|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 12:17:03 [Permalink]
|
I am not so sure Dave.
I suspect that the vast majority of Christians have no problems with other Christians or even other religions.
The problem for these people is that their main exposure to Evolution is through the lies of the discovery institute (or through somebody whose main exposure...).
Similar problem with atheism, by the way, and the reason why I believe being open and public about one's atheism is a good thing.
Originally posted by astropin
20% of the "general population" not 20% of scientists and CERTAINLY not 20% of evolutionary biologists!
93% of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a personal god and nearly 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, a far higher percentage than in any other scientific discipline.
http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html
|
Wow; I suspected such a disparity, but certainly not to such extent... Are these numbers accurate? I can't help but notice the staunchly creationist (liar for Jesus) bend of the website you quoted... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2009 : 13:44:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I suspect that the vast majority of Christians have no problems with other Christians or even other religions.
The problem for these people is that their main exposure to Evolution is through the lies of the discovery institute (or through somebody whose main exposure...). |
Right, I'm not talking about the vast majority of Christians, I'm talking about the loudmouth fundamentalist Protestants who started the whole "evolution equals atheism" lie in the first place. They think the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and that the Pope is the Antichrist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 20:04:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Wow; I suspected such a disparity, but certainly not to such extent... Are these numbers accurate? I can't help but notice the staunchly creationist (liar for Jesus) bend of the website you quoted...
|
Do a quick google....those figures are pretty much dead on. I only gave one link....but I could have posted 50. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 02:54:17 [Permalink]
|
Fifty that reference the same survey, or fifty different surveys?
Not that I disagree with your general assessment, just that these "religion" surveys get a lot of attention and the results are often misreported.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 05:03:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Fifty that reference the same survey, or fifty different surveys?
Not that I disagree with your general assessment, just that these "religion" surveys get a lot of attention and the results are often misreported.
|
I'd read another report, might have been from the same original data. First, I think atheists in biology tend to prefer the most evolutionary parts of the field.
Those doing actual evolutionary biology are awesomely atheistic. (Geologists as well, since their work depends upon understanding deep time and evolution.) It really makes sense. The knowledge of evolution drove Darwin from god to godlessness. There is really no fact of our universe that affects people in that way as much as does evolution. The Creationists correctly recognize evolution as their enemy.
The stubborn and ill-informed loud-mouthed Creationists make a lot more impression on these evolutionary biologists than do the near-silent moderate religionists. The latter for the most part seem embarrassed by Creationism, but would rather not talk about it much, perhaps hoping it will soon become a non-issue like the biblical flat earth.
Also, bear in mind that these days -- at least among Protestants -- Christian evangelists are the real "mainstream." They now outnumber the fading former mainstream sects.) With the relative noise levels being what they are, I suspect evolutionary biologists, even those who were not freethinkers before, associate theism with a hostility toward their field of work.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 15:37:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Simon
Wow; I suspected such a disparity, but certainly not to such extent... Are these numbers accurate? I can't help but notice the staunchly creationist (liar for Jesus) bend of the website you quoted...
|
Do a quick google....those figures are pretty much dead on. I only gave one link....but I could have posted 50.
|
Strange.
From my experience, most people in the department where I work seem to be some kind of church going Christian or another.
We atheists are quite in the minority...
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, I'm not talking about the vast majority of Christians, I'm talking about the loudmouth fundamentalist Protestants who started the whole "evolution equals atheism" lie in the first place. They think the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and that the Pope is the Antichrist.
|
But, ain't these fundamentalist Christians the minority? An embarrassment for the more tolerant mainstream?
Who cares about these nuts? In fact, it will make illustrate how much saner and tolerant we are in comparison... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 16:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Simon said:
But, ain't these fundamentalist Christians the minority? An embarrassment for the more tolerant mainstream?
Who cares about these nuts? In fact, it will make illustrate how much saner and tolerant we are in comparison... |
If that approach worked, it would have worked by now.
The fact of the matter is that the "moderate" religions and religious people actively enable the crazy fundies. For that matter, so de we atheists to a lesser degree (our generally vehement defense of free speech). But the moderate religions and religious people are offended just as much by an atheist insisting that it is pointless (to believe in that for which there is no evidence) as are the fundies. They defend magical thinking.
Also, the "mainstream" religions (imo) WANT the crazies to thrive. They appear "mainstream" only when there is an extreme example to compare them against.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 20:47:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Simon said:
But, ain't these fundamentalist Christians the minority? An embarrassment for the more tolerant mainstream?
Who cares about these nuts? In fact, it will make illustrate how much saner and tolerant we are in comparison... |
If that approach worked, it would have worked by now.
The fact of the matter is that the "moderate" religions and religious people actively enable the crazy fundies. For that matter, so de we atheists to a lesser degree (our generally vehement defense of free speech). But the moderate religions and religious people are offended just as much by an atheist insisting that it is pointless (to believe in that for which there is no evidence) as are the fundies. They defend magical thinking.
Also, the "mainstream" religions (imo) WANT the crazies to thrive. They appear "mainstream" only when there is an extreme example to compare them against. |
Well; atheism is on the rise, so maybe it does work finally... :p
I believe that the majority of Americans are respectful of other religions. Judaism, Budhism... Islam may have had a bad PR in recent years but still, Americans mostly seems ready to be willing to show tolerance toward other religions.
I believe it is only a matter a PR and setting the record straight for them to extend this tolerance to atheists.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2009 : 22:02:49 [Permalink]
|
Simon said:
I believe it is only a matter a PR and setting the record straight for them to extend this tolerance to atheists.
|
Seems unlikely. Tolerance of atheism is not what this is about though. It is about removing magical thinking from science education.
Evolution is a fact. It is a fact that directly contradicts the teachings of most religions (definitely christianity, islam, judaism, and a dozen others I can list).
Evolution and creationism (as explanations for the diversity of life) are mutually exclusive propositions. If you assert one as true you are also asserting the other is false.
There is simply no intermediate position.
In a more general sense it is also true that there is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 07:14:31 [Permalink]
|
What about:
Evolution is true and genesis was metaphorical (or mythological)?
Not all Christians, far from it, are literalists and not all of them are innerantists (funnily enough, Firefox does not recognize the word innerantist but suggest to replace it with the word: 'obscurantist'... Which is accurate enough ;) ). |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 09:00:02 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Evolution and creationism (as explanations for the diversity of life) are mutually exclusive propositions. If you assert one as true you are also asserting the other is false.
There is simply no intermediate position. |
No intermediate position if the bible is taken literal accounting of creation. But we know that many people of faith believe that the bible should be taken as allegory. They believe there are lessons to be learned in Genesis, for example, but it is not a factual accounting of the creation. They deffer to science for that.
I was given a copy of the book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by a Methodist minister friend of mine who was very interested, and even excited by the discovery of A. Afarensis and knew I was into that sort of thing. He is very comfortable with a non literal take on scripture and accepts science as the best way to sort out the natural world. And there are many other clergy who take the same view.
If the discussion is atheism or skepticism as we see magical thinking vs faith, perhaps there is no intermediate position. But when talking about science vs faith, there does seem to be one. And it is completely dependent on the how faithful think the bible should be understood.
Among the Jews, the intersection of science and faith is pretty much a non issue. With the exception of a very small minority of the ultra orthodox, Jews have traditionally pushed learning and knowledge as a good things. Interestingly, if ever there was a group that has practiced NOMA before Gould even put a name to it, it's the Jews. Being a Jew himself, perhaps that's where he got it from. He was already there.
What I think he missed was the proselytizing nature of other religions, the threat of hellfire that is absent in Jewish faith, the lack of an actual savior, and it's associated guide book on how to get "saved" and the emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge over literalism and other differences that makes NOMA work for Jews in a way that it can't for other faiths. That was Gould's mistake.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 10:32:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
What I think he missed was the proselytizing nature of other religions, the threat of hellfire that is absent in Jewish faith, the lack of an actual savior, and it's associated guide book on how to get "saved" and the emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge over literalism and other differences that makes NOMA work for Jews in a way that it can't for other faiths. That was Gould's mistake.
|
Oh and what a big mistake it was. Scientists need to be VERY careful about what they do & don't say in regards to religion. Otherwise it gets used against us over & over & over again.
Frankly I don't understand how anyone can take the "religion as allegory" stance. Or accept the NOMA approach. By what basis to they come to their belief?
I've said it a thousand times....I simply do not comprehend the word "faith". WHY would anyone believe ANYTHING without supporting evidence? I don't get it. "There's a God....because I want there to be one???" What kind of nonsensical thinking is that? It's almost (almost) worse than taking the literal interpretation of religions texts. At least they are basing their beliefs (loony as they are) on what they consider to be factual information......as crazy as it is. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 05/08/2009 10:34:57 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 11:50:14 [Permalink]
|
Astropin: Frankly I don't understand how anyone can take the "religion as allegory" stance. Or accept the NOMA approach. By what basis to they come to their belief?
I've said it a thousand times....I simply do not comprehend the word "faith". WHY would anyone believe ANYTHING without supporting evidence? I don't get it. "There's a God....because I want there to be one???" What kind of nonsensical thinking is that? It's almost (almost) worse than taking the literal interpretation of religions texts. At least they are basing their beliefs (loony as they are) on what they consider to be factual information......as crazy as it is. |
Not everyone thinks the same. Different types of thinking and intelligence exist and these differences are valuable or detrimental depending on how and in what context they are used. The way to measure whether something is “better” or “worse” is by measuring how it directly impacts actions and reality. Measuring someone's ideas as “worse” based on their rational consistency alone is a bad idea since we know that people can express and claim to hold dear ideas which completely contradict with their predictable actions. Sociologists and anthropologists starting noticing and writing about this a long time ago. In fact, as mainstream ethics and ideas change for a society as a whole, the first things to change are behavior and the last things to change are the conscious realization in most peoples' minds that their ethics and values are different from the ones of the past.
Look at how moderately religious people behave. They ignore and pity fundamentalists as primitive, they base their ethics on worldy concerns, and they value science. 95% of their lives are preoccupied by secular concerns, with maybe 5% spent in religious rituals such as prayer or worship.
Consider that even among atheists, at least some of our time might be spent engaged in irrational behavior or beliefs (political, social, pseudo-scientific) that might not be religious, but are just as irrational as literal religious faith, and moderate religious people are no less irrational than the average atheist.
Then we have progressive religious people (include radically liberal religions and people who call themselves “spiritual but not religious”) who show outright scorn for fundamentalists, embrace nontheists, and when they are questioned about their use of religious vocabulary, it is discovered that they are essentially agnostics who are using incredibly liberal definitions of words. With the exception of some semantics, these people are identical in both worldview and behavior to the average atheist.
And now consider a true fundamentalist. They view everything in life through a faith lens. They believe fortune - mental and physical health, as well a natural disasters and other good or bad luck – is the result of spiritual weakness or strength. They base their ethics and actions entirely on how scripture is interpreted either by themselves or religious authority figures. These people are fundamentally and quite noticeably different not only in their thinking but in their total lifestyle from mainstream society in the developed world. But in mainstream society, unless you talk to someone specifically about their beliefs, atheists and moderate and progressive religionists are identical. Think about it, you could work beside someone in an office and not know whether they are a slack-ass Christian or “spiritual but not religious” or an atheist for years. But could you work beside a fundamentalists and not quickly learn that they are a fundamentalist?
So to go back to how different people have different ways of thinking and different types of intelligence, I personally refuse to criticize someone for their way of thinking if it clearly isn't directly leadin |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 11:57:09 [Permalink]
|
Dude: | Evolution and creationism (as explanations for the diversity of life) are mutually exclusive propositions. If you assert one as true you are also asserting the other is false. |
That's definitely true of what is commonly referred to as “Creationism” these days. However, it is not mutually exclusive to be an atheist who accepts evolution as fact and a theist or deist who accept evolution as fact and who thus presumes that the Creator used evolution as the means for developing complex lifeforms.
| In a more general sense it is also true that there is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion. |
Since science is not a philosophical position, I disagree. There are religious philosophies which reject all or part of scientific inquiry, but there are also religious philosophies which embrace scientific inquiry in full.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 12:27:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | One can be opposed to something yet still treat the who hold that opposite position with respect and decency above and beyond what they deserve. |
Are you suggesting that the NCSE is merely patronizing moderate religionists who accept evolution as fact and using them for political gain, rather than viewing them as intellectually equal allies in the fight against anti-intellectual fundamentalism?
Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. - Peter Hess |
How is that a false statement?
He makes an even worse mistake in that piece, calling the shape and color of a fruit "complementary" aspects. They're neither compatible nor complementary, shape and color (when examined aside from biology) are independent variables. "Creation" and "evolution" are also not complementary, as Hess declares.
And the common idea that science answers the "how" questions while religion answers the "why" questions is an assertion of complementariness (in fact, it's an assertion that to get all the answers about the world, both science and religion are necessary). |
Not unless only a single religious viewpoint is being pushed. When multiple religious viewpoints are given as legitimate, one is essentially arguing that the answers to “why” are subjective because the capital “T” True answers cannot be known.
Science does only give us the “how.” But the answers that science gives us are constantly being re-evaluated and improved on. Progressive religious thinkers treat theological ideas in a similar fashion. That's why they are perfectly happy to embrace modern values such as equality of women, gay rights, and religious pluralism. Of course the two systems are evaluated using very different criteria. Science is measured using empirical evidence. Meaning and morality is measured (at least by moderate and progressive religious people) by what promotes tangible, worldly benefits to society. Obviously the latter is much more difficult to measure since it isn't entirely objective. For instance, how do we measure the value of having the freedom to buy and consume alcohol against the harm caused by alcohol abuse? But it is something we must do as a social animal with individuals who are dependent on the society for their survival. In this sense, science and worldviews(I'll use that word instead of religion because “religion” excludes atheists and agnostics – and I am not happy about that bias) can compliment each other because science can be used in our dialogues about ever-changing meaning and morality. For example, a scientific study can tell us that a first trimester embryo feels no pain because those receptors are not yet hooked up, and further scientific studies can show us that first trimester abortions are safer to the health of the average pregnant woman than seeing it through until birth. This sort of data can and has influenced the opinions of people in mainstream society's opinions regarding the moral/ethical issue of abortion.
I see science as complimentary to my humanist worldview, and in my conversations with and reading of some progressive theologies, I see how science is similarly complimentary to those worldviews.
| After two hours of pondering, I have yet to be able to come up with a real-life scenario in which two things are declared "compatible" simply because they are not in conflict. That's not what people mean by the term, nor is that meaning found in a check of a dictionary. Per my earlier example, a dog and a cat are not |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/08/2009 12:28:02 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
