Bashing Religions?

Remove all ads!

Sorry Gnarff, but I have to call you on this one. There have been several instances in this thread and other threads where you criticize people for putting down the Mormon church. However, in the phrase above, you are basically doing the same thing. You wouldn't like if I referred to the Church of Latter Day Saints as "the so-called religion that contradicts the work of Darwin." In fact, I'd imagine you'd be pretty pissed off. If you do not like others negatively charactizing you, then you should take care not to negatively charactize others.

And my point is that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. You seem to be making the mistake that the only choices are A.) accept evolution and renounce your faith or B.) keep your faith while saying that evolution is a load of bull. This is not true. Many more options exist. The one that I stated - Intelligent Design - states that adaptation of species is done so perfectly to fit every niche in so many environments, the adaptation and even evolution itself must be divinely inspired.

OK, granted. Let's talk now, shall we?

Consider this the open door. So come out of that shell. Hopefully you're now willing to listen to what (I at least) have to say.

Yes Gnarff. That's exactly what I want you to do - except I want you to bring those scriptures with you - they will be useful for what we are about to discuss. Let's examine to see if we can reconcile what we see in scripture, and what observations of our natural world tell us. There are some other pieces of information that I think you should also consider, and that is in the writings themselves. I have to admit that I'm no expert on the Mormon Church, however, my limited knowledge would lead me to believe that the following writings would be relevant (in no particular order):

1. The Old Testament
2. The New Testament
3. The writings of Joseph Smith
4. The writings of Brigham Young

You may be surprised to know that I, along with many others in the scientific community, believe that a whole lot of what's written in the Bible is based on historical fact. I'll list two examples.

1. While I do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, I do believe in the existence of a historical Jesus. For example, I believe that Jesus was a Jew who lived around 2,000 years ago, was crucified at the direction of Pontius Pilate, and his life and teachings form the basis of Christianity.

2. While I don't believe that Moses got the 10 Commandments directly from God, I do believe in a historical Moses; i.e., that he lived around 5,000 years ago and led the Israelites around Egypt for a period of time before settling down somewhere in or around the modern area of Israel.

Now, before I continue, we have to make another acknowledgement to agree upon. While the scriptures are considered the Word of God, they were in fact written by very fallible men. It is certain that the reason Joseph Smith and Bringham Young didn't write about evolution 200 years ago is because no one had even heard of the term yet. I may be off in my dates here a little, but I was of the opinion that both Young and Smith died around the middle of the 19th century (well in the case of Smith he was lynched, but that's still dying). That is right around the time that Darwin was hopping around the Galapagos. His theories wouldn't start to garner serious scientific attention until the very late 19th and early 20th century - in other words after the death of Smith and Young. It should go without saying that the writers of the Old and New Testament (and these are the actual scriptures you refer to) were equally ignorant about evolutionary theory.

We cannot fault any of the people writing before the existence of evolutionary theory to try to explain the world to the best of their abilities with the knowledge they had at the time. We can futher conclude that we don't know what any of them would have thought about the possibilities of evolution or intelligent design, because there is nothing in their writings on the subject, once again because it didn't exist. These are temporal challenges that we will have to overcome. For example, we wouldn't have said that Smith was a fool if he ever said that, "Man does not have the power of flight." Because at the time, it was true. The Wright Brothers wouldn't make their historic flight for another 50 years after his death. We can't expect him to predict modern science and technology. Now, if Smith lived today and said such nonsense, he would be a fool. But we have to judge him based on the knowledge he possessed during his life time to be able to fairly assess him.

So this is my proposal to you: Since over the course of hundreds, or in the case of the Scriptures, thousands of years, more scientific advances take place, could you acknowledge that perhaps the reason the terms of "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" are not in the writings is because the term didn't exist? Could you accept that the deluge story was the best explanation the Old Testament writers had to explain the world around them? (Note: As a complete aside, a deluge story is present in so many non-Christian cultures as well, that I am inclined to believe that even the deluge is based on historical fact. It could have been caused by an earthquate or something like the modern day tsunami. Some guy named Noah may very well have had an ark and took a bunch of animals and people with him to wait for the flood waters to recede.) Could you ackowledge that if the writers had knowledge of Intelligent Design that they may have felt that it was consistent with Christian beliefs? In other words that God had divinely designed life to function in a way to survive the changes in their environment? An all knowing God would know that such mechanisms would be necessary for survival of life, and therefore provided this mechanism.

 

AFI, this is one of the things that so attracts me to Judaism - the constant, concerted effort to rectify the real world with the spiritual, the now with history. For example, the rabbi I'm studying with was telling me about how most rabbis believe that Genesis is allegorical.

None of us were around for Creation. How do we know just how much time passed on that "first day"? We're talking cosmological time, after all, not human. Might not God have created the earth by triggering the Big Bang and sitting back to watch the show? Might not God have created man similarly, setting evolution in motion and waiting for the right creature to be produced before declaring that "it was good"?

 

Darkthrone, with all due respect: Bite Me!

Gnarff is a defender of his faith, as am I. I am an educated, contributing member of society. Nothing I do, or Gnarff does or says, merits "being stopped!"

More on this thread later, after exams for the young ones!

 

That's why the sentence starts with an "if". And why it says "bashing stupidity" rather than "bashing Mormons". Even though, Gnarfflinger's posts didn't show me how to know one from the other. Being strong in faith doesn't save one from being stupid. Gathering knowledge does. Someone who refuses to learn something because of his faith may be called dvout - and stupid.

Gnarfflinger's closed-mindedness didn't do anything to raise my opinion of people who think that religion ought to be a part of everyone's everyday life.

 

Ummm, Darkthrone...perhaps you confuse education with intelligence...or training with wisdom.

There are hordes of highly educated idiots in the world who lack the intelligence for good judgement and the wisdom to know when to get out of the rain.

Gathering knowledge is good, and should be part of the life of any well rounded person...but if that is the sole basis for for the choices, judgements and decisions you make in your life, you become a pretty hollow person.

I am not Mormon and seriously disagree with many of their teachings, but when it comes to "closed-mindedness", I've seen it demonstrated in spades by those who have attacked and criticized Gnarff, LKD, etal.

That's coming from a "neutral" observer.

 

That's true, Hacken Slash. Closed-Mindedness is a feature inherent in any human being - it's a defensive mechanism that allows us to adept to changes in our environment and society gradually without becoming too disoriented in the process. However, most of us feel ashamed rather than proud if someone points out our closed-mindedness to us.

Your point on education vs. intelligence is well taken. Here's my view: gathering knowledge by using your intelligence is the best way to find the truth. If you lack intelligence, you may have to rely on education, since education is in a way canonical knowledge delivered in easy to understand bits. Even though, intelligent people are not immune to stupidity at times (not including me, of course ). Education my differ from region to region when it comes to specializing and high level knowledge. But there has to be a common basis for all people to make the world work properly. We can't have parts of the world believe that diseases are a sent from the heavens and that praying rather than boiling your water before drinking it will solve that problem. We can't have parts of the world believing that Hutu are inferior to Tutsi.

In my book, rejecting the theory of evolution on the basis of bequeathed views is rejecting part of this canonical truth. Rejecting truth because of a higher aim. Faith. Feeling elevated in the eyes of God. And, I might add, rejecting this truth knowingly because it is easier to do so - and because it gives you that comfy feeling. I think that history has shown us time and again that starting with a non-shifting idea (however well intended) and trying to bend the truth around it will have disastrous consequences.

To anticipate your objection: the method of science has not to be confused with interpretations deduced from science. The first is one of the finest tools we have for technical and moral progress. The second on may well be subject to not so respectable intentions.

In conclusion, I agree that you have to add something to knowledge to base your choices and your life upon - not because it would make you a pretty hollow person, though (Could you explan what a hollow person is?). Like I said in a different thread, I'm in favour of adding love to knowledge in order to avoid cruel and unfeeling decisions. Adding something is opposite to taking something away - trivial as that may seem; in a case where faith contradicts knowledge (see the boiling water above), I am pretty certain that humankind is better off to ignore faith and stick with knowledge. Thus, faith can and should only be added where science ends.

There may be a grey area where it is not clear at once whether a bit of information is a fact and valuable knowledge or not. Evolution does not lie in this region.

 

Apologies, Gnarff; I wasn't being deliberately inflammatory. Rather, I was genuinely curious, as it's always been my understanding that the Christian attitude is that Bible is the word of God (who is perfect) as relayed through men--who are most definitely not perfect. Ergo, the Bible isn't perfect.

Your statement didn't seem to gel with that understanding, hence my question. Thank you for answering it.

 

I do not believe in a master race. I consider that a piece of rationalizational bullsh--er rhetoric to justify the extermination of millions of innocent Jews (and millions of other innocent people that Hittler didn't like). It was also designed to blind his citizens to the attrocities that they were committing.

I never studied biology, and this thread has given me good reason why I didn't.

I should have expected that. When caught in a fight of mud slinging, it's hard to wave your arms around without slinging some mud of your own. By So-called Science, I refer to the fact that it's considered a theory but taught as a hard fact. An Educated guess, rather than experimentally proven, regularly verifiable truths (like Newtonian physics for example). Likewise, some of the detractors of the church are themselves Christian, but would invoke the term so-called to us because there are elements of our doctrine that they don't agree with (like a living prophet in the Latter Days). I meant no offence by that remark that AFI caught me on.

As long as that point is there, then some will attepmt to place scientific theory over scripture. Written by men under the direction of God is the way I've always been taught.

Correct. They wouldn't have heard of this. Later Authorities (McConkie, as T2Bruno has pointed out specifically) have spoken about this.

I'm with you so far. Likewise it wouldn't be until the 1980's before Church leaders would have started to talk about computers because they weren't around yet.

It could be that they are somehow decended from Noah too. If the whole world was flooded, and all but Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives, then all Humanity would thus be decended from Noah.

That's not too far of a stretch either. But Again, I'm taking the position that the various animals were created as they are (cheetahs as cheetahs, dogs as dogs, humans as humans), as opposed to mutating from a common ancestoral creature (an original cat, dog, horse, primate, whatever). That such diversity between breeds of dogs or strains fo bacteria are the result of this adaptation, not some process that changes them from what we call a cheetah today to something that's not a cheetah a hundred years from now. That's the part I've had problems with all along. Darwin observed what he observed, but his interpretation is questioned here...

First off, I assume you meant "not with the History". To some point, we have to do that too. We have to live in this world, but to know for ourselves that certain things are immoral, and should not be done. In the Real world, people are free to do as they choose to do, but those who would be christians are commanded not to make certain choices. They are given the law, but must actively choose to obey or disobey. The law forbids sexual relations outside of marriage, but even some Mormons fornicate, commit adultery or have even done worse. When they do, they are required to repent, and if they will not repent, they may be excommunicated. The law was given, but they chose to break the law. That is a reality. We have to accept that people sin and get on with it.

Actually, where allegory is used in scripture it is acknowledged as such, like when Jesus used Parables to teach certain principles. The book of Genesis contains no such indication so I would be disinclined to believe that.

If that was the case, a simplified version of that instead of what we have in the first couple chapters of Genesis? An Amoeba as such would be called "the seed of life" which didst grow and diversify and thus all animals and even thou hast sprung forth from this seed. That's not there, so it must not be right. We are taught that God will not lie. But you are suggesting that Creation was misrepresented. That I cannot accept.

Further, while the Big Bang may have occured, I don't think that the Big Bang theory adequately tells the whole story, and to present it as a full story is either inacurate or dishonest. The account of Creation I've heard indicated that when the heavens and the Earth were created, this was done by organizing matter unorganized. This Big Bang could have spread this matter unorganized throughout the universe, but to teach that as how the Earth came to be neglects the role of God in Creation.

Thank you. I'm not putting out a call to incite mobs of people to brawl with protesters outside the Convention centre in SLC, or to burn people at the stake because they don't share my religious views. I don't believe in that. I just wondered if such groups should have the right to loudly slander us (or any other religious group for that matter).

What knowledge do you want me to gather? There is some knowledge that I really don't think I need. But then again, am I stupid because I don't seek knowledge of how to wipe out an entire race of people? Am I wrong because I don't study the Kama Sutra or other books designed to help me have sex with multiple partners whenever I want? Or to learn new and inventive ways to murder people and dispose of bodies? Does not seeking out this knowledge make me stupid? I don't think so. Even you'd agree that some of this is across the line. So if that's right, then now we're arguing over where the line should be drawn.

And the Closed mindedness of those that have opposed me in this thread because they will not accept the existence of God has not helped my opinion of them either.

I may be living proof of that. I am technicaly a genius, but why then, am I working for my parents in a job that I don't really like. I learn lots of things, but not how to do them well enough to make a iving on my own.

Or they learn how to do something but not how to do it properly or safely. Most people know how to drive a car, but they still drive after getting Drunk or high...

I know that one from experience. For years I lived along the idea that I need to know everything. I was not happy, nor did I really have anything going for me. At least now I have some direction in my life.

I guess we all have to close our minds at some point. Was I merely slagged because I would admit this? We all have points that we won't change our minds on. For some it's about whether God is real or an imaginary construct. For others it's about how literal the Bible should be taken. We all have certain things we just won't agree with...

 

Gnarff,

You still haven’t explained how the Mormon Church deals with Hybrid species such as Mules. Do you assume that Horse and Donkeys are the same species in order that they can breed? Are dogs and wolves the same species as they breed easily together? Slightly more un-natural (in situation, not actual act) is the breeding of Leopard and domestic cats.

To me this sounds like a contradiction to

If you can't answer, I am genuinely interested in what your elders/clergy think.

Let me try a different track…

And the same may have happened to a bunch of Cheetahs many years ago, they changed the spots slightly, got a slightly different body mass and shape, (in much the same way that occurs in humans - we can tell the race of a human by the shape of the skull), and learned to climb trees. It is only mankind that now decides to call it a Leopard instead.

That’s just it, you base all your examples on what we call things today, yet you recognise that appearances may change over time (Spots to stripes for example). Is the list of recognised “species” written down in some of the Mormon writings? I have my doubts. Latin nomenclature used today is purely a description defined by man. So basically, in a couple of thousand years time a divergence in a single species will mean that mankind will define two or more species.

I pity you. You are trying to formulate an argument about the inability of a species to change without understanding how it arrived at being judged as a different species in the first place.

On to a slightly different topic

I don't know the Bible particularly well. Are there any allegory's recognised in the Old Testament? My thoughts would be that Genesis was written (by man) many years before the New. It may either have been simplified by the original writer, or acidently dropped in one of the numerous translations that must have occured. In fact if you actually think about it, it must have been an Aural (or is it Oral?) History when first described. Ever played Chinese whispers? The orriginator may have been "touched by God" but are you saying that everyone he told mush have been as well in order to be able to get it word perfect? There are numerous discrepencies in the different translations today which kind of proves my point.

[ June 23, 2005, 14:31: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Before I repond to Gnarff, one quick one from Darkthrone:

Perhaps this is an English expression and doesn't translate very well. As you might expect, the statement is metaphorical. We don't actually believe that someone is hollow, as a tree can be hollow for example. What hollow means in this instance is someone who says or does something, but doesn't truly believe it, or doesn't invest any type of emotion into it. It's almost like you go through the motions, but you don't really care about the ultimate outcome. I hope that makes more sense.

Hmmm... You do understand that Newton's greatest contribution to science was his formulation of the theory of gravity? Notice that I didn't say the law of gravity. It is a theory. Yet, I don't see anyone doubting the existence of gravity either. I understand that your background in science is most likely limited, so allow me to define such terms. I'm trying to be open about this, but if my definitions seem too elementary, please don't interperet that as my talking beneath you or patronizing you, Gnarff.

A "theory" is much more than just an educated guess. It's more than just the best explanation we have for an observed phenomenon too. To be considered a theory, it has to have been tested numerous times and shown to be true in each case. With even one failure, the theory is debunked. So a theory is much more than you describe - which also explains why we still have a theory of gravity, and Einstein's theory of relativity. What you describe as a theory, I would more likely call a hypothesis, which is lower on the pecking scale of scientific acheivement. So the reason why we teach "theories" in schools as fact is because they have undergone extensive testing and have always turned out to be true.

I won't go that far. Like I said, I think that it is based on fact, but I do not think the entire world was flooded. That's why I used the comparison of the tsunami or earthquate. It is possible that the Medditerranian Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, or some other large body of water located somewhere around that part of the world flooded a certain area, and it may well have seemed to the local inhabitants that the entire world was underwater, but I have a hard time believing this is true. The reason for this is that there are species on the planet today that Noah could not possibly have had access to, yet they are with us today. For example, I have a hard time believing that Noah would have had access to any polar bears. Or better yet, since there are only species like kangaroos and koala bears living in Australia, did Noah go there too and pick them up? Did the flood get to Australia signficantly later so that Noah had time to sail down there? Or were kangaroos and koala bears plentiful all over the world prior to that, and then Noah only dropped them off in Australia, which explains why we don't see them anywhere else in the world.

It's examples like this as to why I feel that it is wise for a religious person to try to rectify his/her religion with known facts. By rectify I don't mean change. I mean seeking explanations consistent with both your faith and the known facts without just saying that the known facts are false or the work of the devil. The deluge is an example (for me at least) of something that was written by someone who told what he observed. To the writer, the entire world would have appeared to be flooded. However, since the writer didn't have access to the entire world (or to areas more than about 50 miles from where he was for that matter) his limited knowledge limited the accuracy of his writing. He wasn't in any way lying, it's just that he didn't have all the facts available to him. Is this starting to make any sense Gnarff?

Sorry, but I have to go back into scientist mode for a bit. When we're talking about the higher organisms - and by higher I mean multi-cellular plants and animals, and especially things like mammals, it would be asinine for any scientist to suggest that a hundred years from now some commonly known species would become something else. If that were true, we would have witnessed the evolution of dozens of new species during modern history. Heck, humans tended sheep and cows for thousands of years now, and we have no reason to believe the shepards of 4,000 years ago had significantly different kinds of sheep than we have today. The point that I think Carcaroth and others are trying to point out to you is that evolution is not a process that one can witness and see great changes in the course of one's lifetime. Speciation of the major animal groupings is not something that takes place in a few hundred years or even several millenia. The process takes millions of years. Since humans have not been around for even close to a million years (the oldest carbon dated human bones are only around 200,000 years old) - never mind several million - even if one of those original humans was still alive today, he would not have been around long enough to witness major speciation.

That's all that I'm asking for Gnarff. That you can ackowledge something as a possibility. I'm not trying to necessarily change your point of view, and I'm definitely not trying to alter your beliefs. I'm just saying that it is possible to be true to yourself, true to your faith, and still look and try to find explanations for observations that are consistent with your faith instead of just waving them away. While waving away an observation is ceratinly the easy way out, I think you will find that when given a few moments of thought, you can come up with other explanations that make logical sense, and are still consistent with what you believe.

[ June 23, 2005, 15:17: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Sorry, I can't resist... Non Sequitur, 6/23/05

Wiley can be just so darned on the money sometimes.

 

And in some areas these changes would be much more disorienting than others. As some have suggested in this thread, to give up my faith means to re-examine the ethics and beliefs that I would be living under. Among this is the support of government. Without this commandment, I would have to examine government and see corruption running rampant, and could decide that law in general needs to be examined. Then if I only did as I pleased, I'd piss a lot of people off. Faith is a protection in that case. Just as perhaps some people close their minds to the possibility of faith because then obedience becomes a difficult adjustment...

But again, this calls into question whether this canonical knowledge is true or not. Between some teachings in Science and religion, the respective canons conflict. Each side claims their canon to be true, therefore one side is wrong. Further, when educated guesses are presented as absolute fact, then the purpose of Education (as you have stated) may be defeated or corrupted.

The problem turns to who decides what's in and what's out. Hittler put his beliefs on the master race in the teachings in Germany as canonical knowledge. This is an example of corrupting Education. Even some history courses being taught from a particular side may not be entirely accurate because they are told from only one side (who will spin things so that they are always right and always the good guys).

The first is not on trial here, it is the second. The first has provided some truly remarkable and beneficial discoveries. The second is the source of the problems. While I don't doubt that Darwin noticed some differenced betweent he first Tortises on the Galapagos Islands, I disagree with the conclusions he has drawn. Likewise, I can accept that stuff was found in various archaeological digs, I have to question the interpretation of that data. As for less than respectable intentions, a researcher may rush his conclusions in an effort to get a cushy tenure position or his name widely known in academic circles. This, also, is where I said that Satan could deceive these scientists to spread doubt in the minds of the masses about the existence of God or the truthfullness of the Bible.

I disagree. Where Knowledge contradicts faith, then Is it Knowledge? You yourself have called into question the interpretation of data. Shouldn't faith be applied here? If Science ends with the method, then that's where faith is needed...

Again, I call that into question. If causing a rift between Religious and Scientific communities is a result, then I question whether the contributions to science outweigh this rift. Second, even taking Faith out of the equation, does the origin of mankind make a difference in how the average human lives their life? I would think not. In College I was exposed to existential theory, which claims that how we came to be is irrelevent, it's how we live that's important. To me, Creation answers those questions satisfactorily, and I can get on with living my life rather than spending it seeking these answers. Which is easier to learn--a couple chapters in the book of Genesis or huge volumes of scientific theory? For my time, accepting God answers these questions more definatively than any scientific text you could throw at me (or launch from a catapult if it's that heavy).

This is where the Mormons differ from some other religions. We believe in Prophecy, and that Prophets once again walk the earth. These prophets receive answers directly from God, and write what they did/do under divine direction. Therefore the Bible is the word of God in as far as it is translated correctly. Here's the tricky part. Our Prophet Joseph Smith conducted an inspired translation of the Bible in the 1830's where the innacuracies of the King James version were corrected. Some of these changes were quite major...

Do such creatures (like the Horse and Donkey as you pointed out) mate in the wild, or only in domestic situations where man places them together to breed? If they do not breed naturally, then this is the result of Man's intervention, not Creation. In Nature the law is that they reproduce after their own kind. As for Dogs and wolves, again, this can be either introduced as I've stated above, or that Wolves may simply be another breed of dog. I don't know what the official position of the church is on this. I am not a General Authority, nor do I have the time available to research this for you. Perhaps if you look at the official site www.lds.org and find the FAQ, that might give you some answers.

So that distinction is man made, instead of Natural law. I'm certain that a pit bull and a poodle have differently shaped skulls. Does that qualify them as a different speciec by that book too?

Not to my knowledge. Again, if this is nomenclature, then you are placing a man made Nomenclature over the teachings given by God. I'm sure that people have, either through actual replies or under their breath, called me a number of things. does that change who I am? Not bloody likely...

And you are criticizing me for rejecting conclusions that contradict my faith, while not seeking an understanding of what I believe because it contradicts your science.

Referring to my earlier point on Prophets and Prophecy. Moses was a prophet, and as such had revelation from the Lord to ensure that what was recorded was correct and true. If you do not accept Joseph smith as a Prophet of God, then you will not accept his translation of the Bible, thus I have no starting point that you will acept, but I do believe that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, and thus believe that his translation of the Bible is accurate.

At that time it was a throey, but it has been studies, tested and verified. In high school physics classes, experiments were done that consistantly yielded the same results and thus Gravity is now a law. I believe that Evolution is still in that theory stage, and will likely remain for some time. It will probably undergo more testing and revision over the years.

Then how is Evolution a theory? How has it been tested and proved? If Newton's Laws of Motion are still classed as theories, then Evolution will still be a theory for much longer than that. And perhaps Einstein's theory of Relativity may remain a theory for longer than that because science may have only touched the tip of that iceberg...

Again, if the whole earth wasn't flooded, then the Bible wouldn't have claimed that the whole Earth was flooded. You seem to be going back to the concept of the omnicient God lying to us.

Polar bears are a breed of bear that has adapted to arctic conditions. As for the Australian animals, Again, that's an answer that must come from God. All the Humans must have got there from somewhere else, mayber those animals went with the Humans, or perhaps they many have been plentiful elsewhere, but the vegitation that they live on was plentiful there, and no where else...

Here's one for you, if the Earth was made from matter unorganized, as religion claims, then is it not possible that worlds existed before our planet, complete with their own buried bones and such? And that fragments of these planets would have been used to form out planet? This means that 200,000 years ago, there would have been another planet with humans on it who adapted the environment they lived in. This is all speculation, but is it something that could have happened? Good luck finding Scientific proof of course...

I should only be waving parts of it aside. Rather than simply sending a meal in a restaraunt back, can I not eat the good parts of a meal and then ask that the burnt meat be replaced? Some of you think that I shouldn't be allowed to do that, but have to eat the undesirable portion as well. What doesn't contradict should be allowed to be examined, but not have the objectionable stuff passed off as acceptable.

 

You're arguments are getting a wee bit repetitive, Gnarfflinger. When I talk about knowledge, I don't mean an interpretation of facts - I talk about the facts themselves. Things that are true. Things that are falsifiable and that have undergone the strict procedure science puts them trhough - and have come out verified. Knowledge as I use it means "true things". Therefore, Hitler's ideology could never be supported by knowledge - on the contrary: knowledge has shown over and over again where Hitler was wrong.

When I use the term "canonical knowledge" I talk about true things that are useful to be known (or rather that are likely to cause disaster if unknown) by any human being regardless of culture or creed. This canon stretches over the boundaries of different religions or world views - this is why Nazism was not founded upon canonical knowledge.

That said, I truly do not understand your question "Where Knowledge contradicts faith, then Is it Knowledge?" Knowledge is based on observations, on things I can hear, see, feel, make available for scrutinization in any possible way. Faith is based on everything else; things I cannot see, hear, observe with my senses in any way. Those two do not plough the same field, knowledge asks "what can I see?", faith asks "what can I not see?" It is only when knowledge ventures into the realm of faith that difficulties arise, for instance if someone would try to proof the non-existence of god with particle physics. Science doesn't do this anymore.

Likewise, problems arise in cases where faith ventures into the realm of knowledge, for instance if someone would try to proof the non-existence of evolution with a Tale of Creation.

In conclusion, if there is a contradiction between knowledge and faith, my advice is the following: determine whether the thing in question belongs to the realm of observable, falsifiable things or whether it belongs to the realm of faith, hope and belief. Then you will know which side is wrong and which is right.

This is purely academcial and like you or BTA said it doesn't really matter whether you believe in creationism or not. The real problems I perceive - and which led me to utter something that was considered as insulting to your religious community - are

a. the idea that refusing the idea of creationism would automatically result in people running amok - and that consequently your view offers the only way out.
b. that you are willing to accept a view less because it is true than because it seems to be useful to you.

Those two things are - peaceful as you may be, contributing member of your society and stuff - the very root of religious war, oppression and persecution. And you don't have to invade Greenland, you can start this war on a small scale in everday life. Shun the "amoral" people of your neighborhood, build up social pressure to force others to behave in a way you desire, that kind of thing. This way of thinking will pave the way for a public awareness that doesn't care about others being wronged as long as this wrong-doing is still expected to be useful.

I can't stand it.

[ June 24, 2005, 08:29: Message edited by: Darkthrone ]

 

It was finches - not tortises. The Galapogos only has one species of totises living on it, but seven distinct (yet remarkably similar) species of finches.

Um... no. It's a theory, not a law. Specifically, it is referred to as "Newton's Theory of Gravity" not "Newton's Law of Gravity". It's on the same level as the Evolutionary Theory, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

You are correct on all counts with the above quote. You see, it is very difficult to get something declared a Law. It's damn hard to even get something considered a theory. Enormous amounts of evidence must be collected to even get to that stage. Here's another one to ponder: Atomic Theory. Yes, the existence of atoms is still in the theory stage. No matter that we produced an atomic bomb which requires splitting atoms, the existence of atoms is still the Atomic Theory. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it is quite possibly incorrect - quite the opposite in fact.

Gnarff, you were doing so well there for a while, and then you come up with this. You need to refer to my previous post. I was not saying God was lying, or even that the person writing this was lying. I am saying that he was writing a personal account, and since the entire area he was aware of was flooded, he said the entire world was flooded. Just like Smith and Young didn't know about evolution, chances are the writer of these historical accounts didn't know where Australia was - or that such a place even existed for that matter.

Do you agree that when an animal dies, that it's bones remain long after all the fleshy parts are devoured by insects, bacteria, etc. Do you further agree that such bones may become buried and preserved? Does in not make sense then that one must conclude if one finds bones of a particulr creature in a particulr place, that at one time such a creature must have lived in that particular place? We have never found any kangaroo remains any place in the world other than Australia. This is strong evidence to suggest that kangaroos never lived anywhere other than Australia.

*momentarily speechless*

OK, where to even begin with this one. My first reaction to this story would be to say that wouldn't it be possible that elephants could start flying tomorrow? I mean that's about as off the wall as what you are saying. Never mind that there is no known mechanism for a planet breaking up into pieces and then having it reform from those same pieces. Also, God must be one evil bastard if he had a fully functional planet with humans living on it only to have it destroyed and then remade to put the same type of humans on it as he had on the old planet. What a prick...

Ack! No! Don't wave aside any of it. I will repeat myself again - although I doubt it will do any good. There are aspects of our world that any relgion would have difficulty explaining. I'm not asking you to accept evolution if that is against your beliefs. I'm asking you to look at other proposed theories - such as intelligent design - instead of just assuming that everything that isn't in lock step with your religion is the work of the devil. Believe it or not, there are many scientists out there that wouldn't overly appreciate being referred to as a tool of the devil. THAT'S WHAT MANY PEOPLE FIND OFFENSIVE.

 

Oh, the humanity...

 

I took the experiments in High school physics as proof of such principles. If most science won't consider that to be proof enough, then I really shouldn't be surprised. I find it Ironic that the best the pursuit of knowledge can come up with is "I think this is the way it happens."

I would like it if I could get away with it, but people want to push science as an excuse to put down religion. The discourse on Evolution is all way off topic anyway.

I thought I could try to find some middle ground. Evidently that middle ground either does not exist, or the people claiming that they want to find it really have no desire to do so. I'm becoming more convinced that there is no middle ground...

Simple, Nobody has come out here and said that it is absolutely true, so until it is irrefutably proven, it's simply a guess as to how it could have happened. You're right, I don't know about this, but people keep calling me on these things. I answer to the best of my logic while not abandoning the things I consider Axiomatic (but others will not accept).

Faith is it's own brand of knowledge. Faith ventures into realms that Science knows little about. Can I ask the same to those trying to use Science as a beatstick to bring me into the line they want me to walk in?

The doctrine I argue from hasn't changed for 2000 years, why should my arguements.

A distinction that I'm not sure is adequately made in science.

But again, are there elements of the theory of evolution that are drawn from beyond those results? You criticize my blind acceptance of my faith, does that charge not apply to you as well, blindly accepting scientific theory over religious faith?

And what value is the theory of evolution if it seems to creat conflict? There are elements that contradict what the faithful have been taught, so does this really have a value that outweighs the conflict that has arisen?

My faith does spring from my own observations. There are things in my past that I'm not proud of, and of which I had to repent. By repent, I mean to confess and forsake these sins. When I did, I felt an unbelievable sense of relief. It's hard to describe, but by following the counsel given in a passage of scripture (too long to quote here), I achieved the result promised. Just as in a science class, if you follow the instructors instructions, you get the desired result. Therefore, to me that piece of faith has crossed into knowledge. Further, upon that experience, I can say that the Divinity and Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the existence and love of God Are real because those are the two principles that allowed that to work. That, if anything, should meet your description of Cannonical Knowledge.

If my above experience is acceptable as proof for the existence of God (even if it's just to me), then based off his commandment "Thou Shalt not bear false witness" means that the Bible (written under His direction) must be true or else He is breaking His own law. Therefore, to me, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 shall be sufficient to reject any contrary theories of man. In trying to find middle ground, I am looking at parts of the theory that do not contradict this account.

Doctrine and Covenents 82:10 states that "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." By this, if you truly seek to know the truth of God's existence for yourself, then try to do as he requires, and you will know that for your self. Just as a fire will not burn without something to ignite it, Faith cannot be proven to you if you do not make the first steps.

A. It's not so much refusing the story of Creation, but the Creator Himself. Refusing God, means that there is no sin, and if you believe that adultery or minor theft is acceptable. In some cases that's more extreme, like murder, rape and robbery. Is it possible that these offenders believe that there is nothing wrong with what they do?

B. I accept my views BECAUSE I believe them to be true. I reject parts of the theory of evolution because they contradict what I believe to be true, and thus would be false.

So by living righteously (not going out to the bar or reading pornographic materials) and standing up for our beliefs (sharing that we believe that certain trends are morally wrong), we bring this hatred upon ourselves? You make it sound as if the only way we're going to have peace is if we cease to be different. This I find repulsive. That the only way to aviod such harrassment is to abandon our beliefs, then are you not committing the same crimes you accuse us of?

My mistake. But the point remains that Darwin observed what he observed, just as I have experienced what I have experienced. We have both drawn our conclusions, and they conflict in places.

Perhaps because of my experiences and my ability to have faith, I have accepted Newtonian physics because I believe I understand it and I believe it to be true. I know that when I lose my balance and fall backwards I will likely land on my ass and not fly up to the ceiling. I have no such experience with the theory of Evolution and not enough knowledge of the theory of relativity.

Atomic theory I have also accepted much the same way I have accepted Gravity. I have accepted Faith in similar fashion. Having tried it out, I realize that it is true.

But an omniscient God would KNOW if the entire earth was flooded, and (this is one position that you disagree with, and I cannot change that) since the scriptures were written under His direction, False accounts of the flood or Creation would not be acceptable (as God will not lie). Moses would have known this as he recorded the histories of his people, and would have revelation from God to make sure his work was accurate.

I think the story also had Noah living 950 years, and the process of building the arc and gathering the animals lasting over 100 years. Further, I heard that the oceans are the result of the floods (they weren't as big before the flood as they are now). Perhaps at that time, Austrailia was connected to the lands of Asia before the flood...

No more off the wall as the fact that God is not omniscient or the fact that the Bible is wrong.

But then again, we've never seen it happen. According to the book of Revelation, that may well happen to the Earth. I've also been taught that there will be things taught in the Millenium (after the Second Coming) that will astound our current scientists. Perhaps that knowledge will be included then...

You assume that God destroyed the planet? What about Astrological phenomenon? what about a rogue comet hitting the Earth like the movie Armageddon suggests could happen? What is they didn't stop the comet? Supposedly the earth would have ceased to exist. Could not the people there destroy it? Think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the damage that a Nuclear blast did. I've heard that in the late 1980's even more devastating warheads were available. could such weapons exist that when unleashed in full fury they would destroy an entire planet? Then after about 100,000 years or so, the radiation or other toxicity has been neutralized, so the pieces were safe to use again. Further, the pieces need not have come from the same world. Many such worlds could have has similar fates. Then the pieces reform to make a new planet for more of God's Children.

Hmm, Finite, mortal, imperfect beings trying to comprehend an infinite amount of knowledge? No wonder they can't explain everything. But God has these answers, and if we are faithful, we may receive them too.

Where is the difference. Even things that have been put forth under intelligent design contradict at some point. I could accept Creation (as detailed in Genesis chapters one and two) as a start point, then creatures (including man) adapting from there, but where Creation is contradicted, then I have to send it back.

There are some that don't even like being told that they are wrong, and as Darkthorne said, they attack us because we tell them that we are wrong. That is just as dangerous as Religion though because as Nietzsche said (Yes, a Christian quoting Nietzsche), the surest way to corrupt a young man is to teach him to esteem more to those who think like him than to those who disagree.

I'm not trying to ban teaching evolution in schools, but that creation be taught right along side it. I don't think such groups as I referred to in my original post should be totally silenced, but that they should not have the right to harrass the members as they seek to hear what their leaders have to say. It's one thing to disagree with the teachings of a religion, it's another to desecrate their holy symbols.

The Reference to them being tools of the Devil is not accurate, but they are mislead by the Devil. They do not actively serve him, they believe what they teach. But it is Satan that has mislead them, corrupting their work, and deceiving them to spread his lies. But they aren't evil, nor do they realize that they've been lied to.

This thread has gone wildly off topic, and had people constantly drill me on things I really don't know. Then I am criticized for my lack of knowledge. Setting me up to show off a lack of knowledge of science and using it to criticize my faith really doesn't answer any questions either...

 

Agreed. Plus, like you said we aren't likely to find a common middle ground in any case, regardless how long we discuss this. I find all of this unfortunate, as I had hoped we would come to a common understanding when I first replied to this topic. I started by granting a God-created world. We were OK for a while, but then you brought up Noah, and I just couldn't comprehend how one man could gather all the creatures of the world together and get them on one boat. I mean, just from the size of the animals, and the food that would be required, the boat would have to have been several square miles in area.

I really don't want to continue that discussion any more, but suffice it to say, that from that point on - never the twain shall meet. The reason for this is as you said - there is no middle ground. For there to be a middle ground, you would have to accept things that are against scripture, and I would have to accept things that to me are impossible due to my knowledge of science. Such a middle ground is equally untennable to the both of us. I apologize once again if you feel angry by anything that I wrote that you viewed as a personal attack or an attack on your religion. With that I shall take my leave.