E1am

With so many people addressing these issues on two different threads I wasn't quite sure where to answer. So I figured I'd start yet another thread on the subject.

First let's talk about poor GW. The question "Do you believe in evolution?" by itsself is loaded. You really have to define what was meant by "evolution" before forming an opinion on his answer. By saying "no" that doesn't automatically make him a creationist. It could just mean that he doesn't believe that life as we know it came about "accidentally" through a chemical reaction and subsequent mutations. On the other hand, if one where to say "yes" it doesn't mean that they are an aetheist/agnostic with a religious like devotion to science and no room for spirituality in their life. Even if GW is a creationist that in no way reflects poorly on his intelligence (Although there seem to be plenty of other things he's said and done that do). Anyway, I think we need to see exactly what the question was and how he answered before speculating on what he believes.

To say that science and religion (here I'll talk about Christianity specifically because that is my relgion and it seems to be the only major one that is at odds with science) are automatically incompatible with each other is to ignore history and the myriad of beliefs. Much of science in the Western world is the result of man trying to solve the mysteries of God's creation.

It is also untrue to say that being "religious" means that one doesn't question their beliefs or what the Bible says. If that were true, how do we explain the thousands of different denominations and sects within the Christian Church? From the beginning of the Church the way people worshipped and what the believed has varied. Why do you think Paul wrote all those epistles trying to get everyone in line? Questioning and debate are long standing traditions in the Church. In both the Old and New Testament there are numerous examples of people going so far as to question God directly (check out the book of Job and many of the Psalms). As Jesus hung dying on the cross he asked "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Just because there are "problems" with the Bible doesn't automatically mean you throw out the whole religion and lose your faith. In the same way we don't wholly discount evolution because there are "problems" with the theory.

Many critics of Christianity like to point out that there have been more atrocities commited in the name of Jesus than in any other religion. I'm not sure if that's true or not but it certainly seems so. Lets not forget that Christianity is, and has been for a long time, the worlds biggest religion. Meaning that there are more "Christians" than there are anyone else doing bad things. It is also the religion of Western civiliation. So we tend to learn about all of the horrors commited by the Church.

E

[Edited by E1am on 11-16-2000 at 11:15 PM]

__________________
Give me a case of Budweiser and an ounce. I gotta slow down. -- Dennis Leary

Ryu (non-working password

E1am, very nice post.

Nice to hear someone who understands on a deeper level.


(by the way, Bz's rule. JK )

Ryu

__________________
[img]
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/gohandbz11/fdeath.gif[/img]

Hontoo da to iu koto o mitomenakereba narimasen.

Atomic

Thanks a lot, you bastard. All we need is 8 more threads about this because people will pick one thread and not read the others. LOL.

I'll keep this short and sweet.

I don't not see how asking if GW believes in evolution is a loaded question, other than trying to pin him to his true loyalties of the religious right wing conspiracy.
I think science and society has come to a general consensus over the past 120 or so years as to what evolution is and means and I do think it does reflect directly on his intelligence if he has reviewed the research, the facts, and then tries to deny that evolution is real. Also, if he doesn't take the time to investigate evolution and then dismisses it all, again, it reflects on his intelligence as well.

No one has said their completely incompatible, but they deal with separate areas. Science has no morals (although you use morals when conducting research) and doesn't put forth any sort of morals, no goals, no destination. Science is a tool--a vehicle and that's all.

Science deals with logic, reasoning, facts, and uncovering facts to better understand our world, while religion deals with death and morals. There is zero reason for overlap between the two. Religion shouldn't try to explain our natural world, although using creationism as a metaphor is perfectly fine, as long as people don't believe it in the literal sense.

According to who? There are also aethists that try to understand the world, which may or may not be god's. A better answer is people try to understand the world around them and how it came to be, which may or may not involve any god whatsoever.

Yes, even Christians question the bible and the world, but it's strictly a Western phenomenon to dismiss evolution as a "faith," which it is not because science doesn't involve faith. In the short, you can believe in religion and science simultaneously, just as long as you know where each are bound to. Ever notice how science never tries to explain what happens to you after you die? I think that's a damn good idea and religion should do the same when it comes to areas it doesn't belong in.

But keep in mind this is a long fought battle, starting a long time ago with Copericus, Galileo, and other's who sought to take back ground that didn't belong to the church. This is threatening many people because they lose power and power is a factor in the church, both currently and historically.


I'd like to know what the "problems" are. People always state there are problems, but they're actually "problems" that don't exist. Like the idea that it conflicts with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc. Do we understand it completely? No. Do we understand how the brain stores memories? Not at all! Hell, we know more about evolution than the brain, but we don't have whole groups of people saying that the brain serves no purpose, do we?

Again, this is a problem that soley exists in the Western world and is laughed at in other areas of the world as another American perculiarity. I'll state it again, the current Pope is on record saying that evolution is the only acceptable answer to our existance and the Catholic church recognized evolution in 1942. Why can't wackos in America do the same?

Atomic

Ryu (non-working password

another good post.
Now this is more refreshing.

Atomic I liked the point you brought up about morality. Science does not deal with morals but yet must use morals in the conducting of research. This somewhat points to what I said before of grace not destroying nature but completing it.
Both deal with different areas, but I think both are of equal importance in the development of a upstanding human being. Atheists can have extremely high morality as well, so it is definately not centered only in people who believe in God, but I think that even the word "atheist" bring about a negative image of a cold individual who has no shread of spiritual virtues. This I do not think is the case.
I guess my point is that religion and science should not fight as they do, but try to realize how each can better the other in their own ways.

Well goodnight for now,
It's been a pleasure.

Take care,
Ryu

__________________
[img]
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/gohandbz11/fdeath.gif[/img]

Hontoo da to iu koto o mitomenakereba narimasen.

E1am

Why do you think I put the word "problems" in quotes? Not being a student of entimology I'm sure I have no where near your level knowledge on the subject of evolution. I took an anthropology course my first year of college and have read a few articles about it. In my anthropology class we talked about some of the problems with the theory of evolution. It's been a few years so I don't remember all of the details. The main point was that some of the commonly accepted ideas about the process didn't seem to hold up under closer inspection. Like the fact that evolution seems to take place in relatively quick spurts and is not as gradual as what is generally believed. I was in no way trying to say that there were huge holes in the theory making it invalid. I haven't really looked into it further because I'm not that interested and I don't find the concept of evolution a threat to my faith. Compared to some of the other things I've done, I don't think my belief in evolution will be the one thing that sends me to hell . To those of you who say evolution is "just a theory." You're right! But that's true of just about every other "fact" in science.

I was talking about some of the fathers of science (especially pre Enlightenment) when I said that people were trying to understand God's creation through science. That doesn't mean I'm trying to marry science and religion. There is no way we can scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. That is and should be a matter of faith. But they shouldn't be at war with each other either. Yes, the Church has gotten involved in things that it shouldn't throughout history. Unfortunatley it is still an institution run by man and is therefore imperfect.

Ryu,

I'm not sure if it's just the politically correct way that you present you thoughts. But from a Christian standpoint, you seem to be on a slippery slope headed towards Unitarian Universalism.

hounddog

hmmmm....

I thought there were more muslims than christians. guess i could be wrong.

Ryu (non-working password

E1am, I think for the most part it is just the political correct way I present my views
I believe in Christ, and believe he sacrificed himself for mankind. I hope that is still considered Christian
My foundation is Orthodoxy, but I do branch out into different areas. I'm much of a Confucianist in respects, Zen Buddhism plays a part of my beliefs, as well as bushido and chivalry... So I'm a bit odd I suppose.
But I try to keep my personal beliefs to myself, because I have a very personal relationship with my faith and religion.
The bible zealots don't seem to be able to prove the Bible's authenticity OUTSIDE its pages. "The bible is true because it says so." Well I don't have a problem with that, but do not try to place that in the realm of factual science. I am interested though on the possibilities of science proving "God" or a "starting point" or something of that nature. But as far as the individual branches of religion. Some things are best left up to faith.

I do enjoy reading these posts though just so long as people show respect on both sides. These kinds of debates interest me a great deal and I'd like to listen as much as possible.
I thought both you and Atomic's posts for example, even though on opposite sides, are both compelling, and a great read. So thanks.

Take care,
Ryu

__________________
[img]
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/gohandbz11/fdeath.gif[/img]

Hontoo da to iu koto o mitomenakereba narimasen.

david a

Ryu, please see my last post on the other thread. I cover what you have said about Christians prooving the bible outside of its pages, and how you cannot proove origins through science.

Also, every major religion has a point of exclusion with the acception of Naturalism. You either chose one or the other. Your destiny hinges on it.

__________________
Dave

Ryu (non-working password

David, thanks. I'll check out the last link.

My faith is very personal to me, therefore I do not talk about it a lot. I'm in no way haning on a void or anything. I know exactly where I stand, and have an extreme sense of faith. I wouldn't have it any other way

Take care,
Ryu

__________________
[img]
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/gohandbz11/fdeath.gif[/img]

Hontoo da to iu koto o mitomenakereba narimasen.

david a

Ryu,
I do not doubt your faith, friend. I'm concerned however that maybe you do not fully know the responsibility of representing yourself as a Christian, although I'm not sure that you call yourself that. If so lets talk.

__________________
Dave

E1am

hounddog,

You're not the first person who thought that. It's because I have the same name as Elijah Mohammed. A lot of people also think I'm Jewish because of the name. That helped keep the parents of the Jewish girls I dated growing up in NYC happy. I remember one girl's mom saying, in that 'Coffee Talk' accent, "Oh, 'Elijah,' his parents must be so religious. I hope he's not Orthodox." People also sometimes assume I'm black before they meet me face to face. In high school a couple of girlfriends' parents nervously asked, "He's not black, is he?"
-----

I didn't mean to give people the impression that I'm a creationist. I guess I am in the sense that I beleive God created the universe. But I don't think the earth is 6000 years old and that all species appeared on the planet as they are today.

Being raised in a Pentacostal church I have a strong connection to the more literalist view of the Bible. But even among the members of that Church you had people with differing beliefs on evolution and other controversial issues. I do think that people sometimes miss the forest for the trees when taking a literal view of everything the Bible says. Many of the stories in the Bible are much more powerful for their symbolism and meaning than for what actually happens in those stories (whether or not everything literally happened exactly as the Bible says).
-----

Ryu,

Of course we are all influenced by different philosophies. And it's natural for us to see things we like in different strains of thought and even different religions. But, if we call ourselves Christian, we have to becareful not to end up with a hodge-podge belief system where we pick and choose what we like from different religions. Christ said "I am THE way" not "I am A way." I also find it curious that you would say that you don't tend to share your faith with others (not that I've been particularly good in that department either). We are told to go out and share the good news with all the earth. Christianity isn't meant to be a warm fuzzy nuetral religion of self reflection only.

[Edited by E1am on 11-19-2000 at 10:29 PM]