Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

He looks like he's playing with words to me. 'some seem to believe their faith is rational', is 'not' saying that faith is not blind for some. So he's not given his opinion at all. Robin can put it to bed though if he says, 'i believe that for some faith is not blind'. Thats after all what you said he is saying.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I don't quite see what you are getting at.

I believe you do, but you want to continue with your already formed opinion that faith is blind.

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.

Whats funny is your poorly arrived at opinions that 'Christians' believe Jesus puts his likeness in burrito's and the like. I wouldn't waste my time going any further if you pride your view of Christianity on such ignorance.

You know 'Scientists' invent the most horrid weapons.
'Muslims' blow up innocent people daily.

Both true, yet completely ignorant if I was to use the above terms to describe those groups.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

He looks like he's playing with words to me.

Nope, I'm not. I'm saying how I believe that other people see certain things. I'm sorry if this looks like wordplay, but I'm trying to be as clear and accurate as I can.

JimiTime wrote: »

Robin can put it to bed though if he says, 'i believe that for some faith is not blind'.

At this point, I'll have to ask what you mean by "faith" and "blind".

If you mean "Do I think that some people have general beliefs which are supported by evidence", then the answer is obviously, yes I do.

If you mean "Do I think that some people have religious beliefs which are supported by evidence", then we need to think about what constitutes good evidence, since we will probably have different opinions. Anyhow, if that's the question, then the answer is also yes, I do, but subject to discussion, and subject to the weighing of any evidence for the proposition with any evidence against the proposition (for example, a creationist might claim that Genesis saying the world was created in six days constitutes irrefutable evidence; needless to say, I don't agree).

But the point that I was making above, is that there's a general tendency in many strands of religion to deliver certainty in cases where a more detached view sees uncertainty.

The trust that builds the bridge from the uncertain to the certain is so seamless and so well-made, that it seems to me that many people forget that the trust is there at all. And that's what I was saying about people believing that their beliefs are secure, when in fact, they're actually supported by trust (and other things).

Does this answer your question?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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

cryptic obscure allegorical- you OK?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

cryptic obscure allegorical- you OK?

I'm not following you at all. What was cryptic and obscure? Where was the allegory?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

I would have no problem with coming from an ape or a less-than-ape, if that were how God had wished it. After all, I am happy to say I (humankind) came from the dust of the ground - something infinitely less complex and sentient than an ape.

My problem with evolution is primarily theological - God says He did it otherwise. The more I read on the complexity of life, the more I also have scientific objections to abiogenesis and subsequent evolution.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would have no problem with coming from an ape or a less-than-ape, if that were how God had wished it. After all, I am happy to say I (humankind) came from the dust of the ground - something infinitely less complex and sentient than an ape.

That's fair enough, though I'd imagine the animal connection is still one which many creationists dislike.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My problem with evolution is primarily theological - God says He did it otherwise. The more I read on the complexity of life, the more I also have scientific objections to abiogenesis and subsequent evolution.

I'm not sure you can call it a "scientific objection" when you profess to have no understanding of science and no interest in gaining that understanding. When was the last time you read a source that wasn't a creationist website Wolfie? You've certainly never linked us to anything else.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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

I look forward to the 32 counties united in the knowledge of the truth of creation and of its Creator.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not sure you can call it a "scientific objection" when you profess to have no understanding of science and no interest in gaining that understanding. When was the last time you read a source that wasn't a creationist website Wolfie? You've certainly never linked us to anything else.

I find the sites Robin and others refer to interesting, and of course

http://www.talkorigins.org/

can be relied on to present the strongest evolutionist case.

I may not be scientifically qualified to offer a detailed assessment in any scientific field, but I know enough to tell a hawk from a handsaw.

Fanny Cradock

*Loudspeaker*

We have a BC&P overspill in isle 13


I don't know where this is quite going, but if it is going down the evolution/ creation route... Well, you know the rest

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Henry Morris and other creation "scientists" are not real scientists because of how they aproach scientific findings, ie. that those findings in contradiction to their particular holy book are automatically wrong, this makes them theists, and those who hold to the Bible as their infallible holy book are Christians.

Thanks for this statement. It helps me understand why you (and others here I assume) think world class scientists are not scientists at all.

It's not that they don't use scientific method in their research, it's the fact that they have religious presuppositions about certain facts of nature. You cannot see how such a person can do science.

The fact that can they do so with excellence must be one of the mysteries of Scientism.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not following you at all. What was cryptic and obscure? Where was the allegory?

sorry-i didnt mean you to take it literally

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

Correct.

It would however dramatically alter our ability to know anything about the God of the Bible, since it would establish a hermeneutic that allows any apparently historical narrative to be treated as metaphor.

The virgin birth of Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection, etc. can all be discounted as literal events and moved to 'spiritual' stories meant to convey purely spiritual truths.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Well, there are a few christian posters in this forum who think that you can't be a christian without being a creationist. Perhaps you might take that discussion up with them?

Really? I must have missed them. Creationists like JC and myself accept there are true Christians who hold to Theistic Evolution.

Point me to these hyper-creationists and I'll try to sort them out.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I may not be scientifically qualified to offer a detailed assessment in any scientific field

So, why don't you make the effort? It's not all that difficult to learn enough to be moderately well-informed.

It should certainly take less time than you must have spent posting on the megathread.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

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

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.



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.

Goduznt- Imagine if you will a cool desert breeze , a palm tree and a scribe.

So abstract thought is translated into words with reference to the environment at the time. Such cohesion many centuries before Chaucer or Defoe.But it was made relevant to its era and our abilities to apply its content expanded as did our society ,technology and science.

So it was wriien of its time.

So while I can accept the atom bomb -havent seen one -cant understand the science and the resultant "big bang". But for me -I know it happened -Oppenheimer and co and Enola Gay and Hiroshima.

So it is taken on trust some say faith but its an account given by others to a concept I cant understand.

Some parts of evolutionary theory is various bones and fossils from different areas put in some kind of chronological order and from that incomplete model someone postulates a hypothesis. The "theory" is one persons interpretation.

On the same basis I will accept and interpret on matters of faith aspects of the bible but my belief is based on faith. But I also believe in the atomic bomb as I have read accounts.

If I hadnt read accounts of Oppenheimer and Co and Enola Gay - how would we concieve what happened in Horishima and Nagasaki. Just "Big Bang".We do it with reference to accounts we were given written at the time on what happened before. Its of its time. But we accept it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for this statement. It helps me understand why you (and others here I assume) think world class scientists are not scientists at all.

Name me a world class scientist who is also a creationist. For every one you name, I can name you hundreds who consider the idea to be rubbish. The scientists who crossed over into creationism are almost without exception largely unremarkable.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's not that they don't use scientific method in their research, it's the fact that they have religious presuppositions about certain facts of nature. You cannot see how such a person can do science.

A religious person may be a scientist, even a world class scientist. So long as they create their hypotheses based only upon logic or upon previously well-confirmed science, there is no problem. The problem with creationists is that they are determined to assume initial positions based upon their religious views. They are unwilling to create specific hypotheses and are unwilling to test their initial assumptions. That is not scientific at all.

The problem is not being religious, it is mixing religion with your job. You wouldn't do it with economics.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fact that can they do so with excellence must be one of the mysteries of Scientism.

They really can't. I've read creation biology, it's awful.

Anyway, I think we're straying.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? I must have missed them. Creationists like JC and myself accept there are true Christians who hold to Theistic Evolution.

Point me to these hyper-creationists and I'll try to sort them out.

So you're now saying it's possible to be a "true christian" without believing Genesis to be literally true?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Correct.

It would however dramatically alter our ability to know anything about the God of the Bible, since it would establish a hermeneutic that allows any apparently historical narrative to be treated as metaphor.

The virgin birth of Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection, etc. can all be discounted as literal events and moved to 'spiritual' stories meant to convey purely spiritual truths.

That's your main problem really. You want everything to be simple and solid. A non-literal bible seems like a slippery slope towards what you're ultimately most afraid of. That atheist world with its unsettling moral relativism and subjective life meaning.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That atheist world with its unsettling moral relativism

Been a while since christianity's system-wide bête noire "moral relativism" came up. But it's worth noting again that with christianity's self-belief (personal relationship with Jesus/primacy of conscience) trumping secularism's societal consensus, moral relativism is something that's, in fact, really only applicable to the religious.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Been a while since christianity's system-wide bête noire "moral relativism" came up. But it's worth noting again that with christianity's self-belief (personal relationship with Jesus/primacy of conscience) trumping secularism's societal consensus, moral relativism is something that's, in fact, really only applicable to the religious.

Well I'd certainly say that Wolfsbane and J C seem to be of the view that moral relativism is equal to moral subjectivism or even just chaotic amorality. Perhaps it's more true to say that relativism applies to everyone, but that some are aware of that and some not.

marco_polo

CDfm wrote: »

Goduznt- Imagine if you will a cool desert breeze , a palm tree and a scribe.

So abstract thought is translated into words with reference to the environment at the time. Such cohesion many centuries before Chaucer or Defoe.But it was made relevant to its era and our abilities to apply its content expanded as did our society ,technology and science.

So it was wriien of its time.

So while I can accept the atom bomb -havent seen one -cant understand the science and the resultant "big bang". But for me -I know it happened -Oppenheimer and co and Enola Gay and Hiroshima.

So it is taken on trust some say faith but its an account given by others to a concept I cant understand.

Some parts of evolutionary theory is various bones and fossils from different areas put in some kind of chronological order and from that incomplete model someone postulates a hypothesis. The "theory" is one persons interpretation.

On the same basis I will accept and interpret on matters of faith aspects of the bible but my belief is based on faith. But I also believe in the atomic bomb as I have read accounts.

If I hadnt read accounts of Oppenheimer and Co and Enola Gay - how would we concieve what happened in Horishima and Nagasaki. Just "Big Bang".We do it with reference to accounts we were given written at the time on what happened before. Its of its time. But we accept it.

Thats sound like you are a believer in the old 'God put the fossils in the ground to test our faith' theory.

After 150 odd years I think it is fair to say that it is a little more substantial than one mans interpretation. :rolleyes:

As an eample off the top of my head ever heard of Genetics?

CDfm

marco_polo wrote: »

Thats sound like you are a believer in the old 'God put the fossils in the ground to test our faith' theory.

After 150 odd years I think it is fair to say that it is a little more substantial than one mans interpretation. :rolleyes:

As an eample off the top of my head ever heard of Genetics?

no marco old bean

its not just one mans interpretation stuff like this was going on in greece 2000 years back - so of course much of the debate is not new. And was debated when the Christian bible was being put together. Not into it as a faith test-just the antiquity of the debate.

Others might be able to fill you in on who said what but from memory it was Philo an early Bishop of somewhere or other who said not to discount what you see coming from the ground with your own eyes - which includes science and fossils.

OF course you will need to explain this gene thing to me. Christians have morals and ethics - atheists have a selfish gene. Am I on the right track.

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

OF course you will need to explain this gene thing to me. Christians have morals and ethics - atheists have a selfish gene. Am I on the right track.

ROFL, no.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Nope, I'm not. I'm saying how I believe that other people see certain things. I'm sorry if this looks like wordplay, but I'm trying to be as clear and accurate as I can.

Well I asked a simple question, which you didn't really answer. You said something about 'some people believe their beliefs rational'. That doesn't even convey your opinion. Its as useless to whats been asked as 'some people think that they are potatoes'. It 'seemed' that you were deliberately avoiding giving an answer. You clarify your position below though.

At this point, I'll have to ask what you mean by "faith" and "blind".

How would you define them in the context of this discussion?

If you mean "Do I think that some people have general beliefs which are supported by evidence", then the answer is obviously, yes I do.

Why on earth would we be talking so generally? We are quite categorically discussing the allegation that 'Christians have blind faith'. To which you said Jesus himself encouraged.

If you mean "Do I think that some people have Christianbeliefs which are supported by evidence", then we need to think about what constitutes good evidence, since we will probably have different opinions. Anyhow, if that's the question, then the answer is also yes, I do, but subject to discussion, and subject to the weighing of any evidence for the proposition with any evidence against the proposition (for example, a creationist might claim that Genesis saying the world was created in six days constitutes irrefutable evidence; needless to say, I don't agree).

So to summarise. You agree that some Christians faith is not blind, and some are? Or have you ever come across a Christian who has faith that is not blind in your opinion?

But the point that I was making above, is that there's a general tendency in many strands of religion to deliver certainty in cases where a more detached view sees uncertainty.

TBH, the only point I was tackling was the one about blind faith.

The trust that builds the bridge from the uncertain to the certain is so seamless and so well-made, that it seems to me that many people forget that the trust is there at all. And that's what I was saying about people believing that their beliefs are secure, when in fact, they're actually supported by trust (and other things).

Trust is part of the foundations of faith, I agree. The starting point is very important, i.e. why do I trust such and such. I do believe one can have blind spots in ones faith. However, i think everyone has blindspots in their worldview based on upbringing, biases, discriminations, brainwashing (be it media, religion, societal etc etc)

Does this answer your question?

Well it elaborates on your thinking. I would deduce from your answer that the simplified answer to the question 'Is faith blind?' is:

Definately for some, and I don't know for others. I need to be more informed before I make a definitive statement but even at that, it would have to be treated on a case by case bass.

Would that acurately summarise your position?

marco_polo

CDfm wrote:

The "theory" is one persons interpretation.

no marco old bean

its not just one mans interpretation stuff like this was going on in greece 2000 years back - so of course much of the debate is not new. And was debated when the Christian bible was being put together. Not into it as a faith test-just the antiquity of the debate.

So it is or it isn't? Or are you just testing out your new random sentence generator?

Others might be able to fill you in on who said what but from memory it was Philo an early Bishop of somewhere or other who said not to discount what you see coming from the ground with your own eyes - which includes science and fossils.

I concur, observation is a good thing indeed. This bishop of somewhere sounds like a wise man indeed. What is the alternative out of curiosity?

OF course you will need to explain this gene thing to me. Christians have morals and ethics - atheists have a selfish gene. Am I on the right track.

It will no doubt surpise you to learn that both Christians and Atheists have morals, ethics and genes.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

OF course you will need to explain this gene thing to me. Christians have morals and ethics - atheists have a selfish gene. Am I on the right track.

You seem to love these ambiguous little statements. What has the selfish gene model got to do with morals and ethics?

CDfm

marco_polo wrote: »

So it is or it isn't? Or are you just testing out your new random sentence generator?



I concur, observation is a good thing indeed. This bishop of somewhere sounds like a wise man indeed. What is the alternative out of curiosity?



It will no doubt surpise you to learn that both Christians and Atheists have morals, ethics and genes.

Me randomly generate sentences - well I never - sometimes use the odd phrase from theology that isnt obscure to the well read or those with some knowledge of the classics.

Philo is this guy and its him you can blame for all the allegory and was a contemperary of Jesus and the 12 -this is what I mean when I say the thinking has been around for 2000 years. Link here for his bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo .

The alternative is creationist . Dont go there.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You seem to love these ambiguous little statements. What has the selfish gene model got to do with morals and ethics?

sorry -ya mean if your atheist ya have to loose your sense of humour as well.

I wouldnt like that now.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

sorry -ya mean if your atheist ya have to loose your sense of humour as well.

I wouldnt like that now.

You're one judgemental fella. If you will deliver dry humor in text form, people are probably going to miss it. Especially if it's not funny even when assumed to be intended as a joke. I'll give you one "ha" for effort. Feel better?

Do you reckon you're scoring some intellectual points by being hard to follow?

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do you reckon you're scoring some intellectual points by being hard to follow?

Uh, like, I think it's, like the sms generation. Broken snetences r. nrml... lots me them. ttfn!