SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For over a decade I have enjoyed debating with creationists who are capable of intelligent, rational conversation. Currently I am attempting to share my viewpoints with a coworker who is particularly intelligent and rational, but who is at this point a young-Earth creationist. We take turns posing questions and formulating replies, and have not once lost our cool with each other. At this point I would very much like to share with him what I learned on evolutionofdna.com some years ago while researching for a previous debate, but the site has apparently been down for some years with no sign of returning. Does anyone know a way of retrieving an archive of it, or obtaining what it once held through other channels? If so I would be deeply grateful.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by aclarke on Monday September 08 2014, @05:08PM
Hmm, moderate or post, such a tough choice.
I'm a Christian. I grew up in private boarding schools where I got a full-on indoctrination into young-earth creationism. I may not be the smartest knife in the block I'm not an idiot; I have degree in engineering from a world-class university to remind me I'm capable of applied rational thought.
I'm not sure that since high school I've ever really internally identified with the "literal 7 day" camp. It's also just not something I've felt the need to really confront or work through until I started doing more concentrated reading and thinking about it maybe a year and a half ago, 20+ years after high school. There are a lot of reasons why an intelligent and rational person may not accept evolution. Here are a few:
- People on both sides of the fence conflate the evolution/YEC debate with athiesm/theism. In reality, one can find many theist evolutionists, and probably many atheists who "believe in" some origin theory other than evolution.
- There is a huge amount of indoctrination and social pressure in many fundamentalist Christian circles to accept creationism. Going back to the previous point, questioning this theological pillar is tantamount to questioning one's faith, which most people would probably look at as one step before abandoning one's faith. Therefore, even an intelligent person might be tempted to just "put that one back on the shelf" when life is busy and there are hundreds of other more immediate issues vying for their attention.
- People may have attended schools their whole life that tought creationism and taught against evolution. This is a hard current to swim against. Being able to admit one is wrong is part of being intelligent and rational. However, it's also reasonable to assume that a person in this situation is going to take things slowly and make sure that their new world view makes sense before taking it on. Much of this may be happening in the person's mind, even if they are not talking to YOU about it.
- There is a lot of YEC literature out there, published by people with PhDs. Personally, for a long time I just thought, "people a lot smarter and more educated than me are on both sides of this debate" and left it at that. Then again, if you'd come to me as an "evolutionist", that's probably how I would have responded unless I could see that you were looking for a fight, in which case I'd give you one by taking the seven day creationist viewpoint just because I probably enjoy winding you up as much as you enjoy winding me up.
So, on this subject I've read more lately. I've read not just about "is evolution a good theory", but "how does this affect my faith". It's a crucial issue as much fundamentalist Christian theology hinges on there being a mitochondrial Adam and Eve due to the doctrine of original sin. As someone else pointed out in this conversation, there is some good Catholic writing on this subject.
As others have also pointed out, even those of us who might pride ourselves in being rational could probalby be found guilty of irrationality in many areas of our lives. Maybe those on here looking for cheap moderation by laughing at creationists should slow down a little and look at some of their own inconsistencies first. Remember that "being rational" is not for every definition the same as "being rational in all ways, all the time."
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday September 08 2014, @06:29PM
Excellent post. For me, there are a thousand things to say about this topic. You hit a number of highlights for me and did it in a less wordy way than I would have. (Thank you!) I grew up in with a strong Catholic background. I am no longer religious, but I do believe in God. (I define religion as being man made.) I have no rational argument to support my belief in God, however. I've already mentioned my Jewish friend. I have a friend who is atheist who is married to a Muslim. I have Christian friends. I also have yet other friends who are like me, agnostic -- some who believe in a god and others who don't. I don't think I know anyone who is Buddhist, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I would also add that one man's rationality is another man's stupidity. For a classic example, we have republicans thinking democrats are morons and vice versa. I believe covers at least 2/3 of the U.S. right there. Add in the independents and most people in the U.S. think most other people in the U.S. are morons. I think there's supposed to be humor here somewhere...
This ain't Slashdot. In Soylent News, you can moderate and then post. However, once you post, you lose the ability to moderate in that news article.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08 2014, @07:21PM
For a self-proclaimed "rational" person to hold a religious dogma, he must isolate a part of his brain where magical thinking is acceptable and where the Scientific Method that guides his day to day existence is banished.
It's very illogical and anti-scientific (not just unscientific).
The Venn diagram showing science and religion has zero overlap between the two:
One says I'll believe it when I see it; the other says I'll see it if I just believe it.
When I watch what "Christians" are doing, the question quickly arises: WWJD?
Invariably, it's the opposite of what the "Christians" are doing.
The religions I've seen, as practiced, aren't so much a route to self-improvement as they are simple tribalism.
The 7 Deadly Sins aren't supposed to be an a la carte menu where you can embrace the ones you think were just thrown in to get the number up to 7.
...and I like the grace and symmetry of a continuous Big Bang/Big Crunch cycle, but the guys who are studying it say they can't find enough mass in the cosmos to validate the notion. 8-(
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Tuesday September 09 2014, @01:16AM
The Venn diagram showing science and religion has zero overlap between the two
Then there's the prophet Bahá'u'lláh, who said that true religion is never in conflict with true science.
-- hendrik
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @03:54AM
...For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
-- Stuart Chase, an American engineer and economist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5039618 [democraticunderground.com]
It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove or disprove the existence of anything beyond the detection capabilities of one's five senses (seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting).
Beyond that, you enter the realm of true faith should you believe such a thing exists or is even possible....
Even then, your five senses are needed in various capacities in order to enter this state.
Your senses are needed to have 'normal' faith in the real world. Some examples:
You see a chair, it looks sturdy and able to hold your weight if you sit in it but won't know that until you do (touching it by sitting down). At that point you have faith in the maker of the chair that it is strong enough to hold your weight in a seated position WITHOUT collapsing under your weight and surely injuring you.
You stand at a crosswalk at a busy intersection. The light turns red and you walk across the street to the other side in front of assorted vehicles that have stopped for the red light. You are demonstrating faith in the vehicle drivers--your fellow human beings (self-driving vehicles notwithstanding)--that he or she will obey the traffic laws and allow you to cross the street safely without encroachment of said vehicles into your path, or being injured or killed as a result of being hit by one of them.
Now then....
If one can have (have to have?) faith just to function 'properly' while alive and living on Planet Earth, why is so difficult to (properly) take a 'leap of faith' into a realm of being not detectable by one's five senses?
Here is how one Book bests puts this:
If you don't even belive in the possibility that the above quote is true then, as Stuart Chase is quoted as saying, no proof is possible.
To put it another way, nonbelivers have more to lose if they are wrong than believers do.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @09:56AM
> If one can have (have to have?) faith just to function 'properly' while alive and living on Planet Earth, why is so difficult to (properly) take a 'leap of faith' into a realm of being not detectable by one's five senses?
It's not. In fact it's frighteningly easy. The trouble is, under that view, where everything impossible is possible, then all impossible things are *equally* possible. Why should I take my leap of faith into biblical scripture rather than, say, the Q'ran, or ancient Greek or Viking mythology, or start believing that pokemon canon is real, or maybe just wander off into some wild fantasy realm of my own devising? We're into invisible teapot territory. At some point you have to draw a line, otherwise you become crippled by existential doubt and can't even get out of bed in the morning because WHAT IF MY BEDROOM FLOOR DOESN'T EVEN EXIST, MAN? In other words you have to make certain assumptions about reality just to be able to function. Those base assumptions are the foundations upon which you can use logic and reason to build up an entire worldview. However I think it makes sense to make as few assumptions as we can reasonably get away with, and try not to choose those assumptions arbitrarily.
I personally have drawn my existential line at the limit of my senses, (with the proviso that those senses can be fooled / can malfunction from time to time). You might argue that this line is no less arbitrary than the one you have drawn that extends past your senses to include your faith, but I'd argue that your choice of faith is completely arbitrary, because you chose that one over all the others which each have just as much/ little evidence. Since, from the outside, each faith appears to be as worthwhile/worthless as the next, and they are pretty much all mutually exclusive, and they don't actually offer any useful answers or explanations anyway, I see no need to include any of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @04:06PM
Without a 'moral absolute', you get today's world in all its misery and injustice.
With one, you have (had) 'heaven' [togetherweteach.com] on [togetherweteach.com] earth. [togetherweteach.com]
The Bible and the Message It contains are, to me, the best explanation as to why things are the way they are on Planet Earth and what one can do about it.
People have given their lives to insure the Bible and Its contents were handed down properly through the generations from the past to the present (now).
If the Bible was a 'work of fiction' as others have said past and present with various degrees of dissent/contempt, why would people give their lives for a bound volume of lies?
Consider The LOLCat Bible. [lolcatbible.com] Why spend the past seven years (2007-2014) faithfully 'translating' the KJV version of the Bible into LOLSpeak if the source material is a 'work of fiction'. That would appear to be pointless, wasted effort as the Bible 'speaks for itself' if one considers it to be 'a work of fiction'. Could it not be said that the reason why the LOLCat Bible exists is the same reason that there exists many translations of the Bible in various languages spoken all over the world--that the Message It contains is worth getting out to as many people as possible?
But as you said in your post you draw the line at the 'edge' of your five senses. That is your choice in the matter and I respect that. This post is 'food for thought' for you in case you are open to change your mind later. To avoid any future arguments this will be the last post in this exchange--I can't really come up with a better response/counterexample than this that you might consider worthwhile to reply to if you want to.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 09 2014, @05:38PM
> With one, you have (had) 'heaven' on earth.
The bible has had two thousand years of dominance over European thinking to produce heaven on Earth. All we've had are centuries of constant wars, slavery, pestilence and misery. Didn't work. We're trying something new, it's called "science" and so far it's not working out too badly. We've a lot of work to do, but on the whole most things seem to be trending in the right direction.
> People have given their lives to insure the Bible and Its contents were handed down properly through the generations from the past to the present (now).
People have given their lives for the Q'ran and Haddith too. Does that mean those works *must* be true too? Oh wait, they can't be true if the bible is true, the two are mutually exclusive. Ditto for Buddhist martyrs, Sikhs, Hindus, and all the other thousands of faiths that people have died for over the millennia... I'm afraid your bible martyrs, while tragic, don't actually prove anything, except that people will die for religion, which isn't exactly news. It says nothing about the truth or otherwise of what they died for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:48PM
If the Bible was a 'work of fiction' as others have said past and present with various degrees of dissent/contempt, why would people give their lives for a bound volume of lies?
Those people may have believed it to be true, but believing something to be true doesn't make it so, no matter how hard you believe. Yes, millions (and even billions) of people can be wrong. Science works for discovering truths, religion on the other hand has got us nowhere for discovering truths about the world we live in, why is your version of Christianity correct and the other versions are wrong? Whenever science discovers something that contradicts what was previously thought to be true what was shown to be wrong is discarded or modified. Whenever religion 'discovers' something new you often just get a new version of that religion alongside the old one.
Consider The LOLCat Bible. Why spend the past seven years (2007-2014) faithfully 'translating' the KJV version of the Bible into LOLSpeak if the source material is a 'work of fiction'.
For fun, perhaps. I've only read the beginning of Genesis of the LOLCat Bible, and it doesn't seem serious at all, I can't imagine the translators mean for the translation to be taken seriously. It isn't one person working on it for 7 years either, it is a project started 7 years ago that is worked on in an ad-hoc manner by many volunteers doing as much as they like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09 2014, @08:23PM
To put it another way, nonbelivers have more to lose if they are wrong than believers do.
Hardly. If I was to follow a religion in a gamble to secure a better afterlife I would have to make sacrifices in what looks like the only life I will ever have, to me that would be losing a lot. Now, that isn't why I don't believe in any religions, I don't believe because I don't find the evidence for any religion compelling, but your statement is only true if you take for granted that there is an afterlife.
And how do you choose which religion is the correct one? Can you honestly say you'd be a Christian if you grew up in a Muslim family in Iran or a Hindu family in India?