Letters to the Editor
-
'A more scientific attitude would be to consider a theory that allows both to be true.'
Yeah. Scientist did. That is exactly the progress of understanding, from 'it's all down to God', via 'most of it', 'some of it', 'the important bits, I guess' (the position of virtually all the people who drafted the US Constitution), 'it could all work without him' to 'who is this God person, anyway?'. There has been nothing, at all, discovered (and very little even theorized) that's even been a blip on that trajectory. The more evidence there is, the less God there is.
'What if our loving God decided to play a game with us, and do his creating by means of Evolution?'
Say whatever you want about those crazy, crazy creationists, but at least their God isn't a liar. For the 'playing a game' theory to be true, God's lying twice - punking us with a universe that looks just like the only possible universe that He couldn't have created; peddled a religion based on the idea we started out perfect and devolved.
There's no 'compromise' here:
All scientists who got their qualifications from universities and not the mailman say the creation of the universe and evolution are down to very small things becoming more complex because of remarkably simple and mathematically proven processes, over immense amounts of time.
The Judeo-Christian creation story is the exact *opposite*. It's about a big thing quickly and consciously making complex things, and creating an entire universe for the benefit of mankind.
There's no compromise, there. You can, if you want, impose the idea that God sat watching and guiding evolution going 'ooh, I like those gazelles', but ... you don't need to. It works just fine without him. It makes far more sense without him. Do you really want to worship a God who went 'ooh, I like those gazelles ... now, what can I create that will chase them, pick off the weak ones and tear their heads off?'.
If your idea is that there's a God who smiled and laughed as he used evolution as a tool to create Plasmodium falciparum, say, then it is our duty as moral beings to work out how to hunt down and destroy that God. That should be the great purpose of humanity.
Luckily you're talking half-baked sentimental rubbish.
And this is the problem with the article. There are things that, even if imperfectly understood, are *known*. To suggest that everyone's view is equally imperfect or valid or that the real answer is to compromise ... no. Either scientists are basically right or creationists are. There's no 'third way', nothing to be gained by pretending there is except warming the hearts of woolly-minded simpletons.
'To believe that therefore we are all condemned to be isolated in an unfeeling material Universe'
If that's the truth, though, that's the truth. Let's live an honest life, not hide behind comfortable fictions. I'd rather we'd had Bartlett not Bush, but I know we didn't. I'd love it if I could learn the ways of the Force from Yoda. He's a puppet, though, sadly. And, frankly, I find the idea that the 'universe feels' to be a deeply unpleasant one. A whole cosmos like those Japanese toilets that talk to you? No thanks.
-
It's an epidemic alright
And is Dr. Burton quite "certain" of his claim that "certainty is not biologically possible."
-
Knowing you are right!
Question today;'How do you you know you are right?"Answer;" I know I'm right because I saw it on the internet." If we are going to place our faith in false idols we will reiterate those falsehoods and if repeated enough times the myths become a reality. I believe that this phrase explains much of the myth current in everyday politics.
A more careful decision can be made if one understands that science does not adhere to absolutes. All of the decisions and statements in science ought to reflect the consequence that there are NO absolutes there are only probilities which gain stature as more and more information becomes available be that positive or negative information.Is this premise so difficult as to not practice it in everyday occurrances? I hope not.
-
quantum9leap
I know I am right, because the evidence I have found backs my point of view.
Whether that evidence be gained via real life, via reading non-fiction, studying, arguing, or experimentation.
Now take the example of the argument of religion being the basis of human morality.
I view it as being bullshit.
Why?
One of the worst things a person can do in the eyes of our society is to engage in the slave trade.
This is permitted in the Bible. Jesus never speaks out against slavery, he simply tells slaves to get on with their work.
Via real life, the least moral people I have met have been born agains, in fact one tried to frame me at a point for a theft he committed - because he knew I was an atheist and felt that I had it coming anyway. I do not judge all born agains by his standard, but I note, that being born again did not stop his actions and in fact to some extent motivated them.
Via argument, I know that statement to be untrue, because I have seen lots and lots of Christians claim that Hitler was an atheist. Hitler was only an atheist if you don't take into account his books, his speeches, his personal journals, his policies and the statements of his friends. This goes against anything a Christian might say about morality, because it is proganda and the Christians engaging in it know it is propaganda.
(Note: This is not about "Hitler being a Catholic made him a monster" it is about religion not preventing him being a monster, about theists trying to spread the idea that atheism creates monsters, and about it being a common theistic tactic to lie about recorded history in order to paint their opponents in a negative light.)
Via, experimentation, like most atheists I have actually tried religion and I found it did not make me a more moral person.
-
'All of the decisions and statements in science ought to reflect the consequence that there are NO absolutes there are only probilities which gain stature as more and more information becomes available '
Exactly.
This is the thing ... science already encompasses doubt and nuance. Science is open to radical new ideas (evolution and the Big Bang *are* that).
There's this idea that somehow moderate religion can negotiate some settlement, act like negotiators, sit there sagely going 'oh, we mustn't be so materialistic'. They are not neutral, because their position is, by definition, the George W Bush one - 'the jury is still out on how God created mankind'.
The scientific position is one of clarity, clearly defined terms and argument, experiment, evidence, testing. It's self-aware. It's infinitely more nuanced than the sort of smug layman's greeting card sentiment that moderate religion peddles. It's waffle. It's the *avoidance* of nuance with lines like 'God moves in mysterious ways' and 'whatever happens, God loves you'. It might be comforting ... but it's a comforting *lie*.
The universe science has shown us is bigger, weirder, older, more spectacular than anything mankind imagined in the bronze age. Nothing scientists have shown us means we can't have emotions, or delight in our surroundings, or strive for better.