Talking Religion...

[muffler dragon]

Please point out a logical fallacy or two. It'll liven up the discussion and encourage others to check out the link.

I already pointed out one: marriage and adultery. This particular one is an Appeal to Emotion as he is attempting to delineate between one thing being good and one thing evil.

Poisoning the Well: "And so the culture wars continue between science and religion. On one side we have a scientific establishment and a court system determined to let children learn evolution rather than religious mythology, and on the other side the many Americans who passionately resist those efforts."

Appeal To Emotion: "It is a depressing fact that while 74 percent of Americans believe that angels exist, only 25 percent accept that we evolved from apelike ancestors."

On this particular statement, he is just plain wrong regarding the post-comma statement (as I've attempted to present elsewhere in this thread): "It is also true that some of the tensions disappear when the literal reading of the Bible is renounced, as it is by all but the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities."

Red Herring: "But the big problem with this "reconciliation," in which science does not marry religion so much as digest it, is that it leaves out God completely--or at least the God of the monotheistic faiths, who has an interest in the universe."

And this is just taken from the first page. As I alluded to before, I take nothing away from Jerry on his area of expertise. I just think he lacks in attempting to make his argument in a non-fallacious manner.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be echoing some of the respones from edge.org :)

As you're more familiar with that site, I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[MaxBuck]

... the creationists ... plead: "Don't research away that precious ignorance. Let's throw up our hands in despair, praise the Lord, and say that God did it ..."

I've never heard anyone who believes in a literal reading of Genesis say anything remotely like this. For one thing, they are anything but a despairing bunch. And this comes from someone who finds that point of view anathema.

Whenever I hear or read of someone who posits that science and faith can never be reconciled, that person loses credibility - regardless of whether their perspective comes primarily from science or from faith. Science deals with the realm of the observable; faith deals with a realm that cannot be observed.

 

[muffler dragon]

What aggressive fashion?

My apologies. I projected your statement about "anyone who learns..." as an aggressive response to what I originally wrote. Since that appears to not have been your intent, I'm sorry for interpreting it as such.

You see "faith potential." Others see an exciting avenue for new research to test hypotheses, collect data, and examine evidence.

And I would never ask anyone to NOT perceive in that fashion. Remember, science is NOT contradictory to my religious beliefs. Thus, whatever is found is intriguing to me as well (personally and professionally).

"Faith potential" is the hallmark of the creationists. (Mind you, I am NOT calling you a creationist!) They thrive on ignorance. They plead: "Don't research away that precious ignorance. Let's throw up our hands in despair, praise the Lord, and say that God did it. Anyone who objects must be dogmatically committed to naturalistic materialism and an enemy of faith."

A question was never answered, and a discovery was never made, by calling it a "faith potential."

That's not my intent.

It appears that both of us have partaken in discourses that have left marks of irritation on us. I'll try to keep in mind that we share that in common.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I've never heard anyone who believes in a literal reading of Genesis say anything remotely like this. For one thing, they are anything but a despairing bunch. And this comes from someone who finds that point of view anathema.

Whenever I hear or read of someone who posits that science and faith can never be reconciled, that person loses credibility - regardless of whether their perspective comes primarily from science or from faith. Science deals with the realm of the observable; faith deals with a realm that cannot be observed.

I understand why you say that. But to press the opposite point (what can I say - I love a good argument), let me quote Sam Harris from the link I posted above:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Emanuel Derman admonishes neo-secular militants like Coyne and Dennett to "stop wasting? time trying to beat up on the idea of God in the name of science." This is so comprehensive a demolition of their work that I suspect Coyne and Dennett will be forever changed. Derman reminds us, with extraordinary patience, that scientists have no authority outside the narrow focus of the scientific worldview. Can a biologist harbor any educated doubts about the Virgin birth of Jesus? No?because human parthenogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. Can a physicist form an educated opinion about the likelihood of the Ascension? How could he? Bodily translocation into the sky does not require any interaction with the forces of nature. Can either a biologist or a physicist realistically doubt the coming Resurrection of the Dead? Many have tried?all have failed. (Please understand that any mention of "entropy" in this context is mere posturing.) As Derman recognizes, it is the sheerest arrogance that has led atheist scientists to overreach in this way.[/FONT]

 

[muffler dragon]

I understand why you say that. But to press the opposite point (what can I say - I love a good argument), let me quote Sam Harris from the link I posted above:

This quote (as well as others) has reminded me of something that I find interesting: the vast majority of the antagonism by evolutionists is pointed at Christianity (or Christian beliefs). I sometimes wonder if it's just a matter of Judith (by A Perfect Circle) over and over again.

 

[MaxBuck]

My quick scan of Coyne's writings suggest to me he'd be well-advised to avoid writing about theology and matters of faith, since as an avowed atheist he has no basis for understanding them. His comment that essentially equates what he calls "liberal theology" with pantheism is a perfect example of the naivete of his perspective on matters of faith.

It would make as much sense for me to write a book on what it means to be a Michigan Man. :tongue2:

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I already pointed out one: marriage and adultery. This particular one is an Appeal to Emotion as he is attempting to delineate between one thing being good and one thing evil.

Poisoning the Well: "And so the culture wars continue between science and religion. On one side we have a scientific establishment and a court system determined to let children learn evolution rather than religious mythology, and on the other side the many Americans who passionately resist those efforts."

I hardly see that as poisoning the well. It is a very accurate point. For example, do a Google news search on the latest exploits of the Texas board of education in their campaign to bring creationism into science curricula...

Red Herring: "But the big problem with this "reconciliation," in which science does not marry religion so much as digest it, is that it leaves out God completely--or at least the God of the monotheistic faiths, who has an interest in the universe."

Red Herring means "changing the subject" or diverting the argument, right? I don't see how he did that here.

But good work!

My apologies. I projected your statement about "anyone who learns..." as an aggressive response to what I originally wrote. Since that appears to not have been your intent, I'm sorry for interpreting it as such.

I forgive you. Now that I have granted you absolution for your sin, you must say the Rosary 4 times!

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

My quick scan of Coyne's writings suggest to me he'd be well-advised to avoid writing about theology and matters of faith, since as an avowed atheist he has no basis for understanding them. His comment that essentially equates what he calls "liberal theology" with pantheism is a perfect example of the naivete of his perspective on matters of faith.

It would make as much sense for me to write a book on what it means to be a Michigan Man. :tongue2:

You have a very compelling argument against Coyne - or at least you might have if your post weren't just an ad hominem attack against him.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

This quote (as well as others) has reminded me of something that I find interesting: the vast majority of the antagonism by evolutionists is pointed at Christianity (or Christian beliefs).

Well, it is a fact that those who want to sabotage children's science education in this country by introducing creationism into the science curriculum are almost entirely of the evangelical Christian variety. So that's why you see the two sides going up against one another like this. If we had Pastafarians wanting to force the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation story into the science textbooks, you'd see the pro-science crowd opposed to them as well.

I sometimes wonder if it's just a matter of Judith (by A Perfect Circle) over and over again.

Huh?

 

[muffler dragon]

i'm not sure if you're desiring an explanation, but here it is if you're so interested.

I hardly see that as poisoning the well. It is a very accurate point. For example, do a Google news search on the latest exploits of the Texas board of education in their campaign to bring creationism into science curricula...

I just realized that Jerry was discussing singular incidents instead of "across the board" considerations. Therefore, I'll rescind that fallacy claim.

Red Herring means "changing the subject" or diverting the argument, right? I don't see how he did that here.

This actually is a Red Herring from my POV, because I believe in an ineffable G-d. This is also the Judaic POV which places G-d above our intellect and understanding. Thus, when Jerry speaks of the monotheistic beliefs, he is mistaken from this POV. G-d can interact with humanity in an non-observable fashion or even in a fashion that we cannot comprehend. Do you understand what I'm attempting to say?

I forgive you. Now that I have granted you absolution for your sin, you must say the Rosary 4 times!

I'm afraid that my Christian past was never in RCC. However, I can go on for a few hours in tongues. How's that?

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, it is a fact that those who want to sabotage children's science education in this country by introducing creationism into the science curriculum are almost entirely of the evangelical Christian variety. So that's why you see the two sides going up against one another like this. If we had Pastafarians wanting to force the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation story into the science textbooks, you'd see the pro-science crowd opposed to them as well.

That is true. Have you ever considered why observant Jews aren't in on the debates? Just something to think about.

Huh?

LAS magazine | music, media, art, culture, life, everything. - A-Motion

Maynard tells that "Judith" is a song about his mother, who was paralyzed and ridiculed by those that claimed to support her, and the fraudulent nature embedded in modern religious practices.

Maynard doesn't have a very positive outlook on Christianity due to experiences. Much the same as the debate situation.

 

[BayBuck]

Please tell me who this someone is, which books they authored, which they didn't author, and how you know this. Thanks.

I'm not sure how you read certainty into my suggestion of a possibility, but of course the short answers are: God, the Bible, and faith. Sorry that your antagonism to the very idea of faith precludes this from becoming a remotely productive conversation.

PS - As for your comment on my profile, the "weakness of your argument" is its aggressive certainty of its own correctness--and the fact that you're mostly just quoting from other like-minded atheist evangelists.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

I'm not sure how you read certainty into my suggestion of a possibility, but of course the short answers are: God, the Bible, and faith.

Well, I had to ask. Maybe you meant Allah, the Koran, Islam. Or maybe God, the Bible and the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Or maybe some other religion? In this age of political correctness one can't be too careful

Sorry that your antagonism to the very idea of faith precludes this from becoming a remotely productive conversation.

I accept your apology

PS - As for your comment on my profile, the "weakness of your argument" is its aggressive certainty of its own correctness--and the fact that you're mostly just quoting from other like-minded atheist evangelists.

That's a bit rich, coming from someone who is "certain" of so many things for which he has no evidence apart from stone age books

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

This actually is a Red Herring from my POV, because I believe in an ineffable G-d. This is also the Judaic POV which places G-d above our intellect and understanding. Thus, when Jerry speaks of the monotheistic beliefs, he is mistaken from this POV. G-d can interact with humanity in an non-observable fashion or even in a fashion that we cannot comprehend. Do you understand what I'm attempting to say?

Yes I understand. Your perspective of God sounds very Jewish, but you must also admit that it is not the only one. In a sense you share some of Coyne's misgivings about Miller's reconciliation of God and evolution. If his interaction with humanity is non-observable or incomprehensible as you say, what use is it trying to find his hand in biology or in evolution or in molecular genetics? What use is any such reconciliation?

I'm afraid that my Christian past was never in RCC. However, I can go on for a few hours in tongues. How's that?

Heretic! We devout Catholics have just the right thing for you...

From Wikipedia:
The knight of Hohenberg and his servant, accused sodomites, are executed by burning before the walls of Z?rich in 1482.
Source: Diebold Schilling, Chronik der Burgunderkriege, Schweizer Bilderchronik, Band 3, um 1483 (Z?rich, Zentralbibliothek)

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

That is true. Have you ever considered why observant Jews aren't in on the debates? Just something to think about.

Because Biblical literalism is a relatively new idea and came out of fundie evangelical Christianity. Right?