Teaching evolution -- or not?

[Ken/OC]

How many times do little kids think that Mom or Dad isn't watching because of what they get away with?

 

David, I was referring not to people getting away with bad things, but to bad things happening to people. This is a central preoccupation of many religious people and of some religions as well, which have different ways to attempt to address the very real contradictions it raises.

[sideways]

 

For anyone interested, NY times editorial on ID battle (not by me!):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/opinion/22thur1.html

[RFW]

OK, but just because man invented religion doesn't mean God's not out there watching.

Pilgrim

TOUCHÉ !

 

Bob.

[KMG_365]

I'd just like to point out that this thread is a perfect example of why we SHOULD be allowed political conversations around here. They just need to be heavily moderated.

 

--sam

I miss the political discussions as much as the next guy--or gal!

 

I learned a lot and it caused me to re-examine much of what I took "on faith"--which is almost always a "good" thing--but your statement above contains the very reason they are no longer here. We are but a small, overworked band of volunteer moderators who stand no chance of keeping on top of the pages and pages of political name calling and mud slinging that such discussions invariably degenerate into. Frankly, I too am surprised this has gone on as long as it has and am impressed that it has maintained as civil a tone as it has thus far. Perhaps there is hope for us after all!

[Ken/OC]

I too am surprised this has gone on as long as it has and am impressed that it has maintained as civil a tone as it has thus far.

 

Hi Jamie! Want me to hot it up??? Just say the word....

[KMG_365]

I too am surprised this has gone on as long as it has and am impressed that it has maintained as civil a tone as it has thus far.

 

Hi Jamie! Want me to hot it up??? Just say the word....

Thanks, Ken. Not that you haven't done enough already!

[KMG_365]

They want to be able to say God in public without being ridiculed or jailed. That is what this country was founded on. The founding fathers prayed in chambers and put GOD into every part of our Goverment.

This sort of mis-information always bothers me and I feel compelled to straighten it out. No one is going to jail for saying "god" in public. Your free speech is protected by that very constitution--that makes no reference to god in any way or gives any preference to anyone's god over anyone else's! You are free to take your megaphone to any park and preach the gospel of your choosing and there are armies of lawyers who stand ready to defend your right to do so. However, you do not have the right to go into a public school and do the same thing as a representative of the state. It really is NOT that subtle a difference and drawing such a distinction is not "trashing Christianity" as some would easily dismiss it. Just because the constitution does not grant "special priveledge" to "Christianity" by state sanctioning it above all other religions does not denigrate it in any way, but many "true believers" are not happy with mere "equal time" along with other disparate belief systems--as in their view there is ONLY ONE true religion.

 

Despite what some fundamentalists would have you believe, this country was NOT founded as a Christian nation. True, many of the Founding Fathers espoused Christian beliefs themselves, but they learned from previous examples of failed attempts at Church-state models and swore that this new country would not fall prey to those same ills. That is not to say that there were not attempts by "Christians" to undermine these lofty ideals--there have been many. I would point you to this page of the "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" for a succinct summary of the history of this debate. Some highlights:

The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.

Regarding the alleged misquote:

Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state."

Regarding putting god in every part of government, I would ask: "Whose god?"

President George Washington, in a famous 1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, R.I., celebrated the fact that Jews had full freedom of worship in America. Noted Washington, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship."

 

Washington's administration even negotiated a treaty with the Muslim rulers of north Africa that stated explicitly that the United States was not founded on Christianity. The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, "[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…."

 

It is this very separation of church and state that allows religious beliefs of all sorts to flourish in this country and it is something we should all fight to preserve as it has no equal anywhere else in the world (that I know of, though I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong ).

[russell_bynum]

It is this very separation of church and state that allows religious beliefs of all sorts to flourish in this country and it is something we should all fight to preserve as it has no equal anywhere else in the world

 

Well said, Jamie.

[MWS]

The end all is, for me, is God is in your heart, Religion is what they tell ya!

[MWS]

Am I not wrong on the seperation of church and state thing was to say that if you did not belong to a certian chruch group, you did not have the right to vote?

[Pilgrim]

It is this very separation of church and state that allows religious beliefs of all sorts to flourish in this country and it is something we should all fight to preserve as it has no equal anywhere else in the world (that I know of, though I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong ).

 

Sure it does, Jamie, and right close to home, too. Look to the north. On both sides of the Atlantic.

 

Now, just to confuse the issue for those of you who believe the Founders were less than pious men who did not believe they were founding a nation under God . . .

 

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; . . .

 

The Declaration of Independence is a conceptually more important document than the Constitution, for it set forth the new order for the ages, with concepts that had never been codified before in such an important connection. The Constitution, on the other hand, is important for any number of reasons, but it deals with the mechanics of government and nothing more. In its writing, the Founders intended to protect the newly-recorded rights set forth in the Declaration. That is a good thing, and we ignore it at our peril, but the Declaration did the real heavy lifting in the founding of this country.

 

Particularly the second reference to God cannot be ignored or dismissed, for it posits that all the basic rights of existence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, flow from God. If God does not exist then there is no font for those rights, and they become nothing more than privileges extended by whomever is in power - George III, perhaps.

 

The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of religion in government very simply when they wrote that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ". . . That flat statement is the only one that addresses the issue, and it does not imply that the government must stay out of religion, or that it cannot encourage religion or even a particular religion. All the invention of thought on the issue that now clutters the scene came about long after 1789, and it doesn't matter what Thomas Jefferson or anyone else thought as an individual: the sense of the Founders at that time was expressed quite clearly in both documents.

 

Don't misunderstand me here: I am not trying to make a case that government should promote religion. I'm not, and it shouldn't. But all this business about a wall of separation between church and state is arrant nonsense solidified into fact through the passage of time. It has no Constitutional foundation.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

I'd just like to point out that this thread is a perfect example of why we SHOULD be allowed political conversations around here.

 

Cause pilgrim's always wrong

 

--sam

 

Nevertheless,it is my serene presence, judicious nature, and impeccable logic that makes such a calm discussion of the issues possible. Enjoy.

 

And lest you feel less than important, Sam, (not likely, I know) I feel compelled to remind you that he also serves who only stands and provides comic relief.

Pilgrim

[uk1200RT]

The founding fathers were, for the most part, Christians. Sorry if that offends atheists, Muslims, survivors of Jonestown and everyone else. The principles they invoked were largely based on their faith, but they took care not to levy specific religion on the country. Separation of church and state is not a governmental mandate...it is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to reassure a woman that there would be no national religion. That said, the founding fathers, in my opinion, never expected our nation to become a nation who supresses the rights of Christians to speak their minds or share their faith without ridicule and censor. For example:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Quincy Adams

"It cannot be emphasized too much or repeated too strongly that America was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not upon religions, but upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ." --Patrick Henry

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of the nations, and whose providential aid can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States... Every step by which they have advanced seems to gave been distinguished by some providential agency. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can Never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." --George Washington

 

When you flame me, remember that I cannot answer for these people...their words are theirs. You can argue with them if you like.

[Whip]

Please go to The Center for Science and Culture website

 

www.discovery.org/csc

 

to see a scientific look at Intelligent design.

 

It turns out many scientist believe in ID.

 

Larry

[tallman]

Please go to The Center for Science and Culture website

 

www.discovery.org/csc

 

to see a scientific look at Intelligent design.

 

It turns out many scientist believe in ID.

 

Larry

 

A good point in this excellent discussion.

A practitioner of science (scientist?) who believes in ID bases that belief on...?

Don't know if I'm the only science teacher in the group, but this issue is one that will continue to face public scrutiny.

I recently went to Tampa and saw Bodies: the Exhibition. http://www.bodiestheexhibition.com/

This controversial display of human bodies may be the most amazing thing I've ever seen.

When I left I felt that ID was a viable aspect of evolution. If that seems contradictory, it isn't, at least to me.

[smiller]

Don't misunderstand me here: I am not trying to make a case that government should promote religion. I'm not, and it shouldn't. But all this business about a wall of separation between church and state is arrant nonsense solidified into fact through the passage of time. It has no Constitutional foundation.

 

One cannot doubt that the Declaration of Independence is the pivotal document in American history, nor can one doubt that the founders were by and large very pious men. And they were brilliant men who, when later writing the document we use today to establish the basis of law in this nation, specifically meant to separate (I hesitate to use that word as it seems to be emotionally charged, but it is accurate) religious beliefs from the operation of the state. It's not clear to me how one could feel that the framers of the Constitution did not indeed intend to create that wall of separation. The section of the Bill of Rights that deals with the issue is tersely written but very clear on that point and numerous courts have upheld the concept.

 

No one here seems to support the government promoting religion but at the same time many would seem to prefer a much more lenient view towards the expression of religion in public venues. But at the same time it seems that the majority who hold that view have also said that they do not support the teaching of religious views of creation (or the more politically correct term of Intelligent Design) in science class, and if asked I would guess that many would prefer not to display the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, and generally seem to be in agreement with the principle that government should not incorporate religion into its operation. If this is the case then what exactly should the government be doing differently with respect to the observance of religious views than they are doing now? What changes would make the nation better or stronger?

 

(In the case of Pilgrim I suppose I am asking this question rhetorically since I seemed to be persona non grata, perhaps due to my causing an insult in some manner. If this is the case, for whatever it's worth please be assured that was not my intent.)

[uk1200RT]

You have to put this in the context of what it is that the founding fathers and everyone else was up against at the time this country began. It wasn't religion that they had a problem with, it was the power of the Church. There argument was not whether people were Christian or not...there was little argument in their day and age on this front. The argument was the establishment of a state Church such as the Anglican Church in England. They did not fight at all to kep God or Christianity out of government, but they did fight to keep the state from telling someone they would be Baptist or Catholic or whatever. The reasons, if you look through history, are obvious. Read 50 pages of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (actual recorded histories from about 400A.D. throught the Norman conquest) and you will get a good idea why having a state church is not really a good thing.

Now it is getting to be a bit ridiculous though. There was a young girl sent home from school in the UK the other day for wearing a crucifix. The school was concerned that she may offend one of the Muslim students in attendance there.

[Pilgrim]

(In the case of Pilgrim I suppose I am asking this question rhetorically since I seemed to be persona non grata, perhaps due to my causing an insult in some manner. If this is the case, for whatever it's worth please be assured that was not my intent.)

 

Not at all, Seth, and I find myself sitting here scratching my head over what has given you that impression.

 

If I seemed not to respond to your trenchant posts - well, unless the moderators shut us down for some reason I just ain't done yet. This thread has taken off in enough different directions that it's been difficult to keep up.

 

But I'm in the process of formulating the Killer Response - its analog in physics would be the Grand Unified Theory. Now, if I could just figure out where to start . . .

 

But in response to your specific question, what could the government do, etc, here's my answer. Keep in mind that what I think doesn't matter because the Supreme Court has other ideas.

 

The government (including the Soopremes) should quit messing around with it at all except insofar as the First Amendment specifically says: neither establish nor inhibit.

 

Instead of prohibiting some public exercises of religion, permit them all. Muslims want to put up some display during Ramadan - OK. They can have a display of 500 square feet on the City Hall yard, just the same as Christians, etc.

 

Pilgrim

 

Edited to complete the response.

[Pilgrim]

You have to put this in the context of what it is that the founding fathers and everyone else was up against at the time this country began. It wasn't religion that they had a problem with, it was the power of the Church. ...

 

Greg, I'm really glad you brought that up, for it is a point that is not commonly understood. Most people, when they think about it at all, believe that the first amendment exists (and it does, in part) to guarantee they can go to whatever church they want.

 

But what you say was a far more important factor back then.

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

.

When I left I felt that ID was a viable aspect of evolution. If that seems contradictory, it isn't, at least to me.

 

Tim, I'm kicking this thought off from your post because it's easy to find and sort of relates. I'm not sure I can explicate it clearly, but here goes.

 

Would Intelligent Design be as firmly opposed by rationalists if we didn't call the inferred designer "God"?

 

IOW, suppose that religion had never been invented, and we found ourselves where we are now, looking around and trying to figure out how we got to where we are now.

 

Yeah, evolution would certainly look like an attractive theory, but would not the holes in it lead us to legitimately wonder if there wasn't someone shuffling the deck somewhere?

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

Not at all, Seth, and I find myself sitting here scratching my head over what has given you that impression.

 

Sorry, my mistake, I somehow had the notion that you had taken my, well, trenchant comments as excessively combative and that had somehow earned me a place on your ignore list. Instead I should have known that would not be your style and that I should wait for the grand finale.

 

Back on topic, regardless of one's precise interpretation of the history behind the establishment clause it seems more important that we consider the current real-world implications of diluting its meaning. While it's easy to criticize in generalities and mock the elimination of a Christmas tree from the city hall lawn or sending someone home for wearing a cross, the legal system itself doesn't get to deal with generalities and instead must deal with specific cases. A good recent example is the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. If it is permissible to do this as a simple reflection of the participant's cultural background (as was proposed by the supporters of this practice) then what about a situation where US citizens who happen to be Muslim are being served by the court? Should they expect to see verses of the Koran on the courthouse wall as well? What about faiths that are followed in lesser numbers? Are they not important enough or valued enough to earn a place next to the Ten Commandments? Do only the Ten Commandments align with our nation's view of the equality of all humanity? I think we will soon run out of space on the courthouse wall and someone will have to step in to limit it all... and at that point the government will indeed have made a law that prefers some religions over others. The courts so far have been wise enough to see this and have acted in the only way they can. Extrapolate this example out as far as you like and use it in any setting you like but the basic problem doesn't change. This was foreseen and magnificently addressed by the founding fathers. The result may not suit everyone but it is a compromise we must all make if we want to be true (in deeds as well as words) to the concept of inclusion and equality of all, and doesn't this fundamental and most important part of American culture preempt the favor of even the majority's religious views?

[smiller]

Would Intelligent Design be as firmly opposed by rationalists if we didn't call the inferred designer "God"?

 

And excellent and central point, and I think that there would indeed be less opposition if the inferred designer wasn't called God. But let's be honest here... the whole point behind the ID movement is to specifically interject God into the classroom. If you remove that factor, not only would the opposition lessen but so would the desire to make the change in the first place!

 

And in demonstration of this I will repeat a question that I and others posed earlier... while it's difficult to deny that there may be some level of organization to the Universe that we have not yet revealed to ourselves, none of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution which could easily be coincident with all the unknowable factors. Why then the the attack on the validity of the theory of evolution by the ID proponents? The motive of the ID movement is really pretty transparent, isn't it?

[Couchrocket]

the whole point behind the ID movement is to specifically interject God into the classroom

This is incorrect. Some folk have hi-jacked ID to this end. Read my post above, and Dembski's book.

[DavidEBSmith]

Please go to The Center for Science and Culture website

www.discovery.org/csc

to see a scientific look at Intelligent design.

It turns out many scientist believe in ID.

 

Let's look at the Center for Science and Culture, shall we. It's part of a fundamentalist Christian think tank, not an institution for independent scientific investigation. Under a prior incarnation, it developed The Wedge Strategy , a plan to use Intelligent Design "to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." One of its goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God." They're not interested in scientific inquiry: "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." Among their five year goals: "Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory"

 

These people have a specific agenda for imposing their religious beliefs upon the country by stealth. They would not allow me the freedom of my somewhat-less-fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Their goal is power and control, not truth.

[Ken/OC]

Am I not wrong on the separation of church and state thing was to say that if you did not belong to a certain church group, you did not have the right to vote?

 

Does anybody know the answer to MWS's question? I haven't seen it addressed yet here...

[Boffin]

Whenever my thoughts get around to "is there a god?" or "was all this created?" I come round to the inevitable (to me anyway) next question; "if there is a creator, then who created the creator?". If our universe is so complex as to require adesigner, then that designer must be even more complex. Where does this end?

 

It should be remembered that religion is different to faith. In the UK every November 5th we celebrate the failure of Guy Fawkes to blow up parliament in 1605, and with it the king - head of state and head of church. Fawkes was a catholic, responding with terrorism to state repression. This repression included being burned at the stake for suggesting England return to Catholisism. Anti-catholic legislation continued for centuries. It was only in 1959 that the law compelling British Citizens to celibrate the arrest of Guy Fawkes was abolished. To this date, it is treasonable to place a catholic on the throne.

 

Edit: to answer MWS, catholics had no votes, though some catholic lords has limited influence. This has since changed, we even let women vote now

 

It is this background that drove the founding fathers of the USA to eschew integration of church and state. If this is what one christian could do to another, think how it would translate to other faiths.

 

Cya, Andy

[Couchrocket]

The world and how it works may be bigger than we can see. I recognize that I may be talking myself into some of these things from my own pursuit of purpose, but I'm planning on keeping an open mind about the things I don't understand.

Excellent. Since you've had the privilege to meet Francis Schaeffer, it may interest you to know that when it comes down to "options," his position was that there are ultimately "not many men in the room." He felt that there are "good and sufficient reasons" for belief. If you've not read his foundational work, which is now in one volume called "Trilogy" it is certainly worth a look.

 

One of the issues this thread is dancing all about w/o recognizing is the issue of "ultimacy." For all of us, we live daily lives with "something" having ultimate appeal / call on us. Whether that "thing" is material (in the sense of natural), philosophical, or theological, it serves the same purpose for us all and in us all. The common definition of that is "god." (note the small g ) Something holds the place of god in our lives, even if it is literally a thing, an idea, or even us.

 

Many (I really mean all) of those who claim "the material" holds ultimacy, cannot live that way. For such a claim ends all possibility of life having any objective meaning. We can "invent" meaning, or explain our need for the idea of meaning through "its advantages for survival," but that doesn't give meaning any objective meaning. So, to embrace a materialist view "completely" makes no room for almost "all" of who we are and what we value, and people simply cannot live like that. A few have, and they have universally been seen as monsters.

 

Another way to view this is: this is either an impersonal universe, here by time plus chance, plus nothing else. Or, it is in some way a "personal" universe here through some agency that has, or has created "personality" and imbued the universe with it so that wherever life appears, personality appears. (One translation of the first verse in the Torah says, "With wisdom God created the heavens and the earth." Interesting.) The time plus chance model has no explanation of personality beyond its utility to survival - which again provides no possibility for meaning in life (other than survival and ascendancy) so we're left with nothing to "think" about things like honor, integrity, generosity, love, beauty, affection (the things we hold most dear) as other than evolved mechanisms of survival of one sort or another, or worse as oddities. While someone might honestly embrace this view in their mind, they hardly live it out in the nursery when holding their new born child in their arms and thinking about its future -- or holding their beloved in their arms and swearing their love while looking into the beloved's eyes.

 

In a "personal" view of the universe these things hold the possibility of real meaning and value beyond survival, beyond the accidental or merely chemical. They then hold the possibility that such things, love, beauty, integrity, honor might even deserve nomination for "ultimacy" without that concept being ridiculous. Belief, and its logical extension faith, then have the possibility of candidacy for ultimacy if directed in appreciation toward that agency that made personality and all that follows (including communication like this!) possible, and imbued with meaning as a reflection of that agency's creative impulse.

[DavidEBSmith]

Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . Supreme Judge of the world

 

I don't know what this says about the Founders' religious faith, but it sounds pretty Deistic or Unitarian to me. It certainly doesn't prove that they intended to found a Christianity-based nation, because being smart guys, they knew how to write that in there if they wanted to. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration, and he was a Deist, didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, created a version of the New Testament with the miracles cut out, wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779, and helped disestablish religion in Virginia. It is plain that Jefferson (and Madison, and others) intended long before 1789 that government and religion not be entangled. Indeed, Lawrence Tribe says that were three schools of thought behind the principle of separation of church and state: Roger Williams wanted to protect churches against the state, Thomas Jefferson wanted to protect the state against churches, and James Madison thought religion and government could best achieve their purposes if each was left free from the corrupting influence of the other.

 

The Declaration of Independence is a conceptually more important document than the Constitution

 

"Conceptually" always gets you into trouble. "Conceptually" if you find a watch in the forest you posit that there must be a watchmaker, and "conceptually" that proves Intelligent Design. It's just when you look at the data that "conceptually" falls apart.

 

Whatever the Founders were thinking when they wrote the Declaration, when they got around to writing the Constitution, when they actually created the basic governing document of the nation*, they didn't include any references to G-d. Instead, they explicitly forbade an establishment of religion. Whatever the conceptual importance of the Declaration, it's not the legal document governing the nation, the Constitution is. You can't enforce rights flowing from G-d under the Declaration, you can only enforce rights under the Constitution. When you assert the primacy of the Declaration over the Constitution, you are simply, legally and "conceptually", wrong.

 

And when you say "I am not trying to make a case that government should promote religion. I'm not, and it shouldn't. But all this business about a wall of separation between church and state is arrant nonsense", if there is no wall of separation, but government cannot "promote" religion, what is the middle ground? What, exactly, would you say is an acceptable level of government involvment with religion? Funding the operations of religious schools with taxpayers' money? Leading students in prayer at mandatory assemblies? Teaching students that the complexity of organisms proves that there is a Creator?

 

* The prior governing document, the Articles of Confederation, only refers in passing to "the Great Governor of the World"

[Boffin]

I have honour, decency, respect and deep enduring love for my family. I am also an atheist. I simply do not accept that I am somehow incapable of any of those emotions or moral behaviours because I deny the existance of a super being.

 

I respect your faith - whatever it may be, I would die for your right to express it's tennets. I would not denegrate any of your moral codes, unless they harm others.

 

It is the unreasoned enforcement of beliefs that led to the persecution of many thousands of my countrymen, causing some of them to found your country. Note: I do not mean to imply that any of the posters to this thread are guilty of this behaviour.

 

Cya, Andy

[Ken/OC]

I have honour, decency, respect and deep enduring love for my family. I am also an atheist. I simply do not accept that I am somehow incapable of any of those emotions or moral behaviours because I deny the existance of a super being.

 

I suggest that although you are an atheist, your values arise from religion and have developed over many generations in your family and the society it has been embedded in. We all take our values for granted, thinking that somehow they are "ours" -- while in reality they are inherited.

 

I would not even say that your values are "right" or "wrong" -- just that the society from which you arose found them effective. Of course they seem "right" to you, but people with values far different from yours will also believe that they are "right."

 

There are only two self-consistent ways to choose among value systems: Appeal to authority (religion) and experience (group survival).

[Couchrocket]

but I was taught right from wrong

No, what you mean is that "you were taught someone's definition of right and wrong." What if I don't embrace your definition? What if my metanarative holds that your "taught definition" is merely a tool of the powerful to keep me in subjection?

[smiller]

No, what you mean is that "you were taught someone's definition of right and wrong."

 

And so were you. But I'm not sure what you're trying to say... is it that a belief in a deity is necessary to come to the proper conclusion?

[Boffin]

I have honour, decency, respect and deep enduring love for my family. I am also an atheist. I simply do not accept that I am somehow incapable of any of those emotions or moral behaviours because I deny the existance of a super being.

 

I suggest that although you are an atheist, your values arise from religion and have developed over many generations in your family and the society it has been embedded in. We all take our values for granted, thinking that somehow they are "ours" -- while in reality they are inherited.

 

I would not even say that your values are "right" or "wrong" -- just that the society from which you arose found them effective. Of course they seem "right" to you, but people with values far different from yours will also believe that they are "right."

 

There are only two self-consistent ways to choose among value systems: Appeal to authority (religion) and experience (group survival).

 

You are probably right that the values I espouse are derrived from my environment. That does not require a diety though, just a need to live without fear. This leads a society to impose rules of behaviour. Those rules seem consistent across all religions - even if most use fear as a control mechanism, so I would suggest that your second choice, a survival mechanism, is the primary driver for human morality.

Cya, Andy

[Couchrocket]

I have honour, decency, respect and deep enduring love for my family. I am also an atheist. I simply do not accept that I am somehow incapable of any of those emotions or moral behaviours because I deny the existence of a super being.

Exactly my point. You are not incapable of those emotions and moral behaviours. None of us are. I think that's relevant to the discussion. I suspect from your tone, in fact, that you highly value them. Why is that? Why do we cling to, and appreciate, and embrace those things even when they are outside of having any objective meaning within our "held belief" of how we got here?

 

And just so that I'm not mis-understood, I deeply respect anyone's personally held beliefs. I respect them more when they are well thought out, embraced, and "lived fully" and consistently with all the logical extensions of them actualized in the world. I'm making a philosophical point here, and not a comment "about you." Hope that's OK for this thread's discussion. I wouldn't want my comment to be taken as ad hominem.

[Couchrocket]

is it that a belief in a deity is necessary to come to the proper conclusion

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that "we" are not a sufficient reference point for coming to a proper conclusion. Or, taking my posts cumulatively, a materialist answer to the question of existence makes the question of "proper conclusion" meaningless in the literal sense of "without meaning."

[smiller]

Why do we cling to, and appreciate, and embrace those things even when they are outside of having any objective meaning within our "held belief" of how we got here?

 

We do them because they benefit us in terms of emotional reward (probably a result of simple evolution of our brain towards behavior that is beneficial to the species) or an intellectual awareness that they will help us survive. No supernatural element or objective meaning need be present in this (again, if I am understanding your implication correctly, and perhaps I am not.)

[Boffin]

I have honour, decency, respect and deep enduring love for my family. I am also an atheist. I simply do not accept that I am somehow incapable of any of those emotions or moral behaviours because I deny the existence of a super being.

Exactly my point. You are not incapable of those emotions and moral behaviours. None of us are. I think that's relevant to the discussion. I suspect from your tone, in fact, that you highly value them. Why is that? Why do we cling to, and appreciate, and embrace those things even when they are outside of having any objective meaning within our "held belief" of how we got here?

 

And just so that I'm not mis-understood, I deeply respect anyone's personally held beliefs. I respect them more when they are well thought out, embraced, and "lived fully" and consistently with all the logical extensions of them actualized in the world. I'm making a philosophical point here, and not a comment "about you." Hope that's OK for this thread's discussion. I wouldn't want my comment to be taken as ad hominem.

 

I suspect I may hold my moralistic position on selfish grounds. In the hope, if not expectation, that they be reflected towards me by others. On the other hand, it may be just that my parents instilled that behaviour in me by example and teaching throughout my life.

 

Oh, and your comments wre not taken as anything other than a philisophical argument. I am just not sure I agree that lack of a belief in a loving creator means that love and morality lack objective meaning, assuming my 'selfish' reason in objective of course.

 

Cya, Andy

[uk1200RT]

[quote

We do them because they benefit us in terms of emotional reward (probably a result of simple evolution of our brain towards behavior that is beneficial to the species) or an intellectual awareness that they will help us survive.

While it would seem that altruistic motives would be a huge part of religion, it is not so in practice. In fact, religion divides and causes war more than anything else. In practice, at least historically, power was a constant draw to religion. I think that is one of the reasons that the Bible says "pure religion is to help the fatherless and widows." That's simplistic enough and does away with the power base.

[uk1200RT]

Andy's point is well taken...I don't think you have to be religious to have morals, but who defines what is and is not moral? It is easy with killing and stealing (maybe), but what about sleeping around? What about cheating to get ahead? Who decides whether these are okay? If my moral view is different from yours, who is right? Are those making laws right? They can't be...I don't agree with homosexuality, but lawmakers are accepting it, so they are wrong, right?

Maybe we should just all be given our own path to walk and be allowed to walk it as long as it doesn't harm (this is not the same as offend) others. I believe this is what the Constitution affords us.

[sgendler]

Please go to The Center for Science and Culture website

 

www.discovery.org/csc

 

to see a scientific look at Intelligent design.

 

It turns out many scientist believe in ID.

 

You understand, I hope, that the folks behind Discovery are the very folks who 'invented' the theory of intelligent design, at least as a political force in american politics. That doesn't invalidate what they have to say, but it is worth understanding that the site is hardly some independant statement of support.

 

--sam

[RFW]

You understand, I hope, that the folks behind Discovery are the very folks who 'invented' the theory of intelligent design, at least as a political force in american politics.

Why am I not surprised?

 

Bob.

[Couchrocket]

No supernatural element or objective meaning need be present in this (again, if I am understanding your implication correctly, and perhaps I am not.)

 

Nope, you seem to understand what I intended well. It is exactly that we cling to "the need for" meaning even when we acknowledge that it has no objective value or meaning. Personal reward then is the stated "ultimacy" mentioned in my earlier posts, which makes "us" our god. It becomes quite circular, which illustrates its philosophical bankruptcy.

[smiller]

we cling to "the need for" meaning even when we acknowledge that it has no objective value or meaning

 

We do? I don't. If I happen to be no more than a chance combination of molecules with no real purpose or meaning in the Universe then I can be comfortable with that and do not feel the need to make up any explanations, circular or otherwise. If others do feel the need for some greater meaning to their existence then that's fine too, but no one should pretend that there is any factual basis for such a belief. We simply don't know, and while thought games on this subject are fun they can never by themselves demonstrate the existence of a god or intelligent creative force.

[KMG_365]

It is exactly that we cling to "the need for" meaning even when we acknowledge that it has no objective value or meaning. Personal reward then is the stated "ultimacy" mentioned in my earlier posts, which makes "us" our god. It becomes quite circular, which illustrates its philosophical bankruptcy.

I think that's a broad generalization that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Some of us no longer "cling to the need for meaning". True, as our species has evolved to date the majority of humans felt and still feel the "need for meaning" just as a child looks to its parent for guidance consciously and subconsciously. Religion has conveniently provided this "meaning" which it can claim is true since it was not invented by man. But eventually, the child grows up to find it's own way in the world (yes, colored by it's upbringing), and more are finding that they are perfectly content with the "theory/fact" that everything is "empty and meaningless". To those comfortable living with this blank slate is opened an entire world of possibilities unavailable to those who are still preoccupied with the striving to find "meaning".

[Bob Palin]

Couchrocket said we all have some ultimate "god" and objective meaning

 

I disagree with almost everything you said, I would only agree that materialism is not a useful personal philosophy but even then I suspect there are plenty of people who have gone to their graves still believing in it, they just never got beyond it.

 

I don't believe* our lives are objective in any way outside their own frame of reference, life has no meaning and is ultimately pointless. Within its own frame of reference it can lived in ways that make it more interesting and worthwhile, it seems to me that it is relationships with other people and with yourself that are the most rewarding aspects of living, they please the chemistry in my head, that's all.

 

There are no supernatural beings and there is nothing we cannot know, there may be beings we don't know about yet and things we haven't even started to explain but that's fine, we've got to leave something for the future.

 

 

*which is to say, I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Whip]

To start in another direction..kinda....I do not have kids nor do I go to church and I cannot remember anything I learned in biology......How many would object to their kids being told about ID in public school...not someone elses kids... but yours??????

 

Larry

[Bob Palin]

To start in another direction..kinda....I do not have kids nor do I go to church and I cannot remember anything I learned in biology......How many would object to their kids being told about ID in public school...not someone elses kids... but yours??????

 

Larry

The question isn't whether they should be told but whether it should be presented as an alternative to evolution in a science class.

 

Actually your question is exactly what it says it is: so no I wouldn't object to them being told about ID, I just wouldn't want them taught it as science. (I don't have kids either but I did go to church, was usually top of my religous education classes in high school and always top at Sunday school, I'm an athiest! I think I still have the picture of Jesus that I was given for coming top at Sunday School one time, I do think Jesus was a pretty enlightened man, just not supernatural)

[Whip]

The question isn't whether they should be told but whether it should be presented as an alternative to evolution in a science class.

 

Actually your question is exactly what it says it is: so no I wouldn't object to them being told about ID, I just wouldn't want them taught it as science. (I don't have kids either but I did go to church, was usually top of my religous education classes in high school and always top at Sunday school, I'm an athiest! I think I still have the picture of Jesus that I was given for coming top at Sunday School one time, I do think Jesus was a pretty enlightened man, just not supernatural)

 

 

No argument with that........Darn....

 

Larry

[KMG_365]

To start in another direction..kinda....I do not have kids nor do I go to church and I cannot remember anything I learned in biology......How many would object to their kids being told about ID in public school...not someone elses kids... but yours??????

 

Larry

Looks like Killer beat me to it again, but I would say your question brings us back full circle to the crux of this whole thread.

 

My feeling is that no knowledge in itself is dangerous--not that it can't be abused by people with dangerous intents, but I would have ABSOLUTELY no problem with Judeo-Christian "creationist" (or ID) theories of the origin of life, or any other related creation theories (so long as they are all given an equally fair and as unbiased a treatment as possible), and provided that they are presented in their proper context: as philosphical, historical and religious ideas in a "comparative religions of the world" class.

 

I would sharply draw a distinction between these and the "hard" sciences however, as IMHO the two require very disparate approaches and different skill sets to properly master. But both of these approaches to knowledge have their strengths and the ability to further the progress of not only our culture but the species as a whole. The trick is to be ever watchful for and guard against those who would subvert any such knowledge to their own narrow purposes.

[SteveHebert]

If you teach one, teach the other. It is awareness. Let the individual decide.

 

Amen.