Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

Back to school for me . Thanks, I was not aware of the concept of spiritual likeness in TE, I was under the impression that it was as much physical as spiritual. That does distance it from Intelligent Design conceptually.

There may be some sub-divisions that believe in 'either/ or'. But in my experience, it is usually thought of in a spiritual sense. So, for instance, TE subscribes to the theory that humans evolved from a fairly small population (in and around 20,000 individuals) and Adam and Eve are considered to be either two individuals, or are representative of a larger population, that had some sort of spiritual epiphany. Time is not a factor in this epiphany.

In this regard, I'm always reminded of the scene from 2001: A space Odyssey when the ape releases that he can use a bone as a weapon and promptly starts beating the tar out of another ape. Though, to my mind, the spiritual awakening was somewhat less bloody.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Here's Sam Harris on Sarah Palin:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080

This made me laugh:

the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I believe it is common among people of your beliefs not to argue with creationists but to bring the argument to other christians who dont hold a creationist belief themselves. Is that true and if so can you explain the reasoning behind it.

Why would you assume we do that? It's rare to see scientists on the offensive with regard to evolution. Try to understand, in the modern context this is not a debate that is generally initiated by scientists at all. Typically it is initiated either by someone with uncertain beliefs with genuine questions or by creationists on the offensive. The attack is being lead by creationists upon modern science. Take a look at the proportion of writing published by scientists attacking creationism (or defending evolution)versus the amount that is general reviews or original research. Now compare that to the publishing output of the creationists. The vast majority of material is literature attempting to attack or discredit current scientific models.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Looks like another argument may descend into chaos because atheists tend to use 'creationist' as a weasel word.

Perhaps it is poorly defined. For me it refers to any young Earth creationist, old Earth creationist or ID proponent. I realise that the ID element is an issue for you, but there is good evidence that it is little more than creationism re-tooled to be palatable enough to be introduced into secular education systems. It’s a Trojan horse.

The term would not extend to those people of faith who believe that God guided evolution, or initiated abiogenesis, or started the big bang. Personal beliefs do not make a creationist. The problem for me only begins when someone wishes to re-interpret science to support such notions, or to convey them as scientific fact to others.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I note here that you rather arrogantly assume this belief is 'blindly' accepted, I assume, simply because they are Christians.

Christians have faith, faith is blind. What's not to understand? In regards to evolution, maybe Christians aren't totally blind, but they do pick and choose aspects of science to fit into that neat little hole they live in called their religion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Evolution is not a model for a Godless universe. You are inferring this based on your own presuppositions, and because it fits in neatly with your beliefs. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

Which God? Also the bible clearly states that man was created separate to the animals, and made from the dust. Are you now saying there is room in this belief to accept that we evolved from apes?

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Christians have faith, faith is blind.

Could you define blind? If when you see a footprint in the sand, you consider it 'blind' faith to say, 'someone walked here'. Then by your definition, you are probably right. However, you'd have a poor definition of blind. You've seen the footprint. The effect of a man pressing down on the sand with his foot. Someone may come to you and say, 'well it could have been a foot shaped stone washed up on the shore and washed away again. Or it was just a remarkable random arrangement of sand'. However, I think it would be quite reasonable to deduce from the evidence, that a person walked on the sand.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Christians have faith, faith is blind. What's not to understand? In regards to evolution, maybe Christians aren't totally blind, but they do pick and choose aspects of science to fit into that neat little hole they live in called their religion.

Not this nonsense again? Faith is not blind. Faith is based on evidence. In my case this evidence included the testimony of others whose lives had been changed by God, the evidence of the Bible, the evidence of my prayers being answered, and the evidence of miraculous healings.

We've already gone over this several times in other threads. Such evidence does not constitute conclusive proof. Instead faith 'fills in the gaps' left by such evidence. Now, we could argue all day as to how compelling that evidence is, and in the end we may come to different verdicts. TBH that's not a debate I care to go over yet again since its been done to death in other threads and I've got better stuff to do for the next week. But the oft-repeated atheist assertion that Christian faith is 'blind' or unrelated to evidence is a total falsehood.

Which God? Also the bible clearly states that man was created separate to the animals, and made from the dust. Are you now saying there is room in this belief to accept that we evolved from apes?

Rather that we and the apes evolved from a common ancestor.

BTW, have you actually read the previous posts in this thread at all?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Rather that we and the apes evolved from a common ancestor.

We are similar enough to the great apes to be classified as apes along side them. But you are correct; we share a common ancestor rather than being "from apes" as such. That common ancestor was probably also an ape, but we didn't evolve from one of the existing species. They're our siblings rather than our parents.

I think the emotional connotations that come with the idea of us being apes is a part of what drives creationism. I find apes so startlingly human at times that I can't see why people would take offence. The stereotypes about various simian species seem to be partially behind the sense of distaste.

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Christians have faith, faith is blind. What's not to understand? In regards to evolution, maybe Christians aren't totally blind, but they do pick and choose aspects of science to fit into that neat little hole they live in called their religion.

Faith is more about making decisions based on limited information rather than none at all. It's not blind as such, but certainly less rigorous and less cautious than science.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

But the oft-repeated atheist assertion that Christian faith is 'blind' or unrelated to evidence is a total falsehood.

Not at all. Certainty without evidence may not form the basis for any part of your own specific religious beliefs, but there are plenty of people out there (there are at least one or two in this forum) who call themselves christian who also believe that blind belief is an integral requirement.

In any case, Jesus seems to approve of blind belief in his famous "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe" line.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

This made me laugh:

now now - that could be misinterpreted in many southern states - i wont use the n word or Godwin

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

In the USA, Canada, South Africa and quite a few other countries, though, creationism and a concomitant air of anti-intellectualism are fundamental and distinctly unappealing characteristics of mainstream christianity.

I think you can add Northern Ireland and border regions to that list.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

In any case, Jesus seems to approve of blind belief in his famous "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe" line.

That's not necessarily 'blind' faith, Robin.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you don't know what a creationist is and you don't know what an evolutionist is, and yet you still feel qualified enough to comment on the positions of those on both sides of the argument?


I think most people see that your are a troll continuously throwing out the same baseless accusations about something you admit not knowing anything about. By the way, atheism is not a religion, don't try and bring it down to your level.


Thats been your only sensible point sinse you've started trolling posting, this point is not the problem, its all the other stuff that you've made up that is causing problems.


Do you need acedemic qualifications to have opinions on theology? Surely if, as you say, Dawkins is so unqualified at talking about theology he would get schooled at every single debate, expecially if, as you say, these debates are always with non-creationist christians who obviously have the better education in theology as they have the right view on Christianity? Would you mind backing up your claims with a bit of proof or just top trolling?, either one would make these arguments infinitely more productive.


Wait, you've been claiming this as fact since you started on this forum, you've accused Dawkins of constantly doing on this, the A&A and the After Hours forums and now you are actually asking if its true? If you are actually looking for a serious answer to that then I suggest you look at the "The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy" thread in this very forum, then try looking at the videos I linked to for you here, and then try to actually read some of Dawkins books and view some of his debates.

My you are heavy going.

So what if I dont understand a term someone uses in a context that I find unusual - isnt it a lot better to post that - thats not trolling.

I had to find out what was a Strawman was too - so there are in house terms associated with the debate that exclude outsiders. I havent been afraid to post to check if I understood a position correctly- like when Aidan24236 came back and explained that Dawkins doesnt debate directly with creationists - or new-creationists etc.

Someone also pointed out that A + A is not exclusively Dawkins and I should not focus solely on him.

And whats wrong with commenting on Dawkins lack of Theology qualifications - for that matter it made me check the creationist guys too.That made me arrive at a view that this is not a debate on the philosophy of religion but more a wider "Political" debate with overlaps.

It did confuse me that I was being labelled creationist when I am not.
Today - I accept that i am a happy well adjusted christian non-creationist -woohoo.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's not necessarily 'blind' faith, Robin.

Yeah, but if your objective is to categorise a section of society as blind fools, you'll look for things to back-up your preconceptions.;)

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's not necessarily 'blind' faith, Robin.

All I'm doing is quoting what other people have told me is their reason for accepting an unsubstantiated belief.

As you imply, it's a lousy reason, and it's theirs, not mine.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, but if your objective is to categorise a section of society as blind fools, you'll look for things to back-up your preconceptions.;)

My objective here is not to categorize a group of people as blind fools. Joking aside, I'm sorry to see that you seem to think that it is.

sdep

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also the bible clearly states that man was created separate to the animals, and made from the dust. Are you now saying there is room in this belief to accept that we evolved from apes?

That's what the CofE has been saying for a long time. In the C4 'Genius of Darwin' interview*, Rowan Williams tells Richard Dawkins that he thinks evolution happened as it is writ in the biology textbooks. He doesn't like the idea of God intervening, as any need for intervention would mean that the universe was imperfect at the outset. The Anglican and Cambridge palaeobiologist Simon Conway Morris takes, I gather, a similar view.

I think the Archbishop regrets the headline simplification of a war between religion and evolution, and wants to get his church's position across. That's why we've seen his press interview opposing creationism in school science, the Dawkins TV spot, and now the Darwin apology (straying on topic).


Back to digressing, Dawkins actually has a soft spot for Anglican bishops - youtube shows him in a long and good-natured chat with Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford. He does, though, claim backhandedly that the CofE top brass don't believe literally in many of the key tenets of their faith - remember David Jenkins?
The people Dawkins really attacks are the ones he accuses of opposing science on faith grounds - you'll find him again on youtube, bristling with contempt when confronting American evangelical preacher Ted Haggard.

* The clip now seems available only on C4's DVD, so you'll have to buy it or take my word for it.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

My you are heavy going.

So what if I dont understand a term someone uses in a context that I find unusual - isnt it a lot better to post that - thats not trolling.

You are correct, admitting to not understanding a term and asking for clarification is not trolling. However misrepresenting a term, and other people, is trolling, and oh look you did it below.

CDfm wrote: »

I had to find out what was a Strawman was too - so there are in house terms associated with the debate that exclude outsiders.

Strawman is not an "in house" term, its a logical fallacy, and as a term you can find it being used in serious argument, eg religious, political, philosophical etc.

CDfm wrote: »

I havent been afraid to post to check if I understood a position correctly- like when Aidan24236 came back and explained that Dawkins doesnt debate directly with creationists - or new-creationists etc.

And here we see some trolling. Aidin24236 didn't come back and say that Dawkins doesn't debate directly with creationists, he said that Dawkins doesn't debate directly with creationists anymore, what with their constant misquoting, misrepresentation and out of context quoting of him. (post here).

CDfm wrote: »

Someone also pointed out that A + A is not exclusively Dawkins and I should not focus solely on him.

One sincerely hopes you listened.

CDfm wrote: »

And whats wrong with commenting on Dawkins lack of Theology qualifications - for that matter it made me check the creationist guys too.That made me arrive at a view that this is not a debate on the philosophy of religion but more a wider "Political" debate with overlaps.

What politics are these?

CDfm wrote: »

It did confuse me that I was being labelled creationist when I am not.
Today - I accept that i am a happy well adjusted christian non-creationist -woohoo.

Your constent misrepresentation of Dawkins probably made people suspect this of you, although, to be honest, I don't really remember many people labelling you a creationist on this or other forums.

CDfm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are correct, admitting to not understanding a term and asking for clarification is not trolling. However misrepresenting a term, and other people, is trolling, and oh look you did it below.


Strawman is not an "in house" term, its a logical fallacy, and as a term you can find it being used in serious argument, eg religious, political, philosophical etc.


And here we see some trolling. Aidin24236 didn't come back and say that Dawkins doesn't debate directly with creationists, he said that Dawkins doesn't debate directly with creationists anymore, what with their constant misquoting, misrepresentation and out of context quoting of him. (post here).


One sincerely hopes you listened.


What politics are these?


Your constent misrepresentation of Dawkins probably made people suspect this of you, although, to be honest, I don't really remember many people labelling you a creationist on this or other forums.

Mark you are too kind.

Now that we have the niceties out of the way. I am of the opinion that atheiests adherents to the Dawkins model persistantly use the language and posturing of their debate with creationists in all arguments on faith matters with all non-atheists. In that sense, there is a polarisation of dogma around the issue creationist vs fanatical atheist ( which I have seen used if there is a more benign term please let me know). Do you agree or disagree - I just want your opinion.

So at this point in time Dawkins doesnt debate with creationists- so I am not incorrect. So who does Dawkins disagree with? Is he a pantheist? No he is not. Is he a Defender of Faiths? No he is not? So precisely what would you define his attitude towards say the C of E or Catholic Churches - benevolent ?-ambivalent?Or would you describe it as hostile ? Would you describe it as respectful? What I am asking you to do in your own words to describe his attitude.

If he doesnt debate directly with creationists who does he openly debate with? Or does he. I dont know so I am giving you the opportunity to tell me? Does he lecture and if so what is the composition of his audience? Does he do Questions and Answer sessions? Are they invitation only gatherings? What I am trying to gauge is his attitude towards defending his views and enter into dialogue with the mainstream religious groups- does he engage with them and how.

The reason for this, given that his position is defended by people who agree with him as rational. Then does he engage in concensus building with groups with different ideoligies to himself. I am sure you wil agree that he is an influential thinker so does he engage in public debate with non-atheists.

When I mentioneded Politics here I meant that his views could be viewed as Marxist. I mean this in the political sense -thesis-antithesis -synthesis.
What I mean by that is it & he inherently confrontational.

I hope you can elaborate for me.

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

now now - that could be misinterpreted in many southern states - i wont use the n word or Godwin

.... miss the point much?

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

.... miss the point much?

i dont think so -you are far to clever for that

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

My objective here is not to categorize a group of people as blind fools. Joking aside, I'm sorry to see that you seem to think that it is.

So to confirm, you don't think faith is blind?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

So to confirm, you don't think faith is blind?

For some people, yes, it certainly seems to be -- they've said so themselves, although it does seem to be a minority position. The majority of religious believers seem to believe that their religious beliefs are rational.

Mark Hamill

CDfm wrote: »

Now that we have the niceties out of the way. I am of the opinion that atheiests adherents to the Dawkins model persistantly use the language and posturing of their debate with creationists in all arguments on faith matters with all non-atheists. In that sense, there is a polarisation of dogma around the issue creationist vs fanatical atheist ( which I have seen used if there is a more benign term please let me know). Do you agree or disagree - I just want your opinion.

What you seem to be missing here is that a lot of the "atheist adherents to the Dawkins model" will see most religious believes as completely irrational, be it that a magical sky-daddy created the whole earth in six days, sent down his son (who was also himself) in order to die for a debt that he is calling in himself or later told a cave living hermit the real truth about everything. The fact that they approach each discussion as enthusiastically is not really a big deal.
The fact that "creationist vs atheist" is the biggest argument is simply because the creationist position is actually the easiest position to take apart.

CDfm wrote: »

So at this point in time Dawkins doesnt debate with creationists- so I am not incorrect. So who does Dawkins disagree with? Is he a pantheist? No he is not. Is he a Defender of Faiths? No he is not? So precisely what would you define his attitude towards say the C of E or Catholic Churches - benevolent ?-ambivalent?Or would you describe it as hostile ? Would you describe it as respectful? What I am asking you to do in your own words to describe his attitude.

What you said was that Dawkins doesn't debate with creationists -full stop. This means something else entirely to Dawkins no longer debates with creationists anymore (because of their misrepresentation, misquoting etc).
Have you not yet figured out that Dawkins is an athiest, and therefore disagrees with all theists?
Why exactly do you want me to describe his attitude?

CDfm wrote: »

If he doesnt debate directly with creationists who does he openly debate with? Or does he. I dont know so I am giving you the opportunity to tell me? Does he lecture and if so what is the composition of his audience? Does he do Questions and Answer sessions? Are they invitation only gatherings? What I am trying to gauge is his attitude towards defending his views and enter into dialogue with the mainstream religious groups- does he engage with them and how.

You don't know who he debates and you don't know who he lectures and yet you constantly give out about his methods in these areas? Did you not complain about his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury in this very thread? Do you actual do any research at all to back up your trolling? A peak at his website? A single google search? Anything at all?
If you are actually interested, here is a link to his upcomingevents up to the end of this year. He recently debated with christian apologist Dr. John Lennox, and will at an event with him again, he will also be at various skeptic/atheist conferences as well. Some of these events require tickets for entry, but the tickets are available to the public.

CDfm wrote: »

The reason for this, given that his position is defended by people who agree with him as rational. Then does he engage in concensus building with groups with different ideoligies to himself. I am sure you wil agree that he is an influential thinker so does he engage in public debate with non-atheists.

As I mentioned above, he had a debate recently with christian apologist Dr John Lennox. I don't know about any of his other debates becuase his website only has a list of upcoming events, and I have never followed any of his other activities before.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

For some people, yes, it certainly seems to be -- they've said so themselves, although it does seem to be a minority position. The majority of religious believers seem to believe that their religious beliefs are rational.

So I'll ask again. Do 'you' think faith is blind?

CDfm

JimiTime wrote: »

So I'll ask again. Do 'you' think faith is blind?

Does science- have all the answers?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Does science- have all the answers?

By definition, no. Otherwise it would just be science teaching.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

So I'll ask again. Do 'you' think faith is blind?

He's giving you his opinion Jimi. He's telling you that faith is blind for some of the faithful and not blind for others. That's what he thinks. He doesn't have faith of his own.

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you define blind? If when you see a footprint in the sand, you consider it 'blind' faith to say, 'someone walked here'. Then by your definition, you are probably right. However, you'd have a poor definition of blind. You've seen the footprint. The effect of a man pressing down on the sand with his foot. Someone may come to you and say, 'well it could have been a foot shaped stone washed up on the shore and washed away again. Or it was just a remarkable random arrangement of sand'. However, I think it would be quite reasonable to deduce from the evidence, that a person walked on the sand.

I don't quite see what you are getting at. Are you trying to draw a comparison between the natural formation of the universe and life on this planet with a footprint in the sand? This sounds like another one of those over simplified analogies that priests and religion teachers like to use to stop kids asking questions.

What I find funny about your analogy though is that you accept the most logical assumption about the origin of the footprint in the sand, yet you have Christians believing Jesus, instead of helping people, likes to spend his time putting his likeness in burnt burritos, toasted ham sandwichs, cloud formations, the Turin Shroud... etc. You also have a lot of Christians seeing a purely coincidental event as being a prayer answered by God. yet when coincidental events happen to non religious people, it can be accepted as merely a coincidence.

These would be things that most rational people would see the logical reason for, but religious people like to give illogical meaning to them to prove to themselves that God must exist.

PDN wrote: »

Not this nonsense again? Faith is not blind. Faith is based on evidence. In my case this evidence included the testimony of others whose lives had been changed by God, the evidence of the Bible, the evidence of my prayers being answered, and the evidence of miraculous healings.

Faith is blind when compared to Science. Your evidence is my conjecture.

If the Bible is the writings of God, the person who created this planet and Universe then why didn't yous know about evolution before Darwin? Ask a Catholic 200 years ago what they think about the fact that we evolved from apes and see what response you get. Heck, ask a Catholic next to you at Church on Sunday and see what they say. The incoherance of the Church clearly shows that even if there is a God, he clearly isn't speaking to Catholics.

How could a perfect being, write a book for humans, by humans and make it so cryptic to leave itself open to countless interpretations? The fact that the Church, and most religions for that matter, don't know what they believe until science proves their ideas wrong is evidence enough that religions really are flying by the seat of their pants.

PDN wrote: »

Rather that we and the apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Where in the Bible is this assertion backed up? By common ancestor do you mean dust?