Anyone planning on going to see Expelled starring Ben Stein

[Phred]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it Scientific America who is a target of some of the charges the movie makes?

It isn't SciAm that publishes articles like that. This particular article you're referring to was titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." the editor was fired for pushing it through even though the three peers who reviewed it all disagreed with the findings. You can read about it here.

 

I like Ben Stein. Does he have an agenda? Well, Duh. But find me someone who doesn't. I agree with the premise of his argument so I will be watching it, with my eyes wide open for the "extras".

I think this one may be over the edge of an "agenda". But hey, you tell me. Let us all know after you've seen it. Tell me if they claim the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory". (gotta love that one) And remember... 80% of the DNA strand is used for nothing. While beautiful you gotta think a designer would have come up with something simpler.

[SparrowsNest]

here and here

For the purposes of this kind of discussion, no one is talking about political science professors or economists as 'scientists.' The article said that about 38% of the natural scientists did not believe in God (i.e., about 60% are either agnostic or deist). Of course, mere belief in God does not define one as a Christian, that is absurd.

 

In short, these statistics do not prove your assertion that most US academic scientists are Christian.

[Audrey]

I can say quite honestly as an aethist I am frequently uncomfortable with discussions here. There is an attitude that christians are welcome and all others are merely tolerated.

 

Some others are not even "merely tolerated." It was that way on the old board, too, which is why I rarely post my opinion on the "hot" topics, and when I do, I edit very carefully. I like to interact on certain topics that interest me (in a non-controversial way). Although it is constantly argued that this is not a christian board, in practice, it really *is* a christian board. I certainly won't hide the fact that I'm a pagan here, but I'm also not going to discuss it either, as it is quite clear that my opinion on real issues is not at all welcome. Those very few who might be interested have occassionally said so.

[jacqui in mo]

Phred, you wrote "Nobody is trying to rule out gods... but there isn't enough evidence to rule them in either."

 

How would you classify books like "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins?

 

 

(Hope I don't sound snarky, just interested in what you'd have to say)

[RebeccaC]

Can y'all say field trip :D Cause that is what it's gonna be :auto:

[Laura K (NC)]

My opinion? You won't learn anything from a dishonest movie made to pander to those who don't know what the Theory of Evolution is in the first place.

This movie is dishonest and misleading. It presents a strawman of what the Theory of Evolution is and then, through falsely edited interviews and items taken out of context it proceeds to tear that strawman down.

Or was this a bit of hyperbole? ;)

But does it ever occur to anyone that even if someone succeeded in tearing down the Theory of Evolution that would not prove creationism correct? It's not a zero sum game.

ID is not creationism. Some creationists would object to being lumped in with ID'ers. Meanwhile, my issue is not to prove creationism correct at this point, but to allow it to lay on the table with all the other implausible, fantastic, improvable theories until mankind has come up with an absolute, or has met its collective Maker trying. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

ID is not creationism. Some creationists would object to being lumped in with ID'ers. Meanwhile, my issue is not to prove creationism correct at this point, but to allow it to lay on the table with all the other implausible, fantastic, improvable theories until mankind has come up with an absolute, or has met its collective Maker trying. ;)

 

Hm. I think the world was created by the Christian God. Am I creationist? I'm not a literal-seven-day-6k years-creationist, must you be in order to be considered a "creationist?"

 

Audrey, I'm sorry you don't feel you can share freely on this board. It's really a shame. I do agree that this is a right-leaning board. I have a couple of friends (TWTM-using homeschoolers) who won't post on this board at all due to that fact. Being the minority is never comfortable.

[pixelroper]

Hm. I think the world was created by the Christian God. Am I creationist? I'm not a literal-seven-day-6k years-creationist, must you be in order to be considered a "creationist?"

 

 

This seems to be the case. I am reminded in RL often every time I bring up ID to creationists. Creationism is the literal translation of Genesis.

[PiCO]

 

I love Scientific America. How can anyone here, where christian sources and world net daily are often used as refences, insult someone for using a respected scientic publication as a source? It is ok to use a biased source if it agrees with your religous beliefs, but not any other source? Look at your reactions. I can say quite honestly as an aethist I am frequently uncomfortable with discussions here. There is an attitude that christians are welcome and all others are merely tolerated.

 

I agree that many people merely tolerate atheists, but there are quite a few atheists/agnostics/freethinkers on this board (myself included.) I feel most people listen to my opinions with respect even when they disagree with them, and I try to do the same for them.

 

Yes, someone did bash Scientific American- but people bash WND also, and point out the bias of "respected" Christian sources.

 

This is a primarily Christian board, but most people in the United States claim to be Christian. I certainly appreciate seeing posts of non-christians- makes me realize I'm not alone here- so please don't stop posting!

[Jenny in Atl]

Hm. I think the world was created by the Christian God.

 

I'm confused by this... Is God Christian? Or is it that the people who follow ((him)) traditionally tend to be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

 

Again, he we are squabbling over beliefs. None of you of will ever agree and to see such anger over a Ben Stein movie is sad if not frustrating. :mellow:

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm confused by this... Is God Christian? Or is it that the people who follow ((him)) traditionally tend to be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

 

Well...this is just my opinion, understand, but as Christ is considered an integral part of the Trinity then I don't think other religions believe in the Christian God even though Islam, Judaism and Christianity have the same roots.

 

Again, he we are squabbling over beliefs. None of you of will ever agree and to see such anger over a Ben Stein movie is sad if not frustrating. :mellow:

 

I agree that it's frustrating to see squabbling. I do enjoy discussions when they are productive because I like seeing how other people think. It often gives me insights I would not otherwise have had access to.

[Laura K (NC)]

Islamic creationism, Jewish creationism, "fundamentalist" Judeo-Christian creationism is all the same thing, creation-wise. There no point in bringing out the discrepancies of theology on this point. Genesis says the same thing in all three traditions, and the issue is accepting it, rejecting it, or modifying it. Genesis says nothing about Jesus Christ, and nothing explicitly about God being triune.

 

Intelligent Design is formulated specifically to transcend these differences and to stand with the sciences -- as tenable a theory as any other.

[PiCO]

Intelligent Design is formulated specifically to transcend these differences and to stand with the sciences -- as tenable a theory as any other.

 

You only mention Muslim, Islamic, and Christian creationists. What about the multitude of creation stories that pre-date the Abrahamic religions? Why aren't they brought into the mix that is ID?

[mcconnellboys]

Oh, you're going to get so tired of me and all my questions (sorry). I have always asked questions - I can't help it. My first word was not Mommy or Daddy, but WHY? I'm trying to go through what you said and respond, but I can't figure out the quote thing, sorry, again. Please tolerate me a little longer.....

 

As to your initial paragraph, no, I think you've missed what I'm saying. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I may be totally wrong about what I think Ben Stein is trying to do. But it seems to me that he's asking why scientists are precluded from attempting to do science that *might* at some point indicate that there *could be* a God. And he also seems to me to be asking why schools must refuse to even make the slightest mention that there *might* be possibilities that exist other than the current theories scientists are working on. Maybe I'm completely off base. I'll know after seeing the movie. That's just the impression I'm getting from a look at the trailers and other info on their site.

 

I understand what a scientific theory is. But it is a theory. It will change if information comes along that changes the fossil record; if new experiments are done that lead to other results that hold up over time, etc. Scientific theories do change over time. They are not stagnant absolutes that never change. If no one is allowed to look for new and different info, then how can science advance? The fact that there is no evidence of something may simply mean that no one's doing the work to look for it.

 

Take the controversy over thimerasol in vaccines, for instance. (And please go along with me for a moment; I know some folks can't follow my analogies, so perhaps my thinking is too different than most to make sense to the world.) The CDC and FDA have both yelled loud and long about how there's no evidence that thimerasol is dangerous when injected in large amounts into babies 6 months and younger. But as that story has unfolded over the last few years, it seems that the only study that was ever done regarding the safety of injecting thimerasol was in a small group of patients who were dying of mennengitis during the

1930's. They were injected; most died within a few days of their mennengitis, anyway, and the findings were that there was no demonstrable harm done by thimerasol.

 

In the early 1980's, mercury was pulled from all topically applied products in the U.S. with a finding that it was too dangerous to administer topically (but it was still safe to inject it into infants?)

 

During the last couple of decades, as the entire spectrum of neurological disorders has skyrocketed in children within the U.S., everyone in those agencies has continued to assert that there's "no evidence" to suggest that thimerasol is the culprit. And yet other countries published papers as early as the 60's and 70's indicating that they found such a danger for their own populations and pulled this ingredient from meds.

 

We could continue to insist that the current theory about thimerasol being put forward in the U.S. is correct, and that there's no reason to do any sort of viable, unbiased studies regarding it, but why wouldn't it be better to try to find the truth? If it's the current stance fine, everyone's vindicated; if not, we stem the tide of the epidemic and go on. But why shouldn't scientists be able to study any topic they deem fit, in the best way they see fit, and try to come to the best conclusions possible? Boyd Haley, for one, who is a chem professor at UK here in KY, has been highly villified because he's tried to look at issues regarding mercury toxicity - and he's not alone.

 

There are numerous other instances today regarding new theories being put forth and those seeking to do so being attacked *viciously* by the scientific community. I believe the postulation about plate tectonics in the 70's was received with a great deal of anger, as well, for instance, but won't bore you with more instances.

 

I believe that this is what Ben Stein plans to put forward in his movie: that those scientists who try to do work that doesn't fit the mainstream thought or concensus in a given area are being discredited, discharged, etc. and that's not the way science should work.

 

Why does science seem to be so straightjacketed? It almost reminds me of unions or government beauracracies. The scientific community almost seems intent on maintaining some status quo instead of really moving forward. Information seems to me to be suppressed rather than sought.

 

In part, you said, "So why can't we look at God? There's no evidence. Nothing suggests there must be a god. The problem is that people like Ben Stein insist we must consider a god anyway..." Well, why wouldn't you? If there is nothing to suggest that there *must* be a god, there is also nothing to suggest that there must *not* be a god. So why wouldn't science just look for answers? Whatever answers they get, not just certain directed answers that fit the hypothesis? That doesn't seem to be good science to me. I'm not sure that he's trying to tell people that there *must* be a God and so we *must* teach that in school, etc., but I haven't seen the movie yet. I get the impression that he's just saying why stifle the scientific process and refuse to look at the possibility?

 

"Philosophers have pointed out that science and the metaphysical don't mix." I'm not smart enough to argue with this, but will just say that at some point in time, as we look back to the beginnings of the universe, I believe that they *do* mix, and that until we have a way to look for and test that, then we can't know how they mix. You say you'd be excited to find evidence of such a thing, but unless scientists are allowed to do their work unfettered, how will such evidence ever come to light? That's what I got the impression Ben Stein was trying to say in this movie, just from the preview stuff I've looked over....

 

"No answer can be dismissed. But no answer is any more plausible than any other." Okay, that's what I think, too. So wouldn't it make sense, then, to allow scientists to conduct their research unfettered, and find what they find? I'm afraid that when I was involved in the college research community even in the 80's, scientists were extremely vested in their work and tended to attack those who first postulated new and different ideas. I'm getting an indication that this has only gotten worse over time.

 

"Nobody is trying to rule out gods... but there isn't enough evidence to rule them in either." Okay, but if no research can be done that might possibly ever create a reason to rule them in, that's still not a reason to rule them out, is it? When schools are not allowed to state that current scientific theory is just that, and may change over time; that it's not a concrete absolute; and when they are precluded completely from even making a mention that there might be other possibilities regarding creation, isn't that what's in effect happening? I can understand perfectly saying that there is no way to test such a hypothesis, if that's true; but shouldn't scientists be allowed to *look* for ways to test it? If they never do, how will we ever know?

 

to be continued in next post, as this one's too long.....

[mcconnellboys]

continued from last post.....

 

"Are you suggesting that if we can't rule out a god that means a god did it? At this point we're so far from the Biblical description that you're pretty much on my side of the table anyway. "

 

I think I'm much more on your side of the table than you know, LOL. I don't think there is an absolute here of either God or evolution. I believe God IS evolution, but I won't bore you with all that. No, I don't think at all that if we can't rule God out that this rules Him in. I merely think that scientists should not be precluded from doing research that they feel is showing signs that there might actually be something to such a hypothesis - and it seems that is what's occurring.

 

"A creation point doesn't presume a creator." I have read that Einstein believed that it did. And I think he was a pretty smart guy. He in fact made a statement something to that effect, although I'm not attempting to quote as I don't have the book that I read it from. I don't pretend to be intelligent enough to discuss physics with you and tell you the why of that; I'm perhaps a romantic and I like the statement because I think that God IS in the quark and neutrino, the DNA and RNA. I think He is the very fabric of the universe. So call that my attempt at poetry, which I'm sure someone has also said doesn't mesh with science, even though I think it does, LOL.

 

"They did find randomness." I took my remarks about quarks and neutrinos from a science article I read a few years ago when scientists were first working on tracing their tracks. It stated that they expected to find randomness, but were surprised to find that the paths that were being traced (which was all they could discern at that time) were not random, but exhibited pattern and symmetry. I haven't read anything about these studies in quite some time, so didn't know that they had found randomness in the behaviour of these particles, sorry....

 

"Hardly so. The background radiation left by the Big Bang turned out to be strangely unsymmetrical and that's what allowed us to be here." No, here I was referring to the placement of galaxies and systems that scientists began mapping a few years ago using new deep space telescope technology. This comment was made regarding a small piece in National Geo that stated they were surprised that they were finding order and symmetry, rather than the random patterning they were expecting. Sorry not to be clear about that....

 

I think I see things differently than most people. It seems from reading all the posts today that folks were being sort of snippy with each other, as if there were only these two opposable camps that could never be reconciled. That's why I inserted myself into the conversation. I don't see this as an evolution or God issue. It seems to me, and I could be very wrong (which is not at all unusual), that Stein is just trying to open up a dialogue that will allow science to move forward into new areas that are sort of being stifled right now.

 

And lastly, you said, in part, "But what you're saying is that you can't find a single piece of evidence that suggests a god might exist yet you want us all to still give you the benefit of the doubt just because we can't find any reason to dismiss your deity. And that's what Ben Stein is saying. Along with a healthy dose of misinformation and disinformation about what evolution is."

 

No! I'm not asking for anyone to give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm asking that scientists be able to do their work in new areas of thought, unfettered by bias and ridicule from the scientific community. I don't get the impression that's what Stein is saying either, but I'll have to see the movie to know for sure. And I have no idea what he has to say about evolution, since there's nothing in the trailers that's anything more than a sound bite; so I absolutely have no idea what he's trying to say about evolution. And I don't think others know yet, either, which is why I feel the rush to judgment and condemnation is a bit much.

 

Now I know you're tired after all that, LOL! So I won't bug you any more,

 

Regena

[Michelle in MO]

then I'll either go up to St. Louis for it, or else wait until it comes out on DVD. Ben Stein is a classic! What a great topic!

[pixelroper]

Not bored here--

 

"Why does science seem to be so straightjacketed? It almost reminds me of unions or government beauracracies. The scientific community almost seems intent on maintaining some status quo instead of really moving forward. Information seems to me to be suppressed rather than sought."

 

I would like to point out that thanks to lobbying (hidden or direct)-- Many scientific communities are in essence, government entities. Throw in the highly suspect recent academic ties to companies w/trading stocks and you have, conflict of interest. Which will get us zippo, nada, nothing unless someone somewhere can benefit. Where is the benefit in a failed theory? It should be in crossing it off the *list*. Not a very promising climate for free exchange of objective inquiry. Contrary data ultimately means lack of funding, a project falls on its bottom.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, that is exactly what I was always told about research. One can't do the work if there is no one to fund the work. Too many times the one funding the work has a vested interest in the outcome (and that's certainly what's seen over and over again with the thimerasol issue I mentioned).

 

But in this case, I'm so very unsure what the problem would be with doing research and finding evidence that there might be a Creator. How does that lose money for anyone? Is it thought that everyone would rush to give all their monies to churches, and other things would go unfunded, LOL? Would everyone send their children to church schools and leave public schools high and dry? I can't figure that one out quite yet.....

[Phred]

In the case of evolution, its claims fall outside of observable data and we are limited by our ....well-- human limitations.

If you'd like to discuss it I'd be happy to show you how you're wrong.

[pixelroper]

If you'd like to discuss it I'd be happy to show you how you're wrong.

 

Only if it involves a time machine:D

 

Seriously go ahead and list provable, concrete data that can only lead to one logical conclusion, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

[Laura K (NC)]

You only mention Muslim, Islamic, and Christian creationists. What about the multitude of creation stories that pre-date the Abrahamic religions? Why aren't they brought into the mix that is ID?

 

Uh, because I don't know of any ancient religions that have a comparable creation story and are still practiced. If you know of any please tell me!

 

As a creationist that happens to be Christian, I would not agree that any creation stories predate the (Mosaic) one. Creation stories would all refer to roughly the same six-day stretch, so I don't see how one could technically predate the other. :D It is those far-out scientists like Neil Turok who have the idea that the big bang could actually be preceeded by other big bangs in an infinite series. Now there's an instance of someone trying to predate creation!

[Kimber]

I can't wait to see the movie. My kids won't be going unless I screen it first.

 

I've scanned the posts and I thought I'd just add my .02 to a few minor points.

 

I'm really surprised at the emotional response that just a movie brings from believers in evolution. I guess it just shows that creationists and evolutionists both have their hearts and their heads involved in the debate.

 

I personally don't have a solid opinion on ID either way, so I'm interested in seeing the movie.

 

I haven't read or followed the publicity or criticisms surrounding the movie, but I'm not surprised by anything pointed out here. Basically, our entire culture is built on "selling" ideas for the personal gain of the person doing the sales pitch. I don't see how Ben Stein should be held to a standard that no one else in the world adheres to. It's "the American way" if not "the way of the world" to have an angle or ulterior motive.

 

And I don't believe this board is a Christian board. Because if it were, the posts here would be very different than what is posted on truly Christian boards. I do think this board is frequented by many Christian people which definite flavors it. But that's it.

 

Anyway, I love debates and conversation. I appreciate the posts of those of you who have taken the time to really speak your minds.

 

If you can't tell from my posts, I'm a Christian who doesn't know how the earth got here. I believe in God, and I believe he is the creator. But how he did it, I just don't know. As far I know, he could have chosen the Big Bang to make it happen. I just don't feel knowledgeable enough to argue about it one way or the other. So I really appreciate the posts of those of you who have studied it. :)

[Mamagistra]

I assure you that I and others appreciate the value in polite and respectful discussion of issues with folks that we would probably never meet outside of a forum like this.

 

:iagree: Absolutely! :001_smile:

[PiCO]

Uh, because I don't know of any ancient religions that have a comparable creation story and are still practiced.

 

(BTW, it's late and I'm being tongue-in-cheek here... getting a little slap happy. Take this with a grain of salt.)

 

Why would it still need to be practiced? In theory, all mythology was believed as true when it was a religion. I think of the Bible as a book of mythology.

 

Incidently, there are people who practice the old Norse, Greek, and Indian religions. But honestly, I don't remember which civilization developed first. The middle east is the "cradle of civilization," so I'll assume the first creation story came from there. But weren't there polytheists there before the whole "one God" thing became popular?

 

You do make a good point, though- I will never convince anyone that other myths predate their creation beliefs, because by definition that can't happen! ;)

[Lizzie in Ma]

But will wait for video, movie budget nonexistent until Prince Caspian. :D

[Soph the vet]

I will definitely see the movie, I like Ben Stein and I appreciate what he is attempting to do. I think both theories need a platform in academia. No one was there to observe the beginning of earth or life, a main principle in science, so ID and evolution are both theories.

Phred says "there is no evidence for God" but I must disagree and say the creation itself and our conscience would suggest there may be a God. If you see a building you know there was a builder, if you see a beautiful painting you know there was an artist, many of you have heard this argument before. There is order and art and design in everything around us so I have a very hard time believing it all came about by random chance.

Here are my main questions and ones I think should be allowed to be asked in any classroom that values honest debate over scientific theories:

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Which evolved first, the mucus lining to protect the lungs, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

Where are the transitional fossils? I mean there shouldn't be just a few, there should be billions and there is not one.

 

What is wrong with asking these questions in school?

I am guessing that is part of what Ben Stein is trying to get the public to think about.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

Here are my main questions and ones I think should be allowed to be asked in any classroom that values honest debate over scientific theories:

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Which evolved first, the mucus lining to protect the lungs, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

Where are the transitional fossils? I mean there shouldn't be just a few, there should be billions and there is not one.

 

What is wrong with asking these questions in school?

.

 

When I was little I always wanted to know... if God created the Universe, who created God? Where did he come from. And how do we know he is a he? I guess I still do.

[Caroline]

When I was little I always wanted to know... if God created the Universe, who created God? Where did he come from. And how do we know he is a he? I guess I still do.

 

Me, too.

[Soph the vet]

When I was little I always wanted to know... if God created the Universe, who created God? Where did he come from. And how do we know he is a he? I guess I still do.

 

Of course, my presupposition is that the Bible is true. Therefore my answer to this question would be that God is not created but eternal and not constrained by time, that he "pre-existed". Again, because of my presupposition that the Bible is true, I would argue that he represents himself as a Father and Son, which are understandable to our minds as male however there are also isolated verses alluding to female characteristics that God displays although I would personally never refer to him as Mother or other titles that he does not use for himself. That was clear as mud was it not:D?

I think it is great to consider questions like these even as adults.

[SparrowsNest]

When I was little I always wanted to know... if God created the Universe, who created God? Where did he come from. And how do we know he is a he? I guess I still do.

God was not created. He has always existed. Otherwise, you have infinite regression. God is what happens when you get to the foundation point, the point beyond which there is nothing further. The most real thing in the universe, the thing upon which everything else balances.

 

And we don't know that he is a 'he,' in fact, I would say that God is beyond gender in our terms, or, you could say, that male and female both reflect something of God's image (and of course that notion is thoroughly Biblical -- 'male and female he created them, in the image of God he created them.' But we refer to God as 'he' because that is the language he has given us in his self-revelation (think about the Lord's Prayer). Of course, that same self-revelation also uses imagery of a mother tending her child or a mother hen gathering her chicks, and we don't want to overlook that. If we said 'it' that would depersonalize God. So this is a time where language fails to describe Reality.

[Jenny in Atl]

God was not created. He has always existed. Otherwise, you have infinite regression. God is what happens when you get to the foundation point, the point beyond which there is nothing further. The most real thing in the universe, the thing upon which everything else balances.

 

And we don't know that he is a 'he,' in fact, I would say that God is beyond gender in our terms, or, you could say, that male and female both reflect something of God's image (and of course that notion is thoroughly Biblical -- 'male and female he created them, in the image of God he created them.' But we refer to God as 'he' because that is the language he has given us in his self-revelation (think about the Lord's Prayer). Of course, that same self-revelation also uses imagery of a mother tending her child or a mother hen gathering her chicks, and we don't want to overlook that. If we said 'it' that would depersonalize God. So this is a time where language fails to describe Reality.

 

Again this is your belief. You can't debate belief, no way to look at it logically. How do we know there are not numerous universes, realities, levels of existence? Our understanding of the natural world as multiplied at an amazing speed over these last 100 years, and yet I think we are no closer to finding whomever or whatever created this Universe. Yet, sadly folks will fight, kill, and die over their "belief" in whose story is right.

[Plaid Dad]

Uh, because I don't know of any ancient religions that have a comparable creation story and are still practiced. If you know of any please tell me!

 

There are any number of neopagan groups in existence today, and a number of pagans/heathens post here regularly.

 

Those people can speak for themselves, of course, but as one who has had considerable dealings with the pagan community, I can say that I have met very, very few "fundamentalist" pagans. Most of them understand that their faiths' creation stories are pre-scientific explanations of how things got the way they are. They don't feel any need to make them line up with current scientific thinking. The two deal with different set of questions. Religious creation stories explain who or what made the universe (and that who may be singular or plural depending on the religion in question) and sometimes why it was made. Science is limited to the study of material reality and seeks to answer what and how questions.

 

I've posted about this before, but plenty of Christians believe essentially the same thing about the Genesis 1-2 narratives and therefore see no conflict between the findings of science and their faith.

[SparrowsNest]

 

Again this is your belief. You can't debate belief, no way to look at it logically.

 

Yes, of course those are my beliefs. I'm not sure what else you would expect in response. But I vehemently disagree that there's no way to look at differing beliefs logically. There certainly is. If I claim to be the Queen of England, this may be a strong belief I hold. But it is demonstrably false. I may continue in that belief, but I would still be wrong. I am a Christian in large part because of the exercise of my rational faculties, not the denial of them. There is an element of faith that comes in when you look at the evidence and say "OK, this isn't 100% factual certainty, but there is a wealth of evidence here. I will exercise faith in the truth of this proposition." But it's not as if someone said "Believe in Pink fairies with gossamer wings and they will protect you" and I said "Oh, um, OK."

 

As for science, it can only answer the 'how;' it doesn't answer the 'why.' Regardless of how much we understand about how the universe works, we cannot look to science to answer the 'why' questions.

 

Yet, sadly folks will fight, kill, and die over their "belief" in whose story is right.

 

Why do you find that sad? If the universe is essentially a random occurence, and there is no meaning or Reality to it, we're all going to die anyway. What difference does it make? Why would you have the idea that humans are meaningful?

 

If Christ is Reality, dying for him is the most sane, rational thing one could do. You call it a (mere) 'story,' as if I'm ready to die over Cinderella or Cat in the Hat. That's fine, you're obviously entitled to view it however you like. However, to me, it is The Central Truth of the universe. It is worth dying for. If I am wrong, well, I guess I might've missed out on a few extra years taking up oxygen on the planet. No biggie -- there have been millions before me and likely millions after. My presence here is hardly a blip on the screen.

[Jenny in Atl]

Again, you hold your beliefs as the "only" and therefore you can never full debate. To you a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong and therefor worth killing? Wow!

[genie]

 

Why do you find that sad? If the universe is essentially a random occurence, and there is no meaning or Reality to it, we're all going to die anyway. What difference does it make? Why would you have the idea that humans are meaningful?

 

 

You are assuming that the only meaning or reality to life comes from religion. I find that people who have no religion tend to value this life we are living far higher than the religious do, because we don't spend our lives looking forward to the "next" life. We live life to the fullest and value and respect everyones right to that, because (we believe) this is the only one we get.

[Kimber]

I think you guys are misunderstanding JuJuBee's comment about dying for one's religious beliefs. As a comment, that statement comes from being willing to die for one's beliefs, not suicide bombing nor murder. That wouldn't be Christ like at all. (People have done this, but this is not Christ's way--at least not as I understand. A good example of Christ's way is Dr. Martin Luther King. He was willing to die for his beliefs.)

 

She's talking self sacrifice--dying spiritually to one's self and being willing to die physically for God or those you love.

 

There is no greater love than to lay down your life for another. When that American soldier in Iraq threw his body on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers--that was love. I don't know if he were a Christian or not. But I think that decision would be a lot easier to make if one believed that this life isn't the end of it all.

 

I think I belief that there is an after-life for three reasons--

 

1) The bible says so

2) Science says that energy is neither created nor destroyed but only changes form

3) At conception there is a spark of energy that scientist have identified. So IMO, it came from somewhere and it's going somewhere.

 

SORRY JUJUBEE!--I left of the mis on misunderstanding. It totally changed my post. I knew what you were talking about.

[SparrowsNest]

To you a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong and therefor worth killing?

 

No, this is a total and complete misreading. I didn't say to kill for, I said to die for. Huge difference.

 

You are assuming that the only meaning or reality to life comes from religion.

 

 

No, that's not true either. I think people can create their own meaning/s to life apart from Truth (different from religion, I don't think religion necessarily points us to Truth). But I don't find it particularly logical or compelling, especially when there wouldn't be anything as Truth, but only what I think and what you think and no real, meaningful way to differentiate between the two.

[Kimber]

SORRY JUJUBEE--I left off the mis on misunderstanding. I knew what you meant and I edited my posts. I should not be online.

 

Kimber

[genie]

 

No, that's not true either. I think people can create their own meaning/s to life apart from Truth (different from religion, I don't think religion necessarily points us to Truth). But I don't find it particularly logical or compelling, especially when there wouldn't be anything as Truth, but only what I think and what you think and no real, meaningful way to differentiate between the two.

 

I don't think I understand. You say that I can create my own meaning to life, but it is not logical or compelling because there would be no Truth (as you believe it). And your Truth is the only real and meaningful way to differentiate between your meaning to life and mine. But it only has that power because you give it such. You are using your accepted definition of Truth to place limits on whether the meaning I create for my life is logical or compelling. Whereas I allow that one can create their own meaning, even if they choose to find it from the Bible. Therefore it seems to me that my viewpoint is far more logical, because it does not rely on my personal beliefs and definitions.

[SparrowsNest]

I don't think I understand. You say that I can create my own meaning to life, but it is not logical or compelling because there would be no Truth (as you believe it). And your Truth is the only real and meaningful way to differentiate between your meaning to life and mine. But it only has that power because you give it such. You are using your accepted definition of Truth to place limits on whether the meaning I create for my life is logical or compelling. Whereas I allow that one can create their own meaning, even if they choose to find it from the Bible. Therefore it seems to me that my viewpoint is far more logical, because it does not rely on my personal beliefs and definitions.

 

Not my truth, Truth. Truth regardless of what you and I believe. If there is such a thing.

 

Otherwise, it's just what you say, what I say, what the six billion other people alive now say. I have bolded above "one can create their own meaning," because I think it's the essence of why this view isn't particularly logical. Let's say my own meaning is:

 

Women are loathesome and stupid, and exist only to serve men. Men are well within their rights to abuse them if they see fit, because women have no value.

 

Whereas you say:

 

Humans have value in and of themselves, including women. Men or women should not view other humans as utilitarian, but should respect one another's views and demonstrate restraint and kindness towards each other. Women do have value, as do all humans.

 

And a third person says:

 

Not only humans, but also animals have equal value, and should not to be used to another's ends. For this reason, the value of a rat is the same as the value of a human, male or female, and killing rats is therefore wrong, and should be forbidden by law and culture.

 

Well, who's right? Are we all equally right? How can women have value, not have value, and have the same value of rats all at the same time? If there is no Truth (again, regardless of what my view of the matter is) if there is nothing at the rock bottom of it all that gives meaning, then trying to differentiate between these opinions is an exercise in futility. I could no more covince you that rats were the same or weren't, that women should be treated well or shouldn't, than you could convince me of the opposite. It's all in the eye of the beholder, it's all in MY eye. I get to decide, not you. And you have no authority or right to tell me otherwise.

 

If we all create our own meaning, then apparently all those viewpoints are equally right. Beating a woman and not beaitng her are morally equivalent. Saving a rat's life instead of saving a child's is not wrong. Loving your spouse is no different than hating them, if you don't see it that way. And that's why I think this viewpoint is illogical.

[genie]

Okay, I think I understand you better now. But surely you must understand that one need no religion to maintain value on human life, right? You asked:

 

 

Why do you find that sad? If the universe is essentially a random occurence, and there is no meaning or Reality to it, we're all going to die anyway. What difference does it make? Why would you have the idea that humans are meaningful?

You imply that meaning can only come from belief in Christ:

 

 

If Christ is Reality, dying for him is the most sane, rational thing one could do...

 

 

 

However, to me, it is The Central Truth of the universe.

 

 

But then you say:

 

 

Not my truth, Truth. Truth regardless of what you and I believe. If there is such a thing.

 

 

So I'm still confused. Can you define that Truth (the one regardless of what you and I believe) without inserting your personal belief (The Central Truth of Christ)?

[SparrowsNest]

But surely you must understand that one need no religion to maintain value on human life, right?

 

I'm talking about the why of maintaining value in the first place. I'm talking about whether saying "everyone makes their own meaning" is tenable and logical when played out. Religion is sort of irrelevant to this argument, as it is nothing more (from your position) than one way of making meaning. Even when religions contradict one another, there's no way to determine if one may be true (if I'm understanding your viewpoint correctly.) Of course, this applies to your assertions as well. How do we determine that what you are saying is The Way Things Really Are, if the only difference between what you say and what I say is, well, you and me?

 

You are correct that I believe that Christ is The Truth of the universe. But I'm not saying "I think you should also believe that Christ is Truth." Truth is whatever it is, regardless of who believes it. And, at the level we are arguing, all that's beside the point. If you don't believe that there is Truth, obviously you won't believe that Christ is Truth. You'd have to believe in Truth before you found what It was. But I think you only think that you don't believe in truth, when in actuality, you have already made a truth claim, i.e, that there is no truth. That's a statement about the ultimate nature of reality. We are discussing these issues because we disagree about what the Truth actually is.

[nmoira]

Okay, I think I understand you better now. But surely you must understand that one need no religion to maintain value on human life, right? You asked:

Why do you find that sad? If the universe is essentially a random occurence, and there is no meaning or Reality to it, we're all going to die anyway. What difference does it make? Why would you have the idea that humans are meaningful?

I remember during the Gore/Leiberman presidential run Leiberman saying that all morality comes from God. Some people really believe this and they cannot conceptualize a value system or moral code not based on religion. I was so saddened that not only would a vice presidential candidate say this, but no one in the mainstream media called him on it. But this is a philosophical discussion, and we're talking about science. [Edited to add: I'm not saying these are the views of, I believe, JuJuBee.]

 

ID isn't science. Creationism isn't science. I don't see evolutionary biologists calling for equal time in churches, and that's a good thing because science isn't religion. It is true that not all creationists are ID'ers, but I have yet to meet an atheist ID'er. I'm pretty sure that given the nature of ID this would be impossible. It's seems there's a bit of smoke and mirrors when some people claim ID isn't about God. It is by definition.

[genie]

 

Well, who's right? Are we all equally right?

 

 

Obviously not. But there are two different arguments going on here.

 

One is whether a person can hold human life meaningful without being a Christian. I am not a Christian, yet I attach value to human life, so obviously it is possible.

 

The other point of debate is whether there is a "Truth". Personally, I do believe that there is a universal truth, and the universal nature of that truth has revealed itself within a multitude of religions. You know it as the Golden Rule:

 

 

I have heard Christians say that it is only because The Golden Rule is from God that all the other religions/spiritual groups have found it. I believe that a fundamental truth will be obvious not just to a single religious group, but to a wide variety of those who seek the truth, and that is why you see a prevalence of this one idea throughout history.

 

And of course, not all people will accept the ideology behind the Golden Rule, and some will believe, like you said, that women should be beaten. But if that belief were a foundational truth, it would be widely held and more acceptable. However, this is not the case. It is far more widely held that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. This is what makes it a fundamental truth to me, and it does not rely on any single religious doctrine.

[SparrowsNest]

universal nature of that truth has revealed itself within a multitude of religions

If truth has revealed itself, then it is something which has a self and can act upon itself and upon others. What, in your mind, is something which can reveal itself and take such actions?

 

And, I do not disagree that non-Christians can hold human life to be meaningful. I'm just asking why they would conclude that life had meaning, indeed, that there is such a thing as meaning, if we are here as a random cosmic occurence.

[genie]

 

I'm talking about whether saying "everyone makes their own meaning" is tenable and logical when played out.

 

If you don't believe that there is Truth, obviously you won't believe that Christ is Truth. You'd have to believe in Truth before you found what It was. But I think you only think that you don't believe in truth, when in actuality, you have already made a truth claim, i.e, that there is no truth. That's a statement about the ultimate nature of reality. We are discussing these issues because we disagree about what the Truth actually is.

 

We must have been typing at the same time. :) I do believe there is a fundamental Truth (as outlined in my previous post) but I also believe that indeed everyone does make their own meaning in life. You choose to take on the meaning of life as defined by the Bible. I don't. Someone else, as you said, may take on a different meaning. This is a fact, right? We do choose our own meanings.

 

Now, how closely our personal standards of living and our definition of the meaning of life relate to a fundamental truth is an entirely different subject that fully depends on what we define as that truth. Which I think is what Jenny was saying all along; that if we get those definitions from completely different dictionaries, it makes debate pretty pointless. :o

[nmoira]

 

And, I do not disagree that non-Christians can hold human life to be meaningful. I'm just asking why they would conclude that life had meaning, indeed, that there is such a thing as meaning, if we are here as a random cosmic occurence.

For no other reason than because we exist and we know we exist. We can see, hear, smell, taste and interact with the world around ourselves. We have emotions and, to a large degree, genetically programmed personality traits. We can see when our actions hurt of please others. We experience pleasure and pain. We are intelligent and can abstract our immediate notions of fairness and justice to a larger level than a family or tribal unit. We record our thoughts, ideas, and accumulated wisdom (and mistakes) and learn from generations before us, giving us a sense of continuity in a historical context. Because I place value in people instead of their affiliation with my or "my kind" I'm not likely to believe that the lives of others are somehow less valuable than mine or my acquaintances. I exist now in time and space and see no reason to sit around saying, "Hmmmm, it's all so random there's no point living." I don't need the promise of an afterlife to lead a meaningful life now.

[PiCO]

And, I do not disagree that non-Christians can hold human life to be meaningful. I'm just asking why they would conclude that life had meaning, indeed, that there is such a thing as meaning, if we are here as a random cosmic occurence.

 

I believe life has meaning, and I'm an atheist.

 

Life has meaning because we can love. We personally value the lives of those we love- we don't want them to die, and we want to live longer to persue our goals or just spend time with those we love. We have empathy- we can understand that others want to live also, so we don't run around killing others that we don't know.

[genie]

If truth has revealed itself, then it is something which has a self and can act upon itself and upon others. What, in your mind, is something which can reveal itself and take such actions?

 

Okay, indiscriminate wording on my part, personifying an inanimate concept. Let me try again. A fundamental truth is an idea that would be evident to people regardless of cultural or religious background.

 

And, I do not disagree that non-Christians can hold human life to be meaningful. I'm just asking why they would conclude that life had meaning, indeed, that there is such a thing as meaning, if we are here as a random cosmic occurence.

 

I don't see how the way I (or the universe) got here should have any bearing on my determination that my life has meaning. I am here. I have life. I give it the meaning I choose. If that meaning is so far out of whack with some universal truth, most likely there will be negative consequences in this lifetime that may lead me to reevaluate.

 

Why we are here, or how we got here has no bearing to me on the fact that I am here, and I determine to live a full, meaningful life (as I define it) while at the same time (hopefully) not impeding others from doing the same.

[Kate in Arabia]

Genesis says the same thing in all three traditions, and the issue is accepting it, rejecting it, or modifying it.

 

I know it's a tangent, but I just wanted to clarify that Muslims don't accept the account of Genesis 100%. Particularly, we don't have the same beliefs about the "Fall of Man" and don't have the concept of "Original Sin".

 

As your link mentions, the references in the Qur'an are generally more vague, but we don't look to Genesis as a "supplement", lol.

 

Just sayin'

 

Kate