Printable View
There is that old saying, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear or see it fall, did it fall?
The fact is the Universe, the Galaxie, our Solar System and our planet were all here doing fine before man or any of his ancesters ever existed. All those entities will still be around doing fine long after man is long gone. So what does that say about our thoughts of importance, our philospophies and religious viewpoints?
Well i think the true question is: if a tree falls in a forest and there is nothing to perceive it ... did the tree exist? perhaps things only exist because we can preserve them .... all the galaxies and the whole universe exist in no more permanent state then the light patterns you see when you rub your closed eyes. nothing more, accept it and relax, things are spiraling into entropy, just like they should.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
That is an oddly calming thought. Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Not to mention impossible. Or at least an oxymoron.Quote:
Originally Posted by They Call Me Blockhead
religion |rɪˌlɪdʒ(ə)n|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
secular |ˌsɛkjʊlə|
adjective
denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred .
X
Who you callin' a moron!?! :D
Here, here for proper punctuation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
For those not form the US who find the fuss about creationism vs. evolution, please review your history: the U.S. has never been known for religious moderation. People today view the separation of church and state as being there to keep religious views from being forced on the citizenry. This is one side of the coin; the other is to keep religious view from being oppressed. The U.S. was founded, in many areas, by those seeking religious freedom. This does not mean that these people were champions of free speech or scientific thought. For example, the Pilgrims (Puritans) - not a group one would equate with the concept of open debate. religious extremism has always been a part of the US. The dangerous part is the folks who are attempting to force their beliefs on others. I actual was told by a science teacher in Texas that he had parent call him upset that he was using fossils in class, as he should know they were buried by Satan to test the faithful. How many degrees away from the Taliban is that view?
One thing that annoys me about "religious" people is how ignorant they are of their own religion. I love debating with the "faithful" who spout scripture and expect that to end the discussion. When I ask them which translation they prefer, they start to get nervous. This is followed by the question "have you read the texts in their original languages"...well, no, of course not. "So you are basing your faith on the supposed accuracy of a translation of a translation of a translation". I also find the selective adherence to biblical law annoying. I meant if you are going to treat the Bible as law and fact, then if you get to condemn someone for being gay, I get to stone your wife for cutting her hair...oh, and drop the pork chop while you are at it.
As for the creationists and evolutionists - was the Earth created in 6 days? I don't know...what is a day to God? I think it is arrogant to consider any aspect of God within the parameters of a human experience, short of the teachings of Christ. I have always viewed religion and science as parallel. I take the view of Newton, who viewed science as the pursuit for understanding, by the meager capacity of our brains, of the mechanics of the Divine. Which is more awe-inspiring: the world being created in 144 hours in a huge Steven Spielberg extravaganza or the methodical planning it would take to have things occur as they do, to achieve those results - with the randomness of human free-will thrown in for some added interest?
In the end, your faith stops at my nose and my freedom trumps your faith (unless I go past your nose with my exercising of my freedom). The current convert or else mentality in the US is saddening, but not surprising. When anyone uses any religion for any purpose other than the dialog between humanity and the divine - trouble is bound to happen. Notice I said dialog, not dictation. Anyone who tells me what I should believe has already failed.
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
- Matthew 6:5-6
I guess I'm a rarity: a politically conservative/libertarian kind of guy who is a religious skeptic. Evolution of species by means of natural selection is the conerstone of modern biology. So the "theory" of evolution is akin to the "theory" of gravity in physics. There is nothihg about natural selection the precludes God having a hand in it. After all, an omniscient, omnipotent God can do whatever he likes. (I wish he would have been a little more mindful of our lower backs when he gave us bipedalism, though.)
Admittedly science does not have the answer for how life started in the first place or how a singularity exploded 13 1/2 billion years ago to make the universe. But not having the answer doesn't justify calling God in to make sense of the situation. I think it was Carl Sagen who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I understand many of you are viewing this through a faith-based lens. But at this point it must remain a belief based on faith--not evidence to refute a scientific claim. Faith is a pretty cool thing to have if you don't misuse it. Were I blessed with faith, I'd join a church and probably be a much nicer person. (Not the Rev Jeramiah Wright's church, however.)
From what I've seen and heard in in the last week , I've been very disappointed in Ben Stein. I always considered him a smart and thoughtful person who was worth listening to. But the antipathy he seems to have developed toward science on this matter is amazing; he sounds irrational. His consistently refering to evolution and natural selection as "Darwinism" harks back to Tennessee in the 1920s when they had the Scopes trial. Nonetheless, I think he's sincere, so I'll probably go see it. My fear is, however, that it will be just another anti-science screed. And I don't want Ben Stein to sink to the level of Michael Moore or Oliver Stone.
Such people actually exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
That would be a very rare and lone nutter I hope?
Sadly no, I've heard a few tales of similar stories... there's even at the beginning of this thread video of someone being kicked out of her job for refusing to teach ID as science in TX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Quite clearly an oxymoron, but I think their point is clear. The establishment clause precludes establishing a secular society. Of course what it allows is...Quote:
Originally Posted by xman