Jump to content
IGNORED

Teaching evolution -- or not?


Ken/OC

Recommended Posts

I agree, Kent.

 

Seth, I am interested in the truth, but not only the truth. I am willing to embrace some things that I do not fully understand.

 

I suspect that most of us are trying to achieve an acceptable level of confidence. Certainty is too much to ask in most cases, even if applied to a belief in God.

 

I read through some of these posts and I can´t help but smile. In every generation scientists regaled us with the certainties of some things that later turned out to be false.

 

If they could read this thread 100 years from now, what will they chuckle about? While it is noble to attempt to understand our world, it is supremely arrogant to think we do. There must always be huge question marks and humility.

Link to comment
russell_bynum
I agree, Kent.

 

Seth, I am interested in the truth, but not only the truth. I am willing to embrace some things that I do not fully understand.

 

I suspect that most of us are trying to achieve an acceptable level of confidence. Certainty is too much to ask in most cases, even if applied to a belief in God.

 

I read through some of these posts and I can´t help but smile. In every generation scientists regaled us with the certainties of some things that later turned out to be false.

 

If they could read this thread 100 years from now, what will they chuckle about? While it is noble to attempt to understand our world, it is supremely arrogant to think we do. There must always be huge question marks and humility.

 

David and Pilgrim just summed up my feelings.

 

As for stuff that we all just KNEW was so...that turned out not to be...I just found this article and thought it was interesting.

Link to comment

Even worse, some damn scientist has had us all eating fiber and other nonsense. The only problem is that he apparently falsified the data for the original article in some famous medical journal, and now more than 200 other "scholarly articles" were written, citing that as a primary source.

 

I am really just pissed off at eating all those bran muffins for squat. tongue.gif

Link to comment
russell_bynum
Even worse, some damn scientist has had us all eating fiber and other nonsense. The only problem is that he apparently falsified the data for the original article in some famous medical journal, and now more than 200 other "scholarly articles" were written, citing that as a primary source.

 

I am really just pissed off at eating all those bran muffins for squat. tongue.gif

 

Lost luggage, volcano eruptions, and stinging nettles don't bother you, but Bran Muffins get your goat? You got issues, boss. grin.gif

 

I really just think we need to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt, and always check your assumptions.

Link to comment

That depends solely on what you are trying to achieve for yourself. If all you are after is scientific rationality to measure and understand things you can touch and see, then you are correct.

 

And that is what I am trying to do because that's all I can really do, no matter what illusions may comfort me. It's true that metaphysical issues that we cannot touch or see are not well addressed by scientific examination but neither are they well addressed by pure conjecture. Science would (or should, when properly conducted) consider unknown issues as just that. We can speculate for fun but can never claim to 'know' anything about these. To claim that you 'know' God exists purely as a result of a personal opinion is clearly faulted reasoning if you are trying to be objective and rational. And if you aren't trying to be objective and rational then I don't see how you can accomplish anything very meaningful to anyone but you.

 

I am also interested in things that I cannot understand and I think that is a big part of what it is to be human. But if I cannot achieve an acceptable level of confidence (a terse but well-put way of phrasing it) concerning an issue it stays in the realm of a fun mental exercise and I don't feel inclined to treat it as much more than that, nor would I expect anyone else to. More to the point, I don't think that anyone here on the skeptical side of the fence has ever claimed that nothing we believe to be true today will ever be proven false or that no new discoveries are possible, even though somehow this belief seems to be repeatedly attributed to us. All that is being said is that what we do or don't know now is... an unknown. That fact does not provide license to claim to 'know' anything not in evidence... even if it later turns out to be true. grin.gif

Link to comment

 

"I am really just pissed off at eating all those bran muffins for squat. tongue.gif"

 

Pun intended I ASSume? grin.gif Sorry, couldn't resist; I have so little in my

intellectual quiver to draw on, I couldn't turn down a freebie.

 

I agree that we shouldn't simply out of hand disregard the subjective,

currently inexplicable, and ineffable experiences that we, or others

have. Whenever I'm tempted to discount something unusual I remember

my favorite line from Hamlet: Act one, Scene one, on the parapet, Hamlet

speaking to his friend Horatio regarding the sightings of a ghost,

"There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt

of in your philosophy." This reminds me to avoid the sin of being too

confident in what I 'know'.

 

However, I draw the line when I near the point of trying to assume my

subjective experiences, epiphany or not, are something I need to try and

impose upon anyone else as some kind of overarching 'Truth' that they

'Need' to believe. That is what IDists, Creationists, and religious

fundimentalists are doing, and I find it disgusting, arrogant and disingenuous.

 

In fact, if we assume the existence of a "God" (and all that that implies),

trying to force religious ideas on others is, in essence, claiming to know

the very mind of God, and I see THAT as truly being The original sin, if there

is such a thing.

 

Science tries to provide a objective frame of reference that we can all use,

and freely admits these reference points are prone to revision when better data comes to light, and provides the mechanism for that process.

 

Religionists take their subjective experiences and say "Believe what I tell you, without any proof from me, and

change your behavior accordingly, or you are a Bad person!!" which position

then gives them the ammunition (in their minds anyway) to pursue

ways through government, to force you to believe or act in ways they find

acceptable.

 

That should not be tolerated in a society that claims to support freedom

of thought and religion.

Link to comment

I read through some of these posts and I can´t help but smile. In every generation scientists regaled us with the certainties of some things that later turned out to be false.

 

And that's a strength of science, not a weakness.

 

Science assumes it may be wrong, searches for a better answer, and throws out what turns out to be false.

 

Faith assumes it is right, refuses to consider the possibility of a better answer, and holds onto it whether it turns out to be false or true.

 

Does anybody really think that the ID advocates could ever admit they were wrong, absent a loss of faith?

 

math_its_how_i_feel.jpg

Link to comment

Timmer is not alone here, as this is the precise sentiment held by the President of the United States.

 

Wow! thats the first time anybody has ever aligned my thinking with Mr. Bush. eek.gif It's also an error. I do not share his views. I don't subscribe to his view that ID should be taught as the gospel truth in science classes. Mr. Bush wants to teach ID as either the only explanation for life as we know it, or as an equal to evolution. I strongly disagree with that position.

 

My point was that it is important for students to hear opposing viewpoints, including a discussion about the scientific basis (or lack thereof) for other views like ID. It seemed to me that we're heading down the road of saying "evolution is it, period, end of discussion!" and in fact, have no discussion whatsoever about other viewpoints.

 

 

 

There is the issue of #3. Children, even high-schoolers, give great weight to what is taught them, explicitly or implicitly, by adults. They lack the experience, patience, and discipline required (and sadly, usually also the education), to sort out competing claims about very complex issues.

 

So how do they learn to sort out complex issues when you teach them only one view of that issue?

 

Also, you're sorely under estimating the intellectual capabilities of today's high school students. The life sciences taught in high school today was mid level college stuff 25 years ago.

 

This fact, of course, is what is really at the root of the ID debate. The real agenda of those who push ID in the schools is that they want to maximize the number of credulous children exposed to their beliefs because it’s much harder to make a believer out of an adult well versed in science, history, and philosophy.

 

Everybody seems to have an agenda. It's my way, or the highway, with little or no room for a middle ground.

Link to comment
This fact, of course, is what is really at the root of the ID debate. The real agenda of those who push ID in the schools is that they want to maximize the number of credulous children exposed to their beliefs because it’s much harder to make a believer out of an adult well versed in science, history, and philosophy.

 

Everybody seems to have an agenda. It's my way, or the highway, with little or no room for a middle ground.

OK, the agenda of those pushing ID in a science class was pretty clearly stated above. And the agenda of those who would like to see science discussed in a science class and religion discussed in a religion class would be..?

Link to comment
And the agenda of those who would like to see science discussed in a science class and religion discussed in a religion class would be..?

 

To over-simplify and compartmentalize instruction - keep science classes as a core requirement and then make religion classes optional. In bad budget times, eliminate religion classes because they are, after all, only optional, right? wink.gif

Link to comment
That depends solely on what you are trying to achieve for yourself. If all you are after is scientific rationality to measure and understand things you can touch and see, then you are correct.

 

And that is what I am trying to do because that's all I can really do, no matter what illusions may comfort me. It's true that metaphysical issues that we cannot touch or see are not well addressed by scientific examination but neither are they well addressed by pure conjecture. Science would (or should, when properly conducted) consider unknown issues as just that. We can speculate for fun but can never claim to 'know' anything about these. To claim that you 'know' God exists purely as a result of a personal opinion is clearly faulted reasoning if you are trying to be objective and rational. And if you aren't trying to be objective and rational then I don't see how you can accomplish anything very meaningful to anyone but you.

 

I am also interested in things that I cannot understand and I think that is a big part of what it is to be human. But if I cannot achieve an acceptable level of confidence (a terse but well-put way of phrasing it) concerning an issue it stays in the realm of a fun mental exercise and I don't feel inclined to treat it as much more than that, nor would I expect anyone else to.[/color] More to the point, I don't think that anyone here on the skeptical side of the fence has ever claimed that nothing we believe to be true today will ever be proven false or that no new discoveries are possible, even though somehow this belief seems to be repeatedly attributed to us. All that is being said is that what we do or don't know now is... an unknown. That fact does not provide license to claim to 'know' anything not in evidence... even if it later turns out to be true. grin.gif

 

Seth, you use the word "illusions" above. Faith, even before an epiphany, is not about illusions; it is about belief not supported by objective fact. It can be hard to maintain and is easily challenged and lost.

 

Faith is not addressed or explained by pure conjecture - the need to explain is moot except in the sense you may try to explain what you believe, as opposed to why you believe it. Faith requires no explanation, it just is.

 

Once an epiphany has taken place you don't believe in God as a result of a personal opinion (if that's ever a correct formulation). You believe because of a personal experience, something that has left absolutely no doubt in your mind.

 

I know you don't see how one can accomplish anything very meaningful to anyone else; that is a weakness of rationalism. Demonstrations of faith and actions based on faith have changed a multitude of other lives. Addressing something Timmer (I think) brought up, the best, most effective missionaries don't threaten and demand; they live and they show and they sacrifice.

 

What you don't know, Seth, and I do, is that you may someday undergo an epiphany, and with that event comes a comfortable level of confidence - even an unshakeable level of confidence. You just know; objective proof becomes irrelevant, hard as that is for you to imagine now. Religiousity or faith are not prerequisites. In fact, some of the most stunning epiphanies and subsequent changes of life, like Charles Colson of Watergate notoriety, happen to nonbelievers. You don't even have to keep an open mind; just suddenly, there it is, undeniably true.

 

Or, of course, you may not. But you have no control over it all.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
. . . the best, most effective missionaries don't threaten and demand; they live and they show and they sacrifice.
I would say the Inquisition and the Spanish Missionaries in the new world found those tactics QUITE effective, and once you've won the war you're free to rewrite the book as you see fit. Funny how mostly only people from a western culture have epiphanies that involve Jesus. The rest of the world has to be converted by the sword.

 

What you don't know, Seth, and I do, is that you may someday undergo an epiphany, and with that event comes a comfortable level of confidence - even an unshakeable level of confidence. You just know; objective proof becomes irrelevant, hard as that is for you to imagine now. Religiousity or faith are not prerequisites. In fact, some of the most stunning epiphanies and subsequent changes of life, like Charles Colson of Watergate notoriety, happen to nonbelievers. You don't even have to keep an open mind; just suddenly, there it is, undeniably true.

 

Or, of course, you may not. But you have no control over it all.

 

Pilgrim

If this sort of smugness is what I'd have to look forward to--Zeus SAVE me from an epiphany! tongue.gif

 

Last one to Hades buys a round. I'll be the one on fire over in the corner chatting up Ghandi and the Buddha.

 

 

I'm out. frown.gif

Link to comment
Does anybody really think that the ID advocates could ever admit they were wrong, absent a loss of faith?

 

On it[s face, that's a very naive statement, David, and it brings your bias to the forefront. I personally know dozens of people who have done just that. smirk.gif

 

And before you reply, keep in mind that I am not a proponent of ID. It is far too political for me, and I also don't care one whit about how we got here. I do find the Bible's account quite in the category of useful myth.

Link to comment
Funny how mostly only people from a western culture have epiphanies that involve Jesus. The rest of the world has to be converted by the sword.

 

That's a bit of an overstatement, but I'm in the mood to let it go. tongue.gif On the whole, I have no use for missionaries, though. Most that I have had experience with are like ad agencies without a conscience. grin.gif

Link to comment

This post is is really at the heart of life.

We have different views of were we stand from the different life experiences. Be it right or be it wrong, We know what we like,and we like what we know ( to steal a phrase!)

 

I have to throw this in from what I learned on this thread...

 

 

..... Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!!!!!!

Link to comment

On it[s face, that's a very naive statement, David, and it brings your bias to the forefront. I personally know dozens of people who have done just that. [/color]

 

Really? You know dozens of advocates of ID who have said "You know, I was really behind this ID stuff, but now I realize it's all wrong, but I still have faith in the existence of a Creator"? Scuse me if I'm skeptical.

Link to comment

Once an epiphany has taken place you don't believe in God as a result of a personal opinion (if that's ever a correct formulation). You believe because of a personal experience, something that has left absolutely no doubt in your mind.

 

What you don't know, Seth, and I do, is that you may someday undergo an epiphany, and with that event comes a comfortable level of confidence - even an unshakeable level of confidence. You just know; objective proof becomes irrelevant, hard as that is for you to imagine now. . . . You don't even have to keep an open mind; just suddenly, there it is, undeniably true.

 

How is this different from what the guys who flew the planes into the WTC felt? They had no doubt in their minds. They had an unshakeable level of confidence. They had a personal experience with their G-d. The justice of their cause was undeniably true to them. From their point of view, they would see things exactly the same way you do. So how do you say "I am right and they were wrong", other than by saying "I know I am right and I know they were wrong" (which is presumably what they would say if they were around)?

Link to comment
Funny how mostly only people from a western culture have epiphanies that involve Jesus.
The fact is that epiphanies happen all the time to all sorts of people about all sorts of things, it's how our brains work. Things bother us but we can't resolve them, we move on but subconciously the brain keeps working away. Then suddenly, perhaps triggered by some external event, everything adds up and we know or understand exactly what the problem or answer is, it's a perfectly natural process that probably happens to almost everybody on some scale.

 

In our culture most of us are bombarded by messages about god for most of our lives and one of our most perplexing problems is the apparent finality of death and ultimate meaningless of life, it's not surprising that the brain finds a solution in the data presented.

 

Jamie, you probably remember that even in Fallbrook I was looking for something different, when I got laid off I went on my long ride and spent the rest of the winter wandering around until that morning in Torrey when I had my mini-epiphany, perhaps brought on by the shaft of light which is a common trigger I believe, and changed my life.

 

These sudden realisations seem so convincing because they always answer a situation we have not otherwise been able to resolve, this leads us not to question the solution too carefully and even to treat them as absolutes.

Link to comment
I really just think we need to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt, and always check your assumptions.

 

No, no, no!!! Too much salt is definitely bad for you. That's a scientific fact (for the time being).

Link to comment
I really just think we need to take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt, and always check your assumptions.

 

No, no, no!!! Too much salt is definitely bad for you. That's a scientific fact (for the time being).

 

Yes, but now chocolate (dark) and coffee are good for you! Woohoo!

(for the time being)

Slurp! (it's 630 am)

 

grin.gif

Link to comment

Quote:

Wow! thats the first time anybody has ever aligned my thinking with Mr. Bush. It's also an error. I do not share his views. I don't subscribe to his view that ID should be taught as the gospel truth in science classes. Mr. Bush wants to teach ID as either the only explanation for life as we know it, or as an equal to evolution. I strongly disagree with that position.

 

My point was that it is important for students to hear opposing viewpoints, including a discussion about the scientific basis (or lack thereof) for other views like ID. It seemed to me that we're heading down the road of saying "evolution is it, period, end of discussion!" and in fact, have no discussion whatsoever about other viewpoints.

 

Everybody seems to have an agenda. It's my way, or the highway, with little or no room for a middle ground.

 

Quote:

 

And the agenda of those who would like to see science discussed in a science class and religion discussed in a religion class would be..?

 

To over-simplify and compartmentalize instruction - keep science classes as a core requirement and then make religion classes optional. In bad budget times, eliminate religion classes because they are, after all, only optional, right?

 

Quote:

 

Tim,

Please pardon me if I mis-interpreted your views vis-a-vis those of the President. I’ve already pushed the moderators’ patience regarding the political aspects of this issue, so I’ll say no more about that.

 

Regarding agendas, I’m definitely guilty of having one. However, while I express my opinions strongly, I plead innocent to the “my way or the highway” charge. In most areas of life, I’m very averse to conflict, and am firmly of the “live and let live” persuasion. But world, national, and personal events in the last few years have convinced me that non-believers and former believers (ike me) must begin to speak out vigorously and at every opportunity. The ID issue is but one of the areas where I feel the absolute necessity to stand up and communicate.

 

The great thing about the people who frequent this forum, and this thread specifically, is that we all seem able to generally separate our differing convictions from our value as people/motorcyclists – that is, that we’re all essentially riding the same highway (and soon may be doing so literally!).

I’ve heard my Christian friends and relatives occasionally use the phrase, “hate the sin and love the sinner.” I admire that aspiration (although I think it might be more effective to just “strongly dislike” the sin), and I know that the most genuine Christians can often accomplish it, even though it’s not an easy psychological feat.

At the same time, I hope believers here will understand that we non and former believers are able to be very frustrated with what we see as harmful and unnecessary beliefs (of which the ID battles are only a tiny manifestation), but that we can still feel strong feelings of friendship and respect for believers as human beings.

 

About evolution being “it, period, end of discussion.” This is not the case at all! As has been more eloquently described by earlier posters, this is what separates science from belief. There are no sacred cows in science, although I’ll grant you that it often seems that way!

This is why even gravity and evolution are still called “theories.”

Note, for example, that even many of the findings of even Newton and Einstein are now set aside in light of newer research that better explains observable and repeatable phenomena.

For evolution’s part, it’s accepted because it accurately explains what we see (more and more) in actual life, and because it’s actually useful as an intellectual/structural tool to make advances which will improve the quality of life. Only the latest example is the exploding area of research into the genetic basis of many diseases.

As they always do in the course of verifying the accuracy of proposed theories, scientists have debated every aspect of evolution and have propsed lots of variations. The strength of evolution however, is that not only does the foundation of the theory still stand, but with every new discovery, it becomes even more uselful!

Of course, those with a vested interest in literal interpretations of the Bible have, from the Scopes trial until today, attacked evolution on the very basis that scientists don’t agree about every part of it, and that the “theory is not proven.” To me, those actions demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of how science works to the benefit of all, not to mention the hypocrisy in complaints about evolution not being “proven,” as though the existence of a Supreme Being is a slam-dunk.

 

Finally, you refer to “bad budget times”, and “making religion classes optional.” I suspect we agree that public education is not a real priority for our nation, but instead is a poor step-child, and a political (sometimes religious) football. I’ll not get started on that. Grrrrr!

However, since I tried to raise the issue of what the goal of public education should be, and how as a nation we should employ our limited educational resources, let me ask this: If science and religion are both important for children to learn about, which one is better taught in the home, and which one is better taught in school?

 

Peace and Happy New Year to Everybody!

Link to comment

By the way, last night I heard an interview of a young woman who has written a book about her early education in a private fundamentalist school. She feels that her school experience aided in her development as a critical thinker! (I think she was very smart and probably lucky along the way somewhere.)

The book sounds like a fun read for thinkers of all persuasions. Not surprisingly, the book is called, "My Fundamentalist Education." The author's name is Christine Rosen. She now considers herself agnostic.

Link to comment
On it[s face, that's a very naive statement, David, and it brings your bias to the forefront. I personally know dozens of people who have done just that. [/color]

 

Really? You know dozens of advocates of ID who have said "You know, I was really behind this ID stuff, but now I realize it's all wrong, but I still have faith in the existence of a Creator"? Scuse me if I'm skeptical.

 

Be skeptical if you want, but it's true. Remember that a) there are many definitions of ID, and b) you may not come in touch with many folks who believe in it, given your belief system. I come from that background and know thousands of people who do believe in ID.

 

Remember that part of the scientific process is always being open, David. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Once an epiphany has taken place you don't believe in God as a result of a personal opinion (if that's ever a correct formulation). You believe because of a personal experience, something that has left absolutely no doubt in your mind.

 

What you don't know, Seth, and I do, is that you may someday undergo an epiphany, and with that event comes a comfortable level of confidence - even an unshakeable level of confidence. You just know; objective proof becomes irrelevant, hard as that is for you to imagine now. . . . You don't even have to keep an open mind; just suddenly, there it is, undeniably true.

 

How is this different from what the guys who flew the planes into the WTC felt? They had no doubt in their minds. They had an unshakeable level of confidence. They had a personal experience with their G-d. The justice of their cause was undeniably true to them. From their point of view, they would see things exactly the same way you do. So how do you say "I am right and they were wrong", other than by saying "I know I am right and I know they were wrong" (which is presumably what they would say if they were around)?

 

It's no different at all except in how they decided to act on it. They decided that YOU must agree with them or die. That's moving away from a system of personal belief and imposing it on others, and some forms of evangelism are a mild form of that. It's also why I'm so uncomfortable with organized religion of most sorts.

Link to comment

You just know; objective proof becomes irrelevant

 

Pilgrim I suppose that the main diffrence between our ways of seeing things is that you seem to consider intuitive or epiphanic beliefs as a higher plane of thinking (I know that you did not specifically state this but your comments do carry that strong implication) than those resulting from strictly rational/scientific/objective thought processes, and I think just the opposite. Regardless of how one chooses to strain the definitions of various words the fact remains that the belief system you describe has no foundation in reality (and just to be clear I am referring to the common definition of that word.)

 

Many of the Crusaders just knew that God wanted the heathen lands conquered and a large group of men men just knew that Allah wanted then to fly loaded airplanes into buildings. What tools might one use to determine that these peoples' faith-based convictions were wrong and yours is right? And no fair claiming that the words 'right' or 'reality' don't have any clear meaning in this context... or at least don't tell that to any of the many victims of 'known' religious precepts. If the only difference bewteen right and 'wrong' subjective knowledge is how one acts on their belief then I'm not sure that adds much clarity as the question remains the same... when is one allowed to act on subjective knowledge and when is that wrong?

 

BTW I should note that the epiphany I feel I would do just as well to avoid is the one that convinces me that subjective beliefs are enough to replace objective study... all others are welcome. wink.gif

Link to comment
It's no different at all except in how they decided to act on it. They decided that YOU must agree with them or die. That's moving away from a system of personal belief and imposing it on others, and some forms of evangelism are a mild form of that. It's also why I'm so uncomfortable with organized religion of most sorts.
And given the original topic of this thread I think it might be fair to note once again the rather transparent motivations of those behind the ID-in-public-schools controversy, which certainly seems to have much less to do with a personal belief system than a concern that that system be shared by others.
Link to comment
It's no different at all except in how they decided to act on it. They decided that YOU must agree with them or die. That's moving away from a system of personal belief and imposing it on others, and some forms of evangelism are a mild form of that. It's also why I'm so uncomfortable with organized religion of most sorts.
And given the original topic of this thread I think it might be fair to note once again the rather transparent motivations of those behind the ID-in-public-schools controversy, which certainly seems to have much less to do with a personal belief system than a concern that that system be shared by others.

 

Agreed.

Link to comment

Brad - no problem, no pardon required.

 

In most areas of life, I’m very averse to conflict, and am firmly of the “live and let live” persuasion. But world, national, and personal events in the last few years have convinced me that non-believers and former believers (ike me) must begin to speak out vigorously and at every opportunity.

We're pretty much on the same page here.

 

 

Finally, you refer to “bad budget times”, and “making religion classes optional.” I suspect we agree that public education is not a real priority for our nation, but instead is a poor step-child, and a political (sometimes religious) football. I’ll not get started on that. Grrrrr!

However, since I tried to raise the issue of what the goal of public education should be, and how as a nation we should employ our limited educational resources, let me ask this: If science and religion are both important for children to learn about, which one is better taught in the home, and which one is better taught in school?

 

I'm a college administrator and trust me, you do not want me on my soapbox about this subject.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

Pilgrim I suppose that the main diffrence between our ways of seeing things is that you seem to consider intuitive or epiphanic beliefs as a higher plane of thinking (I know that you did not specifically state this but your comments do carry that strong implication) than those resulting from strictly rational/scientific/objective thought processes, and I think just the opposite. Regardless of how one chooses to strain the definitions of various words the fact remains that the belief system you describe has no foundation in reality (and just to be clear I am referring to the common definition of that word.)

 

I can't speak for Pilgrim's belief system, but his words rang true for me, in this sense. Human beings (and other animals for that matter) have learned from their own personal experiences, far back before recorded history. We experience how it is to hunt for game, to swim, to climb a high mountain, to motorcycle, to love, to fight, to stand out in a rain storm, and these experiences mean something more to us than the abstract study of such things would mean. Based on our experiences, we form a belief system, which has a foundation in reality (our experiences).

 

Now when our experiences move from the realm of the tangible, hunting, to the intangible, love or music, it does not mean that they lose their foundation in reality.

 

A sick mind can have distorted views of experiences arising from both tangible and intangible aspects of life. I'm reminded of the lead character in "A Beautiful Mind," based on a real person who was a mathematical genius but was also schizophrenic, who came to the realization that he saw and conversed with people who did not exist. Medical science could not cure his disease, but he eventually learned to cope with it. For example, in one part of the movie, he is talking with someone he just met, and asks for the assurance of the person standing next to him that he is talking with a real person.

 

Even a well mind occasionally misinterprets experiences, which I suppose is why we have to apologize to one another from time to time and why we continue to have motorcycle accidents. But since the only alternative to learning from our experiences is to lock ourselves in a room and die, all of us, those who believe in God and those who don't, will continue to examine our experiences for whatever knowledge or wisdom we can glean from them.

 

It is the same with the epiphany described by Pilgrim. An epiphany is an experience, as real to the person experiencing it as hunting or falling in love or listening to music.

 

So then we have to ask ourselves, is it a real enough experience to be of any benefit to the rest of us, or is it delusional? The only way I know to answer this question is to look to others who have had similar experiences, and ask if they are sane or delusional. If I look over the world and at the millions who have experienced knowing God (in all varieties of religions or outside of any religion), I don't notice a huge amount of them who seem insane. Some have been, of course, but not more than in the population as a whole. Certainly as good a batting average as those, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, who have professed no belief in God.

 

So I have to conclude that the experiences of those who have had a religious epiphany, at least those who we respect in other facits of their lives, probably have something to offer, much as one would listen and hope to gain from the experiences of someone who has in the past been a successful deer hunter in an area you would like to hunt.

Link to comment

you may not come in touch with many folks who believe in it, given your belief system.

 

I don't think you really know my belief system, and I really don't think you know the folks I'm in touch with. You should be open and careful of making assumptions, too.

Link to comment

Now when our experiences move from the realm of the tangible, hunting, to the intangible, love or music, it does not mean that they lose their foundation in reality.

 

That really depends on one's definition of reality and that direction takes us into some rather well-tread areas of epistemology that are probably beyond the scope of this thread, and that's why I was careful to note that I was defining reality by its common definition, i.e. 'the quality or state of being actual or true' or 'that which exists objectively and in fact.' A looser, philosophical definition of the word can take you just about anywhere you want to go so that may best be left to a separate discussion.

 

I never said (or at least I think I didn't) that personal experience has no value or that nothing can be learned from it (although again for some reason that sentiment seems to be freely applied to skeptics whether they make the statement or not.) To try to be painstakingly clear, I only meant to say that with regard to knowledge gained through experience that which is obtained by demonstrable and repeatable experimentation is superior (in a real-world sense; how it applies to your personal sense is up to you) to experience gained through a uniquely personal revelation that cannot pass any objective tests. You may not believe that, but if you do then yes, when our experiences move from the realm of the tangible to the intangible it does indeed mean that they lose claim to a firm foundation in reality. Such experiences might be true, but they just as easily might not.

 

Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometime great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true.

Link to comment

 

"Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometime great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true."

 

Sigh...Once again cleaning the nasally projected coffee from my screen.

 

Thanks Seth (on second thought, it was worth it:-)

Link to comment
"Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometime great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true."

 

...that's a keeper for the quotable quotes files. grin.gif

Link to comment
"Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometime great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true."

 

...that's a keeper for the quotable quotes files. grin.gif

 

Ditto. ROFL. Fortunately, had finished coffee - and lunch salad.

Link to comment
you may not come in touch with many folks who believe in it, given your belief system.

 

I don't think you really know my belief system, and I really don't think you know the folks I'm in touch with. You should be open and careful of making assumptions, too.

 

David, you made a statement that I believed to be absolutely wrong based on first hand experience (vs. your supposition), and so I inferred that your experience wasn't a very good guide in this case. You're right, though--I don't know what you believe or who you hang out with. All I know for sure is that your circle of friends who believe in some form of I.D. is apparently not large enough to be representative.

 

I was hoping to just throw data points into the mix, here, and not get into an argument with you.

 

It seems like you were thinking that those with some degree of spiritual faith place all beliefs in the same category. Many do, of course, including fundamentalists Christians (one error in the Bible is simply unconscionable), but that is not true of many, many people. They would have no problem with a changing belief set that revolved around evolution and I.D. Those changes would not shake their confidence in a God.

 

Is this the time to admit that I studied one summer under both Whitcom and Davis (and a guest lecture by Henry Morris), the modern proponents of creationism? It was a painful, embarassing experience and I wouldn't mind having those few months of my life back. I did it as a curiosity during my Hebrew studies (the class used the original texts).

 

Talk about closed mind. Academic freedom simply did not exist. dopeslap.gif

Link to comment

It seems like you were thinking that those with some degree of spiritual faith place all beliefs in the same category. Many do, of course, including fundamentalists Christians (one error in the Bible is simply unconscionable), but that is not true of many, many people. They would have no problem with a changing belief set that revolved around evolution and I.D. Those changes would not shake their confidence in a God.

 

As I said, I was speaking of the advocates of ID, such as the Discovery Institute and Center for Science and Culture people, not anyone who believes in "some form" of ID. You are correct as to the latter group, but I stand by my assertion as to the former group.

 

And my circle of friends is broad enough that I know what "KJV only" means.

Link to comment
And my circle of friends is broad enough that I know what "KJV only" means.

 

Yeah, but my circle is tiny and utterly devod of religious belief and it only took about 2 seconds of thought to figure out that it stands for King James Version only, assuming that that is what it means, anyway.

 

--sam

Link to comment

Is this the time to admit that I studied one summer under both Whitcom and Davis (and a guest lecture by Henry Morris), the modern proponents of creationism? It was a painful, embarassing experience and I wouldn't mind having those few months of my life back. I did it as a curiosity during my Hebrew studies (the class used the original texts).

 

 

Now that is an experience I'd like to hear more about; what was said, what you felt you

learned, your impressions, even colored by time as they may be.

 

Clearly off topic a bit for this thread, but certainly worthy of another if you were willing to go to the trouble.

 

I've done a fair amount of comparitive religion studies myself, and I find it facinating and perspective broadening.

Link to comment
You just know; objective proof becomes irrelevant

 

Pilgrim I suppose that the main diffrence between our ways of seeing things is that you seem to consider intuitive or epiphanic beliefs as a higher plane of thinking(I know that you did not specifically state this but your comments do carry that strong implication) than those resulting from strictly rational/scientific/objective thought processes, and I think just the opposite.

 

Many of the Crusaders just knew that God wanted the heathen lands conquered and a large group of men men just knew that Allah wanted then to fly loaded airplanes into buildings. What tools might one use to determine that these peoples' faith-based convictions were wrong and yours is right? And no fair claiming that the words 'right' or 'reality' don't have any clear meaning in this context... or at least don't tell that to any of the many victims of 'known' religious precepts. If the only difference bewteen right and 'wrong' subjective knowledge is how one acts on their belief then I'm not sure that adds much clarity as the question remains the same... when is one allowed to act on subjective knowledge and when is that wrong?

 

BTW I should note that the epiphany I feel I would do just as well to avoid is the one that convinces me that subjective beliefs are enough to replace objective study... all others are welcome. wink.gif

 

Seth, if that's how it seems, then I have been too one-sided in my discussion. But then, there was nothing for me to discuss on the other side; you and a few others had that position well-defended. grin.gif

 

Each technique (science and faith) has its proper place in man's thoughts; one is not superior to the other. I don't believe that I have ever suggested that faith replace objective study.

 

Science is useful for working with "touch and feel and see" issues. It does wonderful work in addressing the world around us, and pretty good work in looking at the universe. I am thankful for science and scientists for the angioplasty that repaired my heart in 1996 and for the drugs that have controlled my blood pressure ever since. Television and cell phones? Well, my personal jury is still out on that crazy.gif. Faith (whatever faith it may be) addresses needs that science doesn't reach.

 

I don't claim to know what God wants, and I'm certainly not prepared to speculate on what makes men act like they do on the issue. I remind myself from time to time that religion and God are two different things; religion is man's creation, and it is religion corrupted that leads to the bloodshed. We should note when we argue over such things that religion is simply one of the reasons that men do each other in en masse. We seem predisposed to the pastime; any excuse will do.

 

For what it's worth, except by invitation for marriages, christenings, and funerals I haven't been to church for over 30 years.

 

Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometime great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true."

The line got the giggle you sought from the audience. It was the sort of cute throwaway that I'm more accustomed to from Letterman or Conan (and they make lots of money doing it), but it conflates science and faith for the setup to the gag - they are different things.

 

Jamie said:

If this sort of smugness is what I'd have to look forward to--Zeus SAVE me from an epiphany!

 

There was no smugness intended, Jamie; I certainly feel none. Read into it what you will, but I did not even claim to have had one myself. What I did was set forth some of the factors of a known phenomenon that has affected hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people over the years. The level of testimony cannot be ignored, attribute the phenomenon to whatever you will. People claim to have a revelation that proves God's existence to them, and it changes their lives.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
What I did was set forth some of the factors of a known phenomenon that has affected hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people over the years. The level of testimony cannot be ignored, attribute the phenomenon to whatever you will. People claim to have a revelation that proves God's existence to them, and it changes their lives.
Pilgrim, I'm curious as to what you think of my explanation of epiphanies? I assume you don't agree that they are internally generated but where does my explanation break down?
Link to comment
You're not the first person to ask that question.

 

Actually, Mitch, I am. Upon my return tonight from a week in Kauai, I am amazed to find that this thread is NOT YET DEAD! Therefore, I shall give it its quietus by announcing that:

 

1) I, Ken/OC (not to be confused with Snorkel Bob), invented the world on November 12, 2005. I also invented this board, all its members, all your memories, and, for that matter, all BMW motorcycles, past and present. I took extra care with oddities such as the RT's fuel pump-in-the-tank and (specially for David) linked servo brakes.

 

2) Yes I invented fossils as well. This has been ascribed to the devil, but of course my motives were pure as I also invented evolution and (for that matter) intelligent design.

 

3) I did not invent George W Bush as that is quite beyond my talent. Not sure where he came from.

 

4) In a moment of intense inspiration I invented religion, science, faith, skepticism, war, peace, love, hate, and Pop Rocks. Hope you enjoy all of these as extra care was required in each case!

 

5) Lastly, I invented myself. This should settle those mirrors-within-mirrors issues with intelligent design.

 

Sincerely hope this clarifies the many issues raised on this board and that, as we look around at the design of the universe, we can at least ascribe the term "moderately intelligent" to it as otherwise my feelings will be badly hurt. Happy New Year to all! Let's see -- is this going to be year 1 or year 2? Hmmmm....

Link to comment

I swear this thread is like a bad car accident (like I don't see enough of those), and I was sorry I checked back in . . .

 

. . . until now! grin.gif

 

Thanks, Ken and Happy (Arbitrary Gregorian) New Year to you too!! smile.gif

 

(It seems the winners not only write the history books--they make most all of the calendars too! eek.gifgrin.gif )

Link to comment
What I did was set forth some of the factors of a known phenomenon that has affected hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people over the years. The level of testimony cannot be ignored, attribute the phenomenon to whatever you will. People claim to have a revelation that proves God's existence to them, and it changes their lives.

Pilgrim, I'm curious as to what you think of my explanation of epiphanies? I assume you don't agree that they are internally generated but where does my explanation break down?

 

Bob, I don't have an explanation of any sort to offer. Nor do I seek one. Until we understand more of our universe, it just is.

 

From the standpoint of someone who's never had one, your explanation makes as much sense as any. Most of those who have had one would no doubt argue the point.

 

Maybe sometime we'll know enough to be able to prompt one with stimulation of whatever part of the brain it takes place in. It's obviously a mental phenomenon, and apparently not one generated by noticeable external stimulus.

 

What a rejuvenating experience this has been dopeslap.gifwink.gif. I feel like I'm 18 all over again, sitting in a dorm room working out the details of the universe.

crazy.gif

Pilgrim

Link to comment
Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometimes great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true.

 

The line got the giggle you sought from the audience. It was the sort of cute throwaway that I'm more accustomed to from Letterman or Conan (and they make lots of money doing it), but it conflates science and faith for the setup to the gag - they are different things.

I'm glad everyone enjoyed a little bit of comedic relief but before you threw it away I'm sure you noticed (but chose not to comment on) the not-so-subtle point that often accompanies a joke.

 

If anything can be true or factual (even for an individual) based on faith alone then nothing can really be true in any meaningful sense of the word.

 

I remind myself from time to time that religion and God are two different things
Alas, your keen understanding here seems to be rather unique. But perhaps that's not surprising since many of the world's religions work so hard to combine the two in their follower's minds.

 

 

Ken - Clever move on that fossils thing... you really had me fooled!

Link to comment

Hi there Pilgrim,

 

Each technique (science and faith) has its proper place in man's thoughts; one is not superior to the other.

 

About that I expect many of us will just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

... Television and cell phones? Well, my personal jury is still out on that crazy.gif.

Not to mention nuclear and biological weapons.

 

We should note when we argue over such things that religion is simply one of the reasons that men do each other in en masse. We seem predisposed to the pastime; any excuse will do.

 

Yes, genocides have been committed for reasons that don't appear to have anything to do with religion (I'm planning a trip to Cambodia next month). Also, religions have definitely been carriers of moral and ethical precepts across the ages. But as far as helping our "predispositions" (quotation marks because the exact term is debatable) to harm others along, giving us the "excuse," even a cursory examination of history shows that there has never been a motivator the equal of beliefs that:

1) There is a Supreme Being (ala the Abrahamic faiths), and

2) He's told us that we're his people, doing his bidding, and that those "other" people are not.

 

Also, some historical genocides can be traced, at least in part, to deity beliefs even when they're not immediately evident. For example, Hitler apparently got his anti-Semitism from his early schooling by Benedictine nuns. Later, of course, when German Christians repudiated his agenda, Hitler fulminated against Christianity, but needless to say, kept his anti-Semitism.

 

In our time, the problem is that sooner or later (probably sooner) people who REALLY believe #1 an #2 above, whether named Bin Laden, Rudolph, or McVeigh, or other, will obtain some of the awful fruits of technology like bio weapons. Any suicide bomber planning a quick trip to paradise will be happy to use them.

Of course, if there really is a God like that postulated by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim believers, none of this will matter, because it's all in God's plan. Of course, that raises the question, "What kind of God is this, anyway?"

 

Many of us who have searched the available evidence and our hearts, too, have concluded that while there may have been some sort of purposeful motivation to the origins of life on earth, the existence of the Abrahamic God is extremely unlikely to be that source.**** Thus our concern about the dangers of belief in the current age.

 

Purely subjective experience or intuition has its own value, sometime great value for the individual, but it is not the equal of objective reasoning. Why am I so sure? I had an epiphany and thus know it to be true."

The line got the giggle you sought from the audience. It was the sort of cute throwaway that I'm more accustomed to from Letterman or Conan (and they make lots of money doing it), but it conflates science and faith for the setup to the gag - they are different things.

 

FWIW, I didn't take smiller's "punch line," nor anyone's enjoyment of it, as intended to be at your expense, but rather as an attempt to bring a little levity to a pretty heavy discussion, so that we can all laugh at ourselves.

 

By the way, very nice website you have there, Pilgrim!

 

****

My pet version of the origin of life is this: Ages ago, a group of space travelers happened by our solar system at a time they were due for a routine dumping of the bio-waste from their lavatories. Some of this waste sailed by the earth, was drawn into our field of gravity, and splattered into a nice warm marsh. One thing led to another. Next thing you know, we have Richard Nixon and Anna Nicole Smith.

eek.gif

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
1) I, Ken/OC (not to be confused with Snorkel Bob), invented the world on November 12, 2005. I also invented this board, all its members, all your memories, and, for that matter, all BMW motorcycles, past and present. I took extra care with oddities such as the RT's fuel pump-in-the-tank and (specially for David) linked servo brakes.

 

2) Yes I invented fossils as well. This has been ascribed to the devil, but of course my motives were pure as I also invented evolution and (for that matter) intelligent design.

 

3) I did not invent George W Bush as that is quite beyond my talent. Not sure where he came from.

 

4) In a moment of intense inspiration I invented religion, science, faith, skepticism, war, peace, love, hate, and Pop Rocks. Hope you enjoy all of these as extra care was required in each case!

 

5) Lastly, I invented myself. This should settle those mirrors-within-mirrors issues with intelligent design.

 

Sincerely hope this clarifies the many issues raised on this board and that, as we look around at the design of the universe, we can at least ascribe the term "moderately intelligent" to it as otherwise my feelings will be badly hurt. Happy New Year to all! Let's see -- is this going to be year 1 or year 2? Hmmmm....

 

So you didn't invent the internet? crazy.gif

Link to comment
I remind myself from time to time that religion and God are two different things
Alas, your understanding here seems to be rather unique. But perhaps that's not surprising since many of the world's religions work so hard to combine the two in their follower's minds.

Less unique perhaps if we amend the words of the good gentleman from Washington to read "religion and spirituality are two different things".

 

Religion is an administrative structure; spirituality simply a feeling which religion attaches itself to and gives (or takes) meaning, power and direction.

 

It would be perfectly suitable, American, innovative and courageous to teach evolution side-by-side with, for a lack of a better term (and I.D. surely isn't), Genesis. No doubt the schoolchildren of Albany NY will engage this curriculum differently than their peers in Albany GA ... and the problem with this is what?

 

And I'll add that the movement to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (or remove the Pledge altogether) and currency and every other secular place ... is supremely distasteful and disrespectful, not to the Creator, but to the American people, the majority of whom (and this happily includes our Jews and Muslims) believe in God. This from an atheist who himself does not worship or believe in the supreme being (well, maybe the almighty Dollar) ... but respects, supports and protects the right of his neighbor to believe.

 

Finally, it is my uninformed opinion that the energies of the electorate, and of the esteemed members of this board, would be better served engaging something other than the usual, tired and predictable polarizing issues that get sent down the pipe on a regular basis, and are all too eagerly (and all too often wrongly) pounced on by those who would clearly rather fight than think. More entertaining, in the end, to reach a consensus than no one thinks worthy -- than to hear it all, in stereo, over and over again.

Link to comment

FWIW, I didn't take smiller's "punch line," nor anyone's enjoyment of it, as intended to be at your expense,

 

Certainly not and the thought that at anyone might take it that way never even occurred to me. Apologies to anyone who did.

Link to comment

Ah Matt, if only the rest of the population were as enlightened as you and Pilgrim (and I mean that with no sarcasm whatsoever.) Unfortunately this is not the case and the motivations of those behind the latest incarnations of ID and the intent to spread 'spirituality' (and there is sarcasm intended in the use of that term) are far less noble. Given that it is indeed important that this debate occur, distasteful or not.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...