Superstition, Luck and Vodoo

[SicilianTM]

Going way way back to the first page in this thread...

Originally posted by darkhorse
Scientists say that our brains are wired to give us natural tendency towards belief in a higher power, a transcendent reality more important than the mundane everyday. They explain away philosophy and metaphysics with this nutshell explanation. I think the scientists are hypocritical philosophy haters and the truth is actually chicken and egg: that man has a tendency to see 'something more' because there really is something more.

[...] (major snippage)

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health19.htm

I think the simplest explanation is that this "God module" evolved because it gave a survival advantage to the group, if not necessarily the individuals in it. Imagine two groups of early humans competing for the same resources. One group has a strong common belief system with a neurological basis due to their common genes. The other does not. One has individuals who believe so strongly they are willing to sacrifice their lives (and the possibility of passing on their own individual genes) for the survival of the group, the other does not. Who wins, and eventually passes this particular genetic trait along? And gee, look what's going on in the world today...

 

[DblArrow]

Originally posted by SicilianTM


There is plenty of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, and in our DNA. There is also plenty of evidence that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, as a literal interpretation of the Old Testament would hold. If anyone wants to believe that, the best they can do is say that in the process of creating the universe, God planted a lot of false evidence that it is older than it really is. Of course, this is an unfalsifiable and untestable proposition and therefore worthless as a scientific theory. If you understood how science works, you'd understand that no theory is ever proven. All that matters is how useful it is.

As for the 200 years thing, would you argue that you'd rather, for example, be treated by medical science more that 200 years old rather than less?

Finally, a lot more people over a lot longer time frame have believed in things other than Christianity. Most of the world's religions are incompatible - what makes you think that the one true religion just happens to be the one you were born into?

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts

The dates of the fossil record that you refer to have not been proven - only assumed by not real accurate testing methods. How long does it take for a fossil to form? Have you or anyone else seen this? Yes it has been seen. There are millions of fossils in the St Helens aftermath that according to current dating methods are millions of years old. Fossilized bones have been found that have been proven to a certain date - due to the items found with the bones - and these are less than thousands of years old.

God planted no false evidence - most, if not all, can be explained by a massive worldwide calamity (the flood) and the fossil evidence is there.

The longer time frame for believing in something other than christianity comes from where? I contend that people have beleived in christianity since the beggining. Unfortunatley I must agree that all the worlds religions are incompatibale. If there is a right way and a wrong way - they cannot be compatible. Alot of people get offended by the christian idea that there is but one way to God. I was not born into any religion - unless being born in this country is what you are refering to.

Just an observation - It never ceases to amaze me that 2 people can look at similar information and draw 2 completely different conclusions. It all depends on the bias with which we look.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by SicilianTM


There is plenty of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, and in our DNA. There is also plenty of evidence that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, as a literal interpretation of the Old Testament would hold.

Before this pot gets over stirred let's clarify that there are plenty of 'old earth' Christians who do not take a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis and are no less Christians for this interpretation. The bible uses both poetic language and specific fact conveying language, just like you and I do. For example, 40 days and 40 nights means 'a very long time,' it does not have to mean exactly 960 hours or 345,600 seconds.

Similarly if you and I have a conversation and I say things like 'it was raining cats and dogs' or 'I waited in line forever at the bank today' you will be able to distinguish between my factual statements and my poetic / descriptive ones. You would NOT say 'a-Ha!! I don't really believe you DID go to the bank, because you used poetic language immediately before the factual conveyance that you went! I caught you and disregard your statement!!!' That kind of silly false distinction is reserved for cranks with agendas looking to prove something rather than objectively consider possibilities. Show me someone who does not intermingle poetic language w/ specific fact conveyance language and I'll show you someone who doesn't speak.

This brings up an interesting side point that the supposed insurmountable "problems" brought up with scriptural text generally come from either a) misinterpretation, or the simplistic parroting of incorrect theology, b) lack of philosophical understanding as to how a surface level contradiction is reconciled on a deeper level, or c) lack of linguistic understanding / incorrect cultural context resulting in incorrect assigning of meaning.

Old earth Christians believe that the first chapter of Genesis is a statement of beginnings but was never meant to be a scientific text, which makes sense given the poetic language structure. I do not necessarily plant my flag in this camp, but a rational case has been made. This is not to say that it is incorrect to take Genesis literally. Only to point out that the issue of how old the earth is, or even the debated specifics of an evolutionary model, do not have a true bearing on whether one believes in God in general or Christianity specifically.

Evolution is fun to debate (I have very serious doubts as to its scientific credibility), but we should recognize that no matter how you slice it, it's a side dish at best.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by Thug_Life
Most of the world's religions are incompatible

That seems to be the problem with religion. What if you believe in God but not any religion?

Religion is such a loaded word with so many lousy connotations attached to it. Toss the baggage of that word aside. When it comes down to it, this isn't about organized anything, it's about You and God. (Or You and No one, depending on your road)...

The truth does not have a duty to seek you out any more than trading profits have a duty to seek you out. Just as you have to work hard and look hard for profits, you have to work hard and look hard for truth.

Blind alleys, false teachers, sleepless nights, long and toilful struggles on the path to understanding, discovering that what appears easy is hard...if anything, traders should be intimately familiar with these concepts.

And who pays the bill at the end of the meal? You.

 

[Commisso]

Hey since you guys are discussing fossils and evolution and DNA and what not, I thought it would be good time to ask...

How come there is no mention of Dinosaurs in the bible???
Isn't that a little odd?

Just one of those things I always wondered regarding the bible

PEACE and good trading,
Commisso

 

[futurecurrents]

In Darwin's time, paleontology was still a rudimentary science. Large parts of the
geological succession of stratified rocks were unknown or inadequately studied.




Darwin, therefore, worried about the rarity of intermediate forms
between some major groups of organisms.

Today, many of the gaps in the paleontological record have been
filled by the research of paleontologists. Hundreds of thousands of fossil
organisms, found in well-dated rock sequences, represent successions of
forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. As
mentioned earlier, microbial life of the simplest type was already in
existence 3.5 billion years ago. The oldest evidence of more complex
organisms (that is, eucaryotic cells, which are more complex than
bacteria) has been discovered in fossils sealed in rocks approximately 2
billion years old. Multicellular organisms, which are the familiar fungi,
plants, and animals, have been found only in younger geological strata.
The following list presents the order in which increasingly complex
forms of life appeared:





Life Form

Millions of Years Since
First Known Appearance
(Approximate)

Microbial (procaryotic cells)
3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells)
2,000
First multicellular animals
670
Shell-bearing animals
540
Vertebrates (simple fishes)
490
Amphibians
350
Reptiles
310
Mammals
200
Nonhuman primates
60
Earliest apes
25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans
4
Modern humans
0
.15 (150,000 years)




So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians,
between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate
lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs
from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as
intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded
them and those that followed.

The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through
time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted
that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will
not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the
geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the
evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found.
**************************************************

God is our answer for what we don't yet know.

 

[futurecurrents]

I'm amazed that some people still won't allow themselves to believe in evolution. I guess all these scientists are out to disprove the existence of the Christian God. I personally would love to believe. I'm sure it is very comforting. I would love to believe my that my friend who died of cancer yesterday is going to heaven. I was hoping his father, who is a deacon, would have his prayers to spare his son answered. Maybe it was the wrong religion. Maybe instead we should spend more time at the alter of science to find a cure.

I've debated with myself whether to even join this debate. I wish happiness for all (wow, an atheist with a conscious, how did that happen?) so I felt maybe it is best to let believers believe. Why upset them? But then I remember the result of this belief/faith, is often an intolerant, elitist, arrogant personality. One reason for their faith is so they can KNOW. It is a blessing and a curse that man is curious. We want to know, and uncertainty is uncomfortable. Darkhorse seems a good example of this. He obviously is a driven intellect. His bookshelves are covered with answers. But it is a paradox of knowledge that the more one knows the more one realizes the scope of one's ignorance. Some people can not live with uncertainty. There must be total knowledge and order in their minds. This is of course impossible. Enter faith. With a slight suspension of critical thinking and reason there can be constructed... the ANSWER. Their argument goes something like this: I believe my faith is correct and righteous. If my faith is correct then the others must be incorrect and therefore evil, or at least not as good as mine. If the others are wrong and bad then I can go to war against them and kill them. God is on our side. The infidels must die. The need for certainty leads to faith which leads to arrogance, elitism, intolerance and conflict. The need for faith requires a suspension of rationality and the irrational are always more dangerous.

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by futurecurrents
The need for faith requires a suspension of rationality and the irrational are always more dangerous.

LOL futurecurrents:

you argue that all attempts to reason out my position are circular because my position is a priori wrong, and yet your position is somehow a priori correct?

i have attempted to reason with you on common grounds, i.e. pointing to observations and experiences we can at least somewhat relate to/share. Where my experiences are unreproducible I try to make that fact clear. Yet you step in and say my search is null and void because you say so?

Is there some kind of worldly virtue attached to noncommittal? Is intentional blindness to possibility a good thing?

You demonstrate strong faith that faith is bad and wrong. By your own logic, are you calling yourself dangerously irrational?

Why are those unwilling to read between the lines so adamant that nothing is there to be read? Why are those who call Christians dogmatic and arrogant so dogmatically and arrogantly convinced that God has no validity?

p.s. Commisso re dinosaurs, last time I checked God wasn't overly concerned with laying out the minutia of science, whether man walked with dinosaurs or dinosaurs walked long before is not really a central issue, though if you would like some provocative possibilities check out the book of job

p.p.s. futurecurrents scroll back a bit, Christianity and science need not conflict even if you are old earth/ evolutionist

 

[darkhorse]

by request of Surfer and Commisso- will and responsibility part I:

The American Heritage Dictionary defines free will as such:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Webster's defines free will like this:

The power and exercise of unhampered choice.

The doctrine that man is free to control his own actions uncoerced by necessity of fate.


The bible does not bother to define free will or even really mention it at all. Why? Because the idea of free will as popularly conceived does not exist in reality. Free will is a pseudoconcept. Does man have a will, defined as 'the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action'? Yes. Is it truly free as the dictionary defines it? No. The 'blank slate on which we grandly write' was the invention of thinkers bent on giving themselves autonomy at any cost.

The actual will of man is the product of three things: nature, environment and experience. We choose none of these things. In the act of being born, our nature and our environment are determined for us. Our experiences stem from our environment. Where you end up is strongly influenced by where you start (with intervening factors along the way, as Paul so aptly demonstrates). We have no say in what traits we inherit, or where we start, or what disruptive experiences we shall ultimately have along the path of life. God, however, has an absolute say in all of these elements. (side note, this thread is an example of a potentially disruptive experience …)

Blue is my favorite color. Spaghetti is my favorite food. I prefer solid clothing to checks or stripes. Porsches hold more appeal to me than Ferraris. If ignorance is temporary bliss, I choose the toil of awareness. If life is meaningless, I choose death. I can give you rational arguments for all these preferences. But ultimately, if you trace the dominoes back far enough, I will have to say 'just because.' This is true of EVERYONE (including atheism and science heroes like Sagan, Nietsche, Sartre). We ALL build our foundation of belief on presuppositions, faith-based first principles, building blocks that are held to be self evident. (The sustained skeptic does not count because skepticism is not a true position, it is merely the temporary refusal to commit to a position.)

SO: we have a will, yes, but it is not free in the popular sense and never was. I cannot make a decision free of the weight and influence of all decisions prior, and I did not choose my starting point. Wherever we go, there we are, and we are never without the influence of who we are or where we have been. In being a first mover, God is the only being with true 'free will.' So what kind of will does man have exactly? He has what I call a 'natural will'- the ability to make decisions in accordance with his nature and his experience. The difference is subtle but critical. 'Natural will' takes account of the fact that we actively base our decisions on our nature and our experience, but does NOT use the word free, in recognition of the fact that key elements- the elements that comprise our natures- remain beyond our control. God is the one who determines our nature, our starting point and the significant milestones on our path of experience, thus indirectly shaping all facets of our reality. (I used the term 'free will' before because if I had said 'natural will' I figured on puzzled responses, and I didn't expect the water to get this deep.)

The net result of man's 'natural will' is a both/and reality. I like CS Lewis' Shakespeare analogy, or the modern day Peanuts version. Who killed Tybalt- Romeo or Shakespeare? When Charlie Brown runs to kick the football, who pulls it away- Lucy Van Pelt or Charles Schulz? The answer is both/and. Romeo and Lucy were exercising their uninhibited natural wills- but the cloth of their natural wills were cut for them by their respective creators.

IF anyone is still interested I'll bust out part II tomorrow or Wednesday- what natural will and sovereignty implies in terms of responsibility, theological divisions that the responsibility debate has created, and what God/scripture has to say (which you may find to be at odds with what you have 'heard').

 

[Commisso]

Acutally Dark I never asked you to define your conception of free will and I really can't see the signal through all the noise...

Who is the author of "evil" man or God???

You say you like Porches better than Ferrari's right? Well what if I like rape and murder better than compassion and benevolence???
Ultimately who's will was it mine or your God's???

My post was pretty straight foward and if you want to continue with the discussion can you please attempt to make your case as simplistic as possible, for I am not the brighest chap around

You said earlier to Faster that man could not have virtue or morality without god... Can he be prue "evil" without your god???


PEACE Commisso