Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

studiorat

TravelJunkie wrote: »

What, according to you all christians should sit in a shack with no electricity, heating, tv, etc etc? A bit harsh.

There's always Lough Derg if they do fancy a bit of that.

CDfm

Ya say that like ya want to try it. That kind of talk is for the Ladies Lou:Dnge

20goto10

The church of England are now frantically working on a way of making their religion fit with evolution. This is always the way whenever science discovers something new. Why its all happening now is because thanks to Dawkins its very much the topic of debate at the moment. They'll simply change their already extremely loose interpretation of the bible to make it work.

I saw Darwin (Edit: I meant Dawkins ) interview the archbishop of Canterbury. He said that evolution is real but that god started it all off. The big man with the beard who pushed the first dominio.

Anyone who understands evolution knows they are not compatible. In an intelligent free thinking world evolution and its subsequent proof with DNA would herald the end of religion.

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If Darwin didn't seriously challenge the prevailing Christian orthodoxy, then that sure as hell was alot of commotion over nothing.

.... usually by atheists who want to impress or shock the rest of us.

Its a fairly non debate except in atheist and creationist circles which are not really mainstream Christian and not in the established churches

I often wonder why the atheists make such a fuss over Darwin thinking of asking PDN to enlighten me.

Tim Robbins

20goto10 wrote: »

The church of England are now frantically working on a way of making their religion fit with evolution. This is always the way whenever science discovers something new. Why its all happening now is because thanks to Dawkins its very much the topic of debate at the moment. They'll simply change their already extremely loose interpretation of the bible to make it work.

I saw Darwin interview the archbishop of Canterbury. He said that evolution is real but that god started it all off. The big man with the beard who pushed the first dominio.

Anyone who understands evolution knows they are not compatible. In an intelligent free thinking world evolution and its subsequent proof with DNA would herald the end of religion.

Christianity has two choices:
1. Revise the theology to make it fit the Science.
2. Or claim there's no contradiction and adopt a cocooned, fundamentalist approach.

The Anglicans are going for 1, because it is the only for them to maintain intellectual integrity. I sincerely applaud them for that. They are perhaps now the most liberal Christian church, A bit ironic considering their origins.

CDfm

20goto10 wrote: »

The church of England are now frantically working on a way of making their religion fit with evolution. This is always the way whenever science discovers something new. Why its all happening now is because thanks to Dawkins its very much the topic of debate at the moment. They'll simply change their already extremely loose interpretation of the bible to make it work.

I saw Darwin interview the archbishop of Canterbury. He said that evolution is real but that god started it all off. The big man with the beard who pushed the first dominio.

Anyone who understands evolution knows they are not compatible. In an intelligent free thinking world evolution and its subsequent proof with DNA would herald the end of religion.

I am not Anglican but .......

Study your theology - what he is doing is restating a belief that has been current within the mainstream churchs almost since the begining 2000 years back. Thats Judeo-Christian churches.

The established mainstream churches have always adopted a plato-ist reading of scripture not a literalist reading.

When church leaders make statements on matters of faith they restate beliefs and are talking to believers its not really engaging in a debate.

Its the atheist community that have the hang up not the other way round.

robindch

20goto10 wrote: »

I saw Darwin interview the archbishop of Canterbury.

Gosh, that's one I'd like to see! Is it up on youtube?

PDN

20goto10 wrote: »

The church of England are now frantically working on a way of making their religion fit with evolution. This is always the way whenever science discovers something new. Why its all happening now is because thanks to Dawkins its very much the topic of debate at the moment. They'll simply change their already extremely loose interpretation of the bible to make it work.

I saw Darwin interview the archbishop of Canterbury. He said that evolution is real but that god started it all off. The big man with the beard who pushed the first dominio.

Anyone who understands evolution knows they are not compatible. In an intelligent free thinking world evolution and its subsequent proof with DNA would herald the end of religion.

Your last sentence is absolute balderdash. There are plenty of prominent scientists who understand evolution very well indeed and see it as perfectly compatible with the idea of God as Creator. In an intelligent free thinking world people would not make the kind of ignorant, ideologically-inspired statements that you have just made.

As for the C of E making their religion 'fit with' new evidence, that's no different from what any intelligent person does. When any of us learn anything new we assess the new information as to whether it is consistent with our worldview and existing beliefs. This is what scientists did when Einstein began suggesting new theories. They asked themselves, "How does this stuff fit in with our existing understanding of the universe based on our previous observation of physical phenomena?" When they realised that some of Einstein's stuff was not consistent with the Newtonian model they then had to make a decision. Was the evidence for the Newtonian model strong enough to reject Einstein? Or was the evidence for Einstein strong enough to cause them to admit that the Newtonian model included a misinterpretation of some data?

If Christians rigidly reject new information and evidence then atheists attack them for being "anti-science". If Christians are prepared to reevaluate their understanding in the light of new information and evidence then we get criticised for that also. I think that is evidence of hypocrisy on the part of those who just want to criticise religion no matter what.

BTW, your hero-worship of Richard Dawkins blinds you to facts - a common mistake by people who hold to a dogmatic faith-based position. The current apology has nothing to do with Dawkins, the real reason 'why it's all happening now' is because it is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. The C of E actually apologised to Darwin in 1882 in the most dramatic way possible by allowing him to be buried in Westminster Abbey.

Goduznt Xzst

CDfm wrote: »

He reaches his audience thru his( scientific)reputation and his controversial populist stance. Hitler did the same in his book.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why bring Hitler into this? Seriously? The instant you start flourishing the fascist card you turn any debate into a brawl.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sure you're not a troll?

Godwin's Law tbh. Reductio ad Hitlerum is probably one of the worst forms of argument. It is generally held that the moment a person brings up Nazis or Hitler in an argument out of context that they have instantly lost that argument.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

If Christians rigidly reject new information and evidence then atheists attack them for being "anti-science". If Christians are prepared to reevaluate their understanding in the light of new information and evidence then we get criticised for that also.

Not always.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The Anglicans are going for 1, because it is the only for them to maintain intellectual integrity. I sincerely applaud them for that.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If Christians rigidly reject new information and evidence then atheists attack them for being "anti-science".

I think it's far more common to refer to such religious believers as irrational or just plain silly, rather than being specifically "anti-science".

PDN wrote: »

If Christians are prepared to reevaluate their understanding in the light of new information and evidence then we get criticised for that also. I think that is evidence of hypocrisy on the part of those who just want to criticise religion no matter what.

Not at all. All that we're doing is pointing out that each religion's claim to be the One Eternal Truth must be viewed with suspicion when that Truth changes over time.

That's not hypocrisy, but plain common-sense.

20goto10

robindch wrote: »

Gosh, that's one I'd like to see! Is it up on youtube?

No it was in his latest documentary and he was very easy on him. He had him backed into a corner with just one or two questions but didn't pursue the point. He seemed to be showing him respect, which I found a bit hypocritical but you never know he may have been warned before hand. It was very short too.

PDN

20goto10 wrote: »

No it was in his latest documentary and he was very easy on him. He had him backed into a corner with just one or two questions but didn't pursue the point. He seemed to be showing him respect, which I found a bit hypocritical but you never know he may have been warned before hand. It was very short too.

I would be backed into a corner if a 130-year-old corpse was interviewing me.

20goto10

PDN wrote: »

Your last sentence is absolute balderdash. There are plenty of prominent scientists who understand evolution very well indeed and see it as perfectly compatible with the idea of God as Creator. In an intelligent free thinking world people would not make the kind of ignorant, ideologically-inspired statements that you have just made.

As for the C of E making their religion 'fit with' new evidence, that's no different from what any intelligent person does. When any of us learn anything new we assess the new information as to whether it is consistent with our worldview and existing beliefs. This is what scientists did when Einstein began suggesting new theories. They asked themselves, "How does this stuff fit in with our existing understanding of the universe based on our previous observation of physical phenomena?" When they realised that some of Einstein's stuff was not consistent with the Newtonian model they then had to make a decision. Was the evidence for the Newtonian model strong enough to reject Einstein? Or was the evidence for Einstein strong enough to cause them to admit that the Newtonian model included a misinterpretation of some data?

If Christians rigidly reject new information and evidence then atheists attack them for being "anti-science". If Christians are prepared to reevaluate their understanding in the light of new information and evidence then we get criticised for that also. I think that is evidence of hypocrisy on the part of those who just want to criticise religion no matter what.

BTW, your hero-worship of Richard Dawkins blinds you to facts - a common mistake by people who hold to a dogmatic faith-based position. The current apology has nothing to do with Dawkins, the real reason 'why it's all happening now' is because it is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. The C of E actually apologised to Darwin in 1882 in the most dramatic way possible by allowing him to be buried in Westminster Abbey.

Yes and christians have had to change their beliefs so much over the centuries that it really has made a mockery of the bible(s).

What I'm saying is the is unlikely to have been an apology if it were not a hot topic of debate today. But ok I'll give them a little credit and retract that.

20goto10

PDN wrote: »

I would be backed into a corner if a 130-year-old corpse was interviewing me.

Even with your faith? I thought people coming back from the dead was a regular occurnace?

Fanny Cradock

20goto10 wrote: »

Yes and christians have had to change their beliefs so much over the centuries that it really has made a mockery of the bible(s).

Probably only to someone who would have been of a mind to mock the bible in the first place. Yours is a sweeping statement that really only states your personal opinion.

sdep

PDN wrote: »

As for the C of E making their religion 'fit with' new evidence, that's no different from what any intelligent person does. When any of us learn anything new we assess the new information as to whether it is consistent with our worldview and existing beliefs.

Quite right - it's the only sensible thing to do.

PDN wrote: »

If Christians rigidly reject new information and evidence then atheists attack them for being "anti-science". If Christians are prepared to reevaluate their understanding in the light of new information and evidence then we get criticised for that also.

Scientists are right to criticise when anyone wants to impose a doctrinal position in defiance of evidence. That's why they oppose faith-based teaching in school science classes. However, I don't generally find that they criticise when religions do accept sound new scientific evidence. As for atheists, well, you don't expect them all to be cheering to the rafters.

PDN wrote: »

The current apology has nothing to do with Dawkins, the real reason 'why it's all happening now' is because it is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. The C of E actually apologised to Darwin in 1882 in the most dramatic way possible by allowing him to be buried in Westminster Abbey.

The anniversaries - 200th of Darwin's birth, 150th of the Origin of Species - are one factor. I think the increase in more literalist strains of Christianity (and Islam) in the UK is another. We've seen Rowan Williams expressing his concern about this before, as here:

Originally posted by The Guardian, 2006
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.

Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," he said.

20goto10

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably only to someone who would have been of a mind to mock the bible in the first place. Yours is a sweeping statement that really only states your personal opinion.

Well no because the fact that the vast majority of the bible has gone from being hard "fact" to now centuries later being largely taken in a non literally meaning shows that Christians too quitely see the ridiculousness of it. If you were to have a debate wiith a Christian of 200 years ago you would probably be charged with blasphemy. In fact if I just talk to my gandparents generation the differences between that generation and christians of today really sheds light on how the goal posts are constantly changed to fit the needs of the churches arguments.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Godwin's Law tbh. Reductio ad Hitlerum is probably one of the worst forms of argument. It is generally held that the moment a person brings up Nazis or Hitler in an argument out of context that they have instantly lost that argument.

Boredom brings Hitler in -when Im being just plain silly I use Jane Goody.

The level of arguments from "scientists" normally concentrates on creationism/fundamentalist movement who adopt a literal reading of the bible that is completely out of line with the mainstream churches and the platoist(based on Plato greek dude) reading that has been used in Judeo-Christian theology for 2000 years.

So the science bunch keep asking about fundamentalism and ask mainstream believers to defend someone elses beliefs. Its like asking a rugby referee about soccer -its a different game.

A lot of Darwins beef was whether or not his findings would be laughed at by the scientific communityand why are you not attacking the colleges and current professors in those colleges. You dont as you would look stupid.

Imagine how the Archbishop of Canterbury felt and how nice he is addressing the issue very careful not to upset anyone. He was probably thinking Dawkins is a ###### (insert as appropriate) but didnt say it.If it was me Id have said ask the fundamentalists about it - different church different belief -nothing to do with me- but he was too polite.

I imagine Dawkins supporters are running around congratulating themselves on a great victory when all the got was a restatement of mainstream beliefs that have been held for almost 2000 years. Its a big leap of faith and some surprise to them that the ahem golden boy of their movement doesnt take time to point out this difference as the Archbishop of Canterbury does.

Pope Benedict would have given a cheery wave ,given a sarcastic look to heaven and moved on.

20goto10

CDfm wrote: »

The level of arguments from "scientists" normally concentrates on creationism/fundamentalist movement who adopt a literal reading of the bible that is completely out of line with the mainstream churches and the platoist(based on Plato greek dude) reading that has been used in Judeo-Christian theology for 2000 years.

Yes well now you can say that because nobody here remembers when it was taken literally. What you call a fundamentalist is someone who believes what everyone believed in 200 years ago. So you're saying everyone in the past was a fundamentalist, like you're somehow a better Christian now than them because you've had a couple of hundred years of moving the goal posts to make you look less stupid. Give it another 100 years and Christians will be looking back at what you believe in and will joke about it or call you a fundamentalist nut. Give it enough time and it will all be about tradition....kids won;t just be told Santy isn't real, they'll also be told Jesus is just a story too. When you think about it you can actually see the demise of Christianity over the centuries. There really is not much left to grasp on to.

CDfm wrote: »

A lot of Darwins beef was whether or not his findings would be laughed at by the scientific communityand why are you not attacking the colleges and current professors in those colleges. You dont as you would look stupid.

Speaking for myself I would if I ever met one. Dawkins certainly does all the time, in fact he mostly focuses on them as they are the most dangerous type.

CDfm wrote: »

Imagine how the Archbishop of Canterbury felt and how nice he is addressing the issue very careful not to upset anyone. He was probably thinking Dawkins is a ###### (insert as appropriate) but didnt say it.

he's hardly going to be shouting and dancing about it seeing as he's admitting it was all wrong and needs to be remade-up.

CDfm

20goto10 wrote: »

Yes well now you can say that because nobody here remembers when it was taken literally. What you call a fundamentalist is someone who believes what everyone believed in 200 years ago. So you're saying everyone in the past was a fundamentalist, like you're somehow a better Christian now than them because you've had a couple of hundred years of moving the goal posts to make you look less stupid. Give it another 100 years and Christians will be looking back at what you believe in and will joke about it or call you a fundamentalist nut. Give it enough time and it will all be about tradition....kids won;t just be told Santy isn't real, they'll also be told Jesus is just a story too. When you think about it you can actually see the demise of Christianity over the centuries. There really is not much left to grasp on to.


.

I am not saying anything new from the begining the Church has adopted a Platoist view over 2000 not 200 years.

Look it up. You may surprise yourself.

My take on it is that Dawkins is a populist and attacks the C of E cos they are too nice.

While the Archbishop might turn the other cheek I on the other hand have a different view- Dawkins like Onan is casting his seed on infertile ground.:rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Boredom brings Hitler in -when Im being just plain silly I use Jane Goody.

The level of arguments from "scientists" normally concentrates on creationism/fundamentalist movement who adopt a literal reading of the bible that is completely out of line with the mainstream churches and the platoist(based on Plato greek dude) reading that has been used in Judeo-Christian theology for 2000 years.

So the science bunch keep asking about fundamentalism and ask mainstream believers to defend someone elses beliefs. Its like asking a rugby referee about soccer -its a different game.

A lot of Darwins beef was whether or not his findings would be laughed at by the scientific communityand why are you not attacking the colleges and current professors in those colleges. You dont as you would look stupid.

Imagine how the Archbishop of Canterbury felt and how nice he is addressing the issue very careful not to upset anyone. He was probably thinking Dawkins is a ###### (insert as appropriate) but didnt say it.If it was me Id have said ask the fundamentalists about it - different church different belief -nothing to do with me- but he was too polite.

I imagine Dawkins supporters are running around congratulating themselves on a great victory when all the got was a restatement of mainstream beliefs that have been held for almost 2000 years. Its a big leap of faith and some surprise to them that the ahem golden boy of their movement doesnt take time to point out this difference as the Archbishop of Canterbury does.

Pope Benedict would have given a cheery wave ,given a sarcastic look to heaven and moved on.

But it is something to do with you. The fundamentalists have taken the basis of your beliefs, something which for 2000 years has been known to be largely allegorical (according to yourself) and used them as literal interpretations to brain wash the gullible and attempt to retard the advancement of human knowledge for their own gain, all in your name (ie as christians). Why aren't Church leaders more strongly opposed to these fundamentalists who bastardise their beloved doctrine for immoral gain? Why is it up to the scientists to stop the spread of ignorance from these people? Why don't you clean up house?

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But it is something to do with you. The fundamentalists have taken the basis of your beliefs, something which for 2000 years has been known to be largely allegorical (according to yourself) and used them as literal interpretations to brain wash the gullible and attempt to retard the advancement of human knowledge for their own gain, all in your name (ie as christians). Why aren't Church leaders more strongly opposed to these fundamentalists who bastardise their beloved doctrine for immoral gain? Why is it up to the scientists to stop the spread of ignorance from these people? Why don't you clean up house?

Nothing to do with me- I wouldnt talk to buddhists about Confucius. I know I post a lot of good stuff but Im not a church leader.I just pointed out that your reading of mainstream theology was mistaken.

Its a good point as to why the churches dont tackle fundamentalists and its probably because ecunimical matters are tricky and tackling them can alienate them and we are far removed from inquisitions and burnings etc. The issue is that man has free choice and if its not interfering with me I can leave well enough alone.

Of course, why dont the likes of Dawkins attack the fundamentalists etc and I suspect it is because they wont buy his books anyway and would just tell him to p*** off. He goes for the soft target. Im with the fundamentalists on how I would treat him.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

My take on it is that Dawkins is a populist

It's difficult to be a Professor of the Public understanding of Science without dealing with the public.

I'd say that he's doing his job rather well -- a few top-selling books and some well-made documentary series. Hard to argue that he's not out there doing what he's paid to do.

CDfm wrote: »

why dont the likes of Dawkins attack the fundamentalists

hmm... looks like you've not cracked the spines of any of his books on religion then. Pity, if you've enjoyed Nietzsche's warblings then you might enjoy Dawkins' too.

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

Im with the fundamentalists on how I would treat him.

And how is that, exactly?

MrP

Galvasean

20goto10 wrote: »

Even with your faith? I thought people coming back from the dead was a regular occurnace?

Twice in 2,000 years aint what I'd call regular.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Nothing to do with me- I wouldnt talk to buddhists about Confucius. I know I post a lot of good stuff but Im not a church leader.I just pointed out that your reading of mainstream theology was mistaken.

What reading of mainstream theology is that?

CDfm wrote: »

Its a good point as to why the churches dont tackle fundamentalists and its probably because ecunimical matters are tricky and tackling them can alienate them and we are far removed from inquisitions and burnings etc.

These people have already alienated themselves by their incredibly inept (if your 2000 years of knowing the bible was allegory is to be believed) interpretation of the bible.

CDfm wrote: »

The issue is that man has free choice and if its not interfering with me I can leave well enough alone.

People trying to prevent the advancement of human endeavor affects everyone, even you. Freedom of choice is not freedom of action, you can choose what you want to do, doesn't mean you actually get to do it.

CDfm wrote: »

Of course, why dont the likes of Dawkins attack the fundamentalists etc and I suspect it is because they wont buy his books anyway and would just tell him to p*** off. He goes for the soft target. Im with the fundamentalists on how I would treat him.

Have you even seen one of his books? If you want people who attack the fundamentalists try these youtube videos:
Thunderf00ts "Why do people laugh at Creationists?" Series,
AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" Series,
PotHoler54s "Creationist Junk Debunked" series
amongst others.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What reading of mainstream theology is that?


These people have already alienated themselves by their incredibly inept (if your 2000 years of knowing the bible was allegory is to be believed) interpretation of the bible.


People trying to prevent the advancement of human endeavor affects everyone, even you. Freedom of choice is not freedom of action, you can choose what you want to do, doesn't mean you actually get to do it.


Have you even seen one of his books? If you want people who attack the fundamentalists try these youtube videos:
Thunderf00ts "Why do people laugh at Creationists?" Series,
AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" Series,
PotHoler54s "Creationist Junk Debunked" series
amongst others.

Jaysus Mark read back on my posts and you might get what Im talking about.

You are just Cherrypicking.

Very Dawkinesque - meaning to feign ignorance or change the subject when an argument doesnt go your way. Also a mild form of Tourettes causing the patient to utter Creationist whenever they cant understand something and feel stressed.:D

Galvasean

So.. you're saying 6 day Creationists would not be considered fundamentalists?

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Jaysus Mark read back on my posts and you might get what Im talking about.

I came into this thread questioning something you wrote in post 140, so how can you claim to know my mainstream view of religion is wrong when I haven't actually given it?

CDfm wrote: »

You are just Cherrypicking.

Cherrypicking what? First I point out that dealing with Creationists is the responsibility of the Christian majority (because of what they do to your beliefs - Post 143) as well as scientists. Then YOU try to change the subject to how Dawkins and his ilk avoid attacking the fundamentalists and only go for the soft targets (Post- 144), so I give you dozens of free youtube videos of other scientists attacking the fundamentalists (Post- 148), which YOU have completely ignored because it shows you are full of nonsense. That makes you the cherrypicker.

CDfm wrote: »

Very Dawkinesque - meaning to feign ignorance or change the subject when an argument doesnt go your way. Also a mild form of Tourettes causing the patient to utter Creationist whenever they cant understand something and feel stressed.:D

Feign ignorance? Change the subject? Where have I done this?
Hmmm, barely veiled insults against my intelligence and baseless claims of avoiding your points, how very creationist of you.