nice men in white coats who come to us via our TV sets all spout opinions as if they are facts. Anyone who disagrees must be crazy. That's not only dishonest but it's also dangerous - and it reveals just how powerful is the popular press and its operating philosophy.

I don't claim anything more than what you claim. I can believe in a creator, and others can believe that things just happened. Both are acts of faith. Science picks up where we have some evidence to work with.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I know the creation story that God made the world etc etc - but I'd like to know where God came from and who made God. (If you don't know, is this where faith comes in?)

We've covered the issue of credibility in a previous thread. Faith shouldn't be blind; it should be based on something credible. When I read an ancient book that contains prophecies that have come true without exception, sometimes to the very calendar date, I take it seriously. When that same ancient book makes statements about the origin of life, since I can find no more credible source, I'm tempted to believe it. So yes, it is faith, but it's not blind faith.

 

[Cornish Steve]

The start of life and the start of the universe do have theories (several), but they are on very much more shaky ground than evolution.

But you wouldn't believe it reading current school textbooks, listening to science documentaries, reading popular journals and newspapers, or by observing the rabid opposition to those who believe something other than the 'establishment' view.

I agree with your earlier statement that children should not be subjected to dogmatic opinion from overly religious bigots. Neither, though, should children be subjected to lies and implications and pressure to conform to popular opinion. Our children should be encouraged to learn, to question, to challenge, and hence to grow. This is why we took our children out of government schools and pay a lot of money for them to learn in a more balanced way. It's a huge sacrifice, but they'll (hopefully) become more independent in their thinking.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Rob wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution doesn't say how everything started (for me it goes as far back as big bang) - maybe cjd you can tell me what banged to make big bang and the origins of the thing that made big bang then work back detailing the origin of the origin of the origin etc etc - until we go right back to the beginning (or even tell me if this is possible and if so what the answer is - and if theres no answer then I'd like to know at what point you have to make an assumption and trust that assumption)

Same for creation...

Creation - I know the creation story that God made the world etc etc - but I'd like to know where God came from and who made God. (If you don't know, is this where faith comes in?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is exactly what debates like this should be based upon. As far as I can see, there are two options:

1.
If you believe that God created the earth and all the creatures, then it follows that he must have created the whole lot. That is, they assume that everything was created by a human-like force (which incidentally, is male!). All those niggling little mysteries about the universe have been solved for you, and there is no need to give it any more thought. Just get on with your life and don't worry about the details.

2.
If you do not (or, like me, cannot) believe this, then you are stuck with a paradox.which a human brain is simply incapable of resolving. You could somehow try to accept that everything has always been, and that it will continue to always be, and that there was no beginning of time and there will be no end of time. You could try to accept, no matter how impossible or incomprehensible they may seem, concepts such as infinity and nothingness. Accepting the concept of nothingness will make death easier to deal with, and will also help you to accept that there is an infinite amount of nothing if the matter in the universe happens to be finite.

I find option 2 more amenable to satisfying my natural curiosity about things. At the same time I can accept that no human now or in the future will ever know answers to certain questions because they are just simply unknowable. All we can do is continue to discover without full satisfaction.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

they assume that everything was created by a human-like force

I disagree. There are things we can never understand because we are 'mere' humans. Sometimes we have to think in ways that we can relate to. Just because my creator appeared for a while in human form does not make that creator human - although that act does throw me a bit of a lifeline when it comes to understanding. Humans are part of the creation, not part of the creator, although I do believe we retain some of the traits of the creator - conscience being an example. Artists, for example, can't help but include part of themselves in their handiwork.

 

[Cornish Steve]

At the same time I can accept that no human now or in the future will ever know answers to certain questions because they are just simply unknowable.

I'd be in the very same situation if I didn't believe that some things were 'revealed'. Did you see that movie with Jodie Foster in which 'aliens' communicated with earth using the sequence of prime numbers? It revealed intelligence. Prophecy, always fulfilled and always accurate to the letter, does the same for me. It reveals an intelligence that is greater than humankind - because we just can't do that. We're bound by time.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Sorry if my views appear simplistic and not as 'educated' as your's and Steves but the Bible and Chistianity are not complicated issues they are simple to enable all people to know Jesus in a personal way. The more you focus on complicating the Bible, the further from Christianity you end up.

It's because you don't get caught up in speculative banter that you come at this so honestly. While I tend to dream about the theory, you're relating to the practical. What happens in practice is actually more of a bedrock than the theories we arrive at - just like hard data is the bedrock upon which scientific theories should be based.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you see that movie with Jodie Foster in which 'aliens' communicated with earth using the sequence of prime numbers? It revealed intelligence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mathematics is the interface which the universe (my God) provides us with so we can investigate it. Not that I'm saying it did this deliberately or consciously or anything, just as I don't believe it has any sort of human-like imagination with which it could have foresaw an animal such as us to use mathematics. Perhaps this is one possible way we can reconcile our differing opinions. The universe (my God) is actually self-conscious because we are part of the universe. (That's been said before I think, but I can't remember where). Maybe the universe is slightly human-like, or animal-like, or plant-like, or virus-like, after all.

Like evolution theory, mathematics is another area where our knowledge is still quite primitive. Just because we have wonderful, beautiful things like calculus, geometry, algebra, etc. doesn't mean to say that more inventions and discoveries are not on the cards. Indeed, some old mathematics from ancient times has recently been revived and is now being developed within the ongoing computing revolution. For example, object oriented programming is based on Plato's Forms, and is very "logical" in nature. This is in turn has been combined with the more fundamental computing mathematics invented/discovered by an English mathematician from centuries ago called George Boole.

It is the same for evolution theory. Just because some nit-wits dogmatise about it, this should not drive us away from it to seek solace in something that is impossible to investigate and modify.

Dave

 

[Rob Holmes]

Mathematics is the interface which the universe (my God) provides us with so we can investigate it.

Hmm - I can see some middle ground breaking here.

Maybe Steve can provide the examples of prophecy and Dave can work out the odds of it happening as it says it should

Rob

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Rob wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave can work out the odds of it happening as it says it should
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Statistics. It's a bit like the ugly girl at school <puts two fingers in mouth as though to vomit> who later grows into a beautiful woman <cannot pluck up the courage to chat her up>! That is, all the while, people are telling you that statistics is ugly (there are lies, damned lies and statistics) when in fact she is quite beautiful (let's model a stock exchange or an economy).

Alas my statistics is too elementary for such a task, but I might be able to stretch it to a decent webstats program or something!

Dave
(A statistical coward! Gimme some yummy calculus and I'll be your slave!)

 

[Mortime Business Software]

One Sunday, not long after I had first undergone the sacrament of Holy Communion, my friend and I took my little brother to church. My friend and I were about 8 years of age at the time, and my little brother was 5. We never liked going to church because it was so painfully boring, but we had to go because we were scared of being severely caned at school on the following Monday.

After enduring the first half hour of prayers and worshiping, we accepted a welcome break and skipped up to the alter to receive the body of Christ. (Of course our filthy little souls had been duly cleansed the evening before by confessing all our horrid little sins to a priest). I took my little brother with me to the alter so I could keep an eye on him. I told him to kneel down beside me and shut up and be quiet for a while. The priest came down the line and stuck a piece of bread on my tongue, and I bowed my head as if to say a prayer.

The next thing I see is my little brother standing up and crying because the priest is trying to force him to open his mouth so he can stick some bread on his tongue. Well me and my mate just couldn't help it. We just started pissing ourselves laughing. Everyone in the church was very quiet and all you could hear was me and my mate laughing uncontrollably. At the same time my little brother was stamping his feet and screaming with tears rolling down his face! This made us laugh even more. Then, my mate laughed so hard that he accidentally did this great big loud fart which must have lasted about 10 seconds and echoed around the church really loudly. Well we looked at each other and just fell on the floor laughing even more until we cried! Sorry, but we just could not control ourselves.

What a great day we had that Sunday, but on Monday we didn't half pay for it I can tell you. We each received the maximum number of cane strokes accross our bare arses. The wicked, evil, child-abusing basta*ds.

Dave

 

[SillyJokes]

I remember having to confess. I had to make stuff up.

I never got the hang of church though. I, too, found it dull and it annoyed me that I had to read out words from a book and couldn't make up my own, like I was being told what to think and say.

When I was eight I was relieved I didn't have to go to communion classes anymore. My mum had had a heart attack. Luckily she survived that time. I never did take first communion.

I suppose religion just isn't for every body.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Dave, I would have been laughing too. What you're describing are rituals that many would say are empty. I do believe in communion, but not in such a boring and stuffy way. It's meant to be a meal among friends. Also, I don't agree with confession in church, or priests, or purgatory, or the other inventions that authorities have added over time. If that's the image of a Christian, no wonder everyone recoils in horror. What a phenomenal bore!

I remember a friend of mine falling asleep during a sermon and waking up with a loud start. We all started laughing too. On another occasion, someone started snoring loudly, again a source of amusement. I also remember attending a meeting in Devon in which a man was constantly crying in pain. I remember how no one attended to him, so the message that night was empty for me. At the first opportunity, I went to help the poor man. If a faith cannot accommodate real life, it's worth nothing.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I suppose religion just isn't for every body.

Religion, for sure, especially that type. Faith is another matter.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

SillyJokes wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember having to confess. I had to make stuff up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Typical goody-goody little two-shoes littly girly thing!

I had to keep a note book on me at all times so I could jot down the sins as I deliberately committed them. Then on Saturday evening I could read them off to the priest from behind the screen and thus ensure that my dirty little soul was fully cleansed!

Dave