PDA

View Full Version : More "haha, aren't Americans stupid" stuff...


Debaser
20-02-2006, 17:51:40
...or what's with Intelligent Design, it's all just a joke right?

It's supposed to be the 21st Century... jetpacks and meals in pill form... people don't really believe this stuff do they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm

Lazarus and the Gimp
20-02-2006, 19:12:14
Funnily enough, it's actually quite close to Darwin's own beliefs. Darwin was adamant that his theories in no way refuted the existance of God.

Gary
20-02-2006, 19:22:42
I'm sure it doesn't. It is, after all, just a description of a mechanism. But Intelligent Design, nice idea though it is, if they mean intelligent other species, doesn't explain anything. And if they came out and admitted they mean God, then it's no different to Creationism, with all its weaknesses.

Seems it's all down to whether you can accept that there's been plenty of opportunity/time to evolve higher life froms from inanimate matter, or whether you can't.

devilmunchkin
20-02-2006, 22:51:30
i blame the midwest.....
it where all the inbreds live

HelloKitty
21-02-2006, 00:11:10
You are confusing the midwest with the South.

Midwesterners have a whole different set of psychos. They do have the insane christian disease in common.

JM^3
21-02-2006, 00:18:40
Umm, I don't see how evolution has anything to do with proving or disproving God... I never really understood this.

I mean, previoud to the certain cosmological theories it was stupid not to beleive in a creator god, because otherwise where did all the matter of the universe come from, after certain cosmological theories (Which I don't remember the name of), there is the possibility that a creator god is not required for the universe to form. Evolution never removed any requirement for the existance of a creator god. Note that neither evolution or cosmological theories provide any evidence against a creator god...

Honestly, the Big Bang is a lot more of a godless theory than evolution is.

Jon Miller

Cruddy
21-02-2006, 00:55:10
Of course Bush wants evolution taught as a concept. Rather like any other belief system other than;=

1) God dictates policy to George Bush.

2) George Bush then passes on God's commands, which strangely seem to be lining the pockets of the few at the expense in money and lives of the many.

Next thing you know we'll have Divine Right Of Presidents. Pretty much there already in a lot of respects.

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 03:29:00
Originally posted by JM^3
Umm, I don't see how evolution has anything to do with proving or disproving God... I never really understood this.
It's not. The (more) sensible theological dispute with evolution is way more subtle that whether or not Genesis one is an accurate description of creation. Reconciliation of Christianity and evolution moves the dispute to the "origin of humanity" stage rather than the "origin of life" stage.

Assuming an ID-style God who hasn't entrusted all of creation to natural processes, then you end up god-of-gapping until science makes your God irrelevant. Bad idea.

Assuming a God who is has left things to evolve, then why are humans the only moral beings with souls, going to heaven, etc? This is harder to reconcile with evolution, which would have that we're just a smart ape, exactly as evolved as a flatworm, with no hard dividing line between man and monkey.

Koshko
21-02-2006, 07:20:04
God started the fire. Humanity keeps it burning.

Darkstar
21-02-2006, 08:06:23
Well, in the US, the big fight is because a lot of school teaching courses used state Evolution is the creation and evolution of everything without a god. That's what tends to set off these idiot fights between the drooling morons of both side's hardcore.

The proper teaching of the Big Bang and Evolution doesn't upset anyone but the snake kissers of South Carolina and the fundy Mormon polies out in Utah. That's because neither Big Bang nor Evolution takes any meta-physical nor religious position.

Gary
21-02-2006, 09:00:36
"God of the Gap" type stuff ought not be such a problem as the 'worst' it does is show there are areas where folk have assigned "God did it" to cover a lack of knowledge. It doesn't follow that everywhere God is considered to 'intervene' is merely down to lack of knowledge. That is an assumption/act of faith made because it appeals to non-believers. Science can not make God irrelevant as it can only help with our understanding of our physical universe. It has little or nothing to say about any possible spiritual aspect to existence.

Who says human beings are the only moral beings with souls ? And even if they are, it would probably just indicate that only the human species have physically evolved far enough to be a suitable 'home' for souls, while they are here experiencing life. Reconciliation with evolution is simplicity itself since one is concerned with the physical changes of (a) species, whist the other is to do with spiritual progression of an individual soul.

MoSe
21-02-2006, 09:20:26
Originally posted by Gary
I'm sure it doesn't. It is, after all, just a description of a mechanism. But Intelligent Design, nice idea though it is, if they mean intelligent other species, doesn't explain anything. And if they came out and admitted they mean God, then it's no different to Creationism, with all its weaknesses.

from

God doesn't play dice

to

God rigged the dice

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 09:21:07
Originally posted by Gary
"God of the Gap" type stuff ought not be such a problem as the 'worst' it does is show there are areas where folk have assigned "God did it" to cover a lack of knowledge. It doesn't follow that everywhere God is considered to 'intervene' is merely down to lack of knowledge. That is an assumption/act of faith made because it appeals to non-believers. Science can not make God irrelevant as it can only help with our understanding of our physical universe. It has little or nothing to say about any possible spiritual aspect to existence.

The trouble arises when people base their physics on their metaphysics, on their religion. Science can make God irrelevant if you insist that your God is necessary because science can't explain "x". One day you will run out of "x"s, and therefore reasons for your God. It's bad religion to use the argument, it's bad science to accept the argument, and it's not profitable for either. This is why ID is such a foolhardy venture for everyone.


Who says human beings are the only moral beings with souls ?
Well, the Bible, for a start.

And even if they are, it would probably just indicate that only the human species have physically evolved far enough to be a suitable 'home' for souls, while they are here experiencing life. Reconciliation with evolution is simplicity itself since one is concerned with the physical changes of (a) species, whist the other is to do with spiritual progression of an individual soul.
You still get awkward questions arising in (at least) two places: humanity's origin, and humanity's uniqueness.

Where exactly is the line between soul-vessel and non-soul-vessel? Is Eden a metaphor for the first hominids endowed with a spirit? And if so, doesn't it seem a little weird that evolution says that Adam's father was an ape, which that theology says had no more blessing of God than a sea cucumber? Was the whole species given souls at once, or did they only arise at birth, within one lineage? What happened with the offspring of a souled hominid with a non-souled hominid?

If intelligent aliens existed, would a reconciliatory theology predict that they should have an alien gospel, with an alien Christ? Or that in fact they aren't suitable vessels for souls? Or that they just aren't God's chosen species, and as such are not blessed with divine visitations? Should we attempt to convert them to Christianity, or should they be treated as one more beast which God has granted us stewardship of? For "alien", substitute "dolphin which has evolved to the point of sentience" if it would seem more plausible.

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 09:24:33
That post was too long. Nobody properly thinks out the consequences of their beliefs anyway, so bugger it.

Darkstar
21-02-2006, 09:26:29
Oh, from time to time, people do examine their beliefs, and the consequences of this. It's usually called introspection, or in the local slang "getting totally fucking wasted". ;)

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 09:27:55
The kind of examination which you have no memory of in the morning.

Darkstar
21-02-2006, 09:30:57
Hey, sometimes people have a memory of it. At least, of the important bits. That's been the most practiced means of gaining enlightment since pre-history.

Nills Lagerbaak
21-02-2006, 09:42:51
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
That post was too long. Nobody properly thinks out the consequences of their beliefs anyway, so bugger it.

Remember the rennaisance? That was a pretty large scale examniation of religion, and in effect allowed science and religion to co-exist.

Funko
21-02-2006, 09:44:03
I don't believe in Science.

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 09:47:21
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Remember the rennaisance? That was a pretty large scale examniation of religion, and in effect allowed science and religion to co-exist.
Yes, I am currently studying it. Most of it consisted of natural philosophers talking what appeared to be bollocks, theologists occasionally slackening a couple of edicts, and 90% of the population carrying on with their lives, with all their fundamental beliefs unshaken.

Nills Lagerbaak
21-02-2006, 09:48:24
YEah, but not where it matters, in the academic institutes and political circles.

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 09:52:07
Yeah, Galileo sure changed a few minds down in Rome. Excuse me if my generalisation was only 90% applicable.

Gary
21-02-2006, 10:13:41
God is necessary because science can't explain "x"

Don't see the problem. I don't believe that you ever 'run out' of the big 'x'. That is, "Why anything at all ?".

Science doesn't have to accept the argument. It isn't in science's domain.

ID is an amusing concept, but doesn't help owt, save, it seems, as a marketing ploy for fundamentalists.

Well, the Bible, for a start.

And you take the Bible as Gospel ? :eek:

You still get awkward questions arising in (at least) two places: humanity's origin, and humanity's uniqueness.

By humanity do you mean the physical human or the controlling entity inside ? If you don't wish to consider such a split, then the discussion is rendered meaningless.

Where exactly is the line between soul-vessel and non-soul-vessel?

Who knows ? Our knowledge isn't complete yet. No one should claim it is.

doesn't it seem a little weird that evolution says that Adam's father was an ape,

No. Should it ? Just implies "Adam's" father had a body not yet suitable for a soul to inhabit, and yet Adam's body / brain was. There are a lot of these "slopes" one has to consider. Where there is a gradual change at yet at some point, even though there was next to no difference either side, a change occurs that is significant in some way.

Anyway to accept 'Adam' you have to be a fundamentalist in the first place. We're not trying to support that position.

Was the whole species given souls at once

Again knowledge is incomplete so I can only surmise, but I'd suggest that only those bodies that were 'deemed' sufficiently advanced would be utilised by souls. Is it relevant ?

What happened with the offspring of a souled hominid with a non-souled hominid?

What do you believe should happen to it ? You seem to be mixing that which is relevant to the body (the physical) with that which is relevant to the soul (the spiritual) to ask. If the physical body was useful for a soul it would probably have been utilised. If not, then not.

If intelligent aliens existed, would a reconciliatory theology predict that they should have an alien gospel, with an alien Christ?

Maybe. Maybe not. Do we care whether the beliefs of an alien species are closer or less close to actuality than our own ? Should there be a discrepancy, would we know who was nearest anyway ? If we can find a way to test a theology then one can decide, but usually one can only discuss and try to come to a consensus about which seems better. That already occurs between different groups of humans. Aliens don't really add a lot to the discussion..

It is a matter of debate how one should treat any particular species. Sure, if you find a dolphin willing to debate science and/or theology with you, then by all means feel free to do so. Whatever you decide, you could be right, you could be wrong, but you should chose to do the best you can.

Hasn't this rather strayed off the point that there is no problem with having both religion and science ?

Debaser
21-02-2006, 10:18:31
Haha, best post ever. You're talking like a mad person.

"Was the whole species given souls at once? Again knowledge is incomplete so I can only surmise..."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nills Lagerbaak
21-02-2006, 10:31:23
Hmm this "soul" thing always gets me. People seem to think it's some kind of mystical thing because we don't understand it.

Surely it's just a consequence of being alive long enough?

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 10:36:41
No, Gary, you're doing meta-theology now. The point is not what I believe wrt dolphin souls, it's whether any belief on the matter can be part of a consistant belief-set. Does God really run checks on every single organism in the universe, deciding at every birth whether it is "evolved enough" to get a soul? How is that consistant with a God who lets nature get on with things?

Hasn't this rather strayed off the point that there is no problem with having both religion and science ?
Yes, probably. The point I think I was trying to make is that religion and science don't conflict within their own domains; the problem is that religion keep drawing nice hard lines around it's domain, and science keeps pointing at the line, and saying - that's in the wrong place, can you move it back a bit please.

Gary
21-02-2006, 11:20:10
God may not need to check. May well be that something unsuitable just can not be inhabited for some reason. Alternatively, maybe that's where the line is drawn between a system that works on it's own, or one that needs tweaking :)

LoD
21-02-2006, 12:11:44
Originally posted by MoSe
from

God doesn't play dice

to

God rigged the dice

:lol:

"God created the dice" rather.

Funko
21-02-2006, 12:16:12
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Hmm this "soul" thing always gets me. People seem to think it's some kind of mystical thing because we don't understand it.

Like Quantum physics

LoD
21-02-2006, 12:23:20
Best quote (on intelligent design, own emphasis) :

"This is an idea that has real legs and it's going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve."

Immortal Wombat
21-02-2006, 14:40:01
Originally posted by Gary
God may not need to check. May well be that something unsuitable just can not be inhabited for some reason. Aha, then perhaps it is a natural law, and thus subject to scientific testing?

MDA
21-02-2006, 14:41:45
I thought this was going to be a thread about Bode Miller.

Gary
21-02-2006, 15:03:37
Natural spiritual laws, even when having a physical component to them, may be difficult to devise tests for : but who knows ?

Funko
21-02-2006, 16:00:48
Intelligent Design can't be stupid, it's Intelligent. - FACT.

MoSe
21-02-2006, 16:06:00
It's all familiar, I mean, relative

King_Ghidra
21-02-2006, 16:16:36
In that original article the names of the school board were:

Bonsell Harkins

Leber Riddle Short

Cashman Rowand

Ok, so there are some pseudonyms right there. Absolutely no one is called Leber Riddle Short.

Funko
21-02-2006, 16:19:05
:lol:

Those are hillarious names.

Lazarus and the Gimp
21-02-2006, 21:19:01
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Aha, then perhaps it is a natural law, and thus subject to scientific testing?

And yogic flying.

Darkstar
22-02-2006, 03:37:29
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Aha, then perhaps it is a natural law, and thus subject to scientific testing?

Well, if being self aware = having a soul, we will know the threshold of how many neurons it takes to achieve that, most likely within the next 10 years or so.