Without responding to a particular message, it seems that people are commonly decrying Wal-Mart, et. al. for refusing to sell Acclaim's 'BMX XXX.' On the other hand, it seems that people applaud Acclaim for exercising its right to make the game and they're glad consumers have the right to buy it. That seems like a double-standard to me. It seems as if people would deny Wal-Mart, et. al. the right to moral outrage. People have forgotten what "tolerance" means; one defintion is, "The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions" (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913, taken from GDict). One need not approve of something in order to "tolerate" it. Voltaire said something like, "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." People seem unquestioningly willing to defend Acclaim's "right to say it," but they don't seem equally willing to defend Wal-Mart. Acclaim has no right to Wal-Mart as a sales venue. Wal-Mart should be applauded for its expression of its freedom to choose what products will (and will not) be sold in its stores.
Perhaps it is a misuse of the word "religion" to say that atheism, humanism, or naturalism are "religions." However, I do believe that to say, "There is no God," is a religious statement. My point is that just as it is inappropriate for Christians to force their views on others through a state establishment of Christianity, so it is inappropriate for non-Christians to force their views on others.
When someone insists on trying to convince me, they are being somewhat arrogant in assuming I haven't already thought the issue out for myself.
Perhaps they're just excited about their faith, or perhaps they're merely hoping that you'll change your mind. Perhaps they're well intentioned, but have poor execution. Please make allowance for such things, and please don't make decisions about such important matters based on them. After all, from their perspective, there's a lot on the line.
Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software? Did you ever continue trying to convince them when they resisted, perhaps over several conversations? I have. I believe there are significant advantages to Linux and Open Source Software, and I believe the question of faith is far more important. I don't want to offend people, but I'm willing to risk that I might.
I agree 100%! It's hard to tell, sometimes, in a post, but it sounds like you're saying this in disagreement with me. If anything I said contradicts what you've said in the above, I hereby retract it!
However, I do disagree with some of what I believe you might be implying in the above. Are you implying that I or a significant number of Christians want a "police-state" or to "put a gun to your/their head" or to "impose a code of morality on you/them that you/they may or may not agree with"? In what ways do you see these kinds of behavior and attitudes? For the record, I want to state that I am categorically opposed to such things.
> What I jibe at is what seems to be an underlying > assumption: If I teach a theory that does not > require the existence of God, then I am teaching > that God does not exist. I have to say that > IMHO, that does not follow.
I agree with your logic as you have stated it. I disagree that it is an acurate representation of my underlying assumption.
I believe that evolution only holds up as a theory in the presence of the assumption that there are only natural causes, i.e. that there is no God. I realize that there are neo-Darwinists, but they're still holding to the conclusions drawn by Darwin, long after the assumptions and scientfic bases for his conclusion have been surpassed and overturned. For instance:
Darwin didn't have the benefit of electron microsocpes, so he and his contemporaries could only see things down to the level of about the cell, rather than to molecular or atomic levels. So, to him, a single celled animal seemed very simple, and thus it was believable that such a thing could be the basis for the beginnings of life. Similarly, at the level of gross anatomy that was available to him, it was reasonable to believe that advances could accumulate over time. However, we now know that information content of a single-celled organism is about as much as in a volume of the Encyclopeda Britannica (or maybe the whole set, but you get the point). If you just saw a white puffy formation in the sky that said, "Drink Coke," you'd say it was the intelligent design of a skywriter rather than a natural cloud formation, but neo-Darwinists want me to believe that an entire volume of the Encyclopeda Britannica just happened by random chance. I'd sooner believe that a tornado going through a junk yard could produce a 747.
Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which modern genetics has disproven.
Darwin claimed the fossil record would bear him out, but on the contrary, rather than showing the gradual development of species that evolution would seem to predict, the fossil record shows both the sudden appearance of species (as in the Cabrian explosion), and stasis, rather than gradual change.
The list of problems with Darwinian theory and neo-Darwinist synthesis goes on and on and on. But, it's hard to get scientific paper published if you say things like, "Genesis was right," and nobody has another naturalistic explanation, so the theory stands. A theory that only exists because supernatural explanations have been declared to be outside the rules can be said to oppose the existence of the supernatural even if for political correctness its proponents say that it does not.
Neo-Darwinists say, "If you don't believe in evolution what's your alternative?" If I say, "Creation," I'm mocked mercilessly. While mocking may win the argument in front of a crowd, when those neo-Darwinists are intellectually honest with themselves, they'll realize that their belief in evolution and disdain for creationism arise in large part due to their underlying assumption that there are only natural causes. When that assumption is removed, another theory is capable of explaining more of the evidence.
> > Christians and other religious people merely > > muster enough power to oppose the > > un-Constituional establishment of > > atheism/naturalism as the state religion
> It is impossible to establish a system of belief > which denies the existence of the beings that > form the basis of a religion as a religion > itself much less as a state religion!
This suffers from the logical flaw that only things in favor of God are religious. If I say, "There is no God," surely it is as religious a statement as if I say, "There is a God." And surely the separation of church and state should prevent the state from requiring both the teaching of the former and the teaching of things which assume the former.
I find it interesting that in this "Age of Tolerance," bashing religious people is still acceptable. I don't believe non-religious people are (necessarily) stupid. Who's the tolerant one now?
I have no desire to force everyone else to live according to my religion. However, I oppose efforts by those of other religions, including humanism, naturalism, and atheism, to force me to live by theirs.
A lot of people think that when Christians evangelize they are trying to force others to their views. Sometimes this is true, and for that I apologize. However, many Christians are simply interested in sharing what they believe is the cure for the devasting epidemic of sin. If I were a doctor with the cure for AIDS and I didn't share it, I would be labeled as cruel. If I am a Christian and I don't share my faith, I'm guilty of the same thing. If people dismissed the claims of the doctor, it would be appropriate for him to deliver an empassioned plea, with evidence, in the hopes of saving their lives. In the end, for both the doctor and the Christian, the decision has to be left to the individual. When that doesn't happen, it is a bad thing, but please have some tolerance for the empassioned plea of someone who loves you enough to face your wrath because they believe they are vying for your life.
I disagree with the stance that the Catholic Church took toward Galileo. Persecution is bad, whether it is being perpetrated by individuals, governments, or religious institutions. That's why we need the protection of our privacy that Dave's article supports.
As for the insinuation that Galileo's treatment is evidence that Christianity is anti-science, I thoroughly disagree. Galileo was also opposed by the scientific establishment of the day. Fear of change is common, and not limted to religious people. When Louis Pasteur began to champion changes in hospital practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes, he was opposed by the medical community and branded a lunatic. But Pasteur has been shown to be right. Does this mean the medical community is also anti-science and anti-hygiene? Rubbish. The fact that some people from a particular community, at some times in history, oppose a particular idea is not evidence, for all time, that all people of that community are similarly disposed. The naturalists have no monopoly on science nor any right to the state establishment of their religion.
Religious people aren't "banning the teaching of evolution." They are simply not requiring that it be a part of the curriculum; there's a radical difference. It is true and good that Christianity is not the state religion of the United States, but it is also true and good that naturalism isn't either. Evolution is only the best naturalistic explanation for the origins of human and other life. There are fundamental problems with evolutionary theory, such as the fossil record and the information content of single cells. The only reason evolution survives as a thory is that there are no better naturalistic explanations. That is, there are no better explanations that assume there are only natural causes. Assuming that there is no God involved is not the same as proving it. And requiring the teaching of a theory based on the assumption that there is no God is substantially equivalent to an establishment of naturalism and/or atheism as a state religion. As for the anti-religious sentiment; I'd say your post demonstrates that well enough. Christians and other religious people merely muster enough power to oppose the un-Constituional establishment of atheism/naturalism as the state religion, and you're worried about "anti-anti-religious persecution."
In case you're worried that our children won't be learning enough science, I'd like to de-bunk the argument that Christianity is anti-science. Christianity is pro-science, where that menas natural science, and not naturalistic science. What follows is taken from a BreakPoint commentary I received by email:
Many of the early scientists--Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus--were Christians. In fact, historians tell us that Christianity actually helped inspire the scientific revolution.
Consider a few examples. Pagan cultures saw the world as alive with river goddesses, sun gods, astral deities. But Genesis 1 stands in stark contrast to all that. Nature is not divine; it is God's handiwork. The sun and moon are not gods; they are merely lights placed in the sky to serve God's purposes.
This teaching provided a crucial assumption for science, for when nature commanded religious worship, then digging too closely into her secrets was deemed irreverent. But in Christianity, nature was no longer an object of fear and worship. Then--and only then--could it become an object of scientific study.
Another crucial assumption for science is that nature is orderly. This, too, was provided by Christianity. The belief that God is rational and trustworthy implies that His creation is rational and ordered.
The early scientists described that order as "natural law." Today this phrase is so common, we may not realize how unique it once was. Yet as historian A. R. Hall points out, no other culture has ever used the word law in relation to nature. The idea of laws in nature came from one source: the biblical teaching that God is both Creator and Law-Giver.
Even the experimental method of science has roots in Christianity. Since it is God's rationality that orders nature, and not our own, we cannot sit in an ivory tower and do science by sheer rational deduction. Instead, we must do experiments and see what happens.
For example, when Galileo wanted to find out whether a 10-pound weight falls to the ground more quickly than a one-pound weight, he did not argue about the concept of weight, as was typical among the philosophers of his day. Instead, he dropped cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and watched what happened.
The article was excellent. We need privacy for all the reasons Dave described, and you've provided a demonstration of how some of the sentiments can be so engrained in our society that people don't even realize when they hold those ideas or why people should be allowed to hold opposing ones.
If you're a US citizen, please call or write your congressional representatives and ask them to oppose this legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Without responding to a particular message, it seems that people are commonly decrying Wal-Mart, et. al. for refusing to sell Acclaim's 'BMX XXX.' On the other hand, it seems that people applaud Acclaim for exercising its right to make the game and they're glad consumers have the right to buy it. That seems like a double-standard to me. It seems as if people would deny Wal-Mart, et. al. the right to moral outrage. People have forgotten what "tolerance" means; one defintion is, "The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions" (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913, taken from GDict). One need not approve of something in order to "tolerate" it. Voltaire said something like, "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." People seem unquestioningly willing to defend Acclaim's "right to say it," but they don't seem equally willing to defend Wal-Mart. Acclaim has no right to Wal-Mart as a sales venue. Wal-Mart should be applauded for its expression of its freedom to choose what products will (and will not) be sold in its stores.
Perhaps it is a misuse of the word "religion" to say that atheism, humanism, or naturalism are "religions." However, I do believe that to say, "There is no God," is a religious statement. My point is that just as it is inappropriate for Christians to force their views on others through a state establishment of Christianity, so it is inappropriate for non-Christians to force their views on others.
Perhaps they're just excited about their faith, or perhaps they're merely hoping that you'll change your mind. Perhaps they're well intentioned, but have poor execution. Please make allowance for such things, and please don't make decisions about such important matters based on them. After all, from their perspective, there's a lot on the line.
Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software? Did you ever continue trying to convince them when they resisted, perhaps over several conversations? I have. I believe there are significant advantages to Linux and Open Source Software, and I believe the question of faith is far more important. I don't want to offend people, but I'm willing to risk that I might.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I agree 100%! It's hard to tell, sometimes, in a post, but it sounds like you're saying this in disagreement with me. If anything I said contradicts what you've said in the above, I hereby retract it!
However, I do disagree with some of what I believe you might be implying in the above. Are you implying that I or a significant number of Christians want a "police-state" or to "put a gun to your/their head" or to "impose a code of morality on you/them that you/they may or may not agree with"? In what ways do you see these kinds of behavior and attitudes? For the record, I want to state that I am categorically opposed to such things.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
> assumption: If I teach a theory that does not
> require the existence of God, then I am teaching
> that God does not exist. I have to say that
> IMHO, that does not follow.
I agree with your logic as you have stated it. I disagree that it is an acurate representation of my underlying assumption.
I believe that evolution only holds up as a theory in the presence of the assumption that there are only natural causes, i.e. that there is no God. I realize that there are neo-Darwinists, but they're still holding to the conclusions drawn by Darwin, long after the assumptions and scientfic bases for his conclusion have been surpassed and overturned. For instance:
The list of problems with Darwinian theory and neo-Darwinist synthesis goes on and on and on. But, it's hard to get scientific paper published if you say things like, "Genesis was right," and nobody has another naturalistic explanation, so the theory stands. A theory that only exists because supernatural explanations have been declared to be outside the rules can be said to oppose the existence of the supernatural even if for political correctness its proponents say that it does not.
Neo-Darwinists say, "If you don't believe in evolution what's your alternative?" If I say, "Creation," I'm mocked mercilessly. While mocking may win the argument in front of a crowd, when those neo-Darwinists are intellectually honest with themselves, they'll realize that their belief in evolution and disdain for creationism arise in large part due to their underlying assumption that there are only natural causes. When that assumption is removed, another theory is capable of explaining more of the evidence.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
> > muster enough power to oppose the
> > un-Constituional establishment of
> > atheism/naturalism as the state religion
> It is impossible to establish a system of belief
> which denies the existence of the beings that
> form the basis of a religion as a religion
> itself much less as a state religion!
This suffers from the logical flaw that only things in favor of God are religious. If I say, "There is no God," surely it is as religious a statement as if I say, "There is a God." And surely the separation of church and state should prevent the state from requiring both the teaching of the former and the teaching of things which assume the former.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I find it interesting that in this "Age of Tolerance," bashing religious people is still acceptable. I don't believe non-religious people are (necessarily) stupid. Who's the tolerant one now?
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I have no desire to force everyone else to live according to my religion. However, I oppose efforts by those of other religions, including humanism, naturalism, and atheism, to force me to live by theirs.
A lot of people think that when Christians evangelize they are trying to force others to their views. Sometimes this is true, and for that I apologize. However, many Christians are simply interested in sharing what they believe is the cure for the devasting epidemic of sin. If I were a doctor with the cure for AIDS and I didn't share it, I would be labeled as cruel. If I am a Christian and I don't share my faith, I'm guilty of the same thing. If people dismissed the claims of the doctor, it would be appropriate for him to deliver an empassioned plea, with evidence, in the hopes of saving their lives. In the end, for both the doctor and the Christian, the decision has to be left to the individual. When that doesn't happen, it is a bad thing, but please have some tolerance for the empassioned plea of someone who loves you enough to face your wrath because they believe they are vying for your life.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
I disagree with the stance that the Catholic Church took toward Galileo. Persecution is bad, whether it is being perpetrated by individuals, governments, or religious institutions. That's why we need the protection of our privacy that Dave's article supports.
As for the insinuation that Galileo's treatment is evidence that Christianity is anti-science, I thoroughly disagree. Galileo was also opposed by the scientific establishment of the day. Fear of change is common, and not limted to religious people. When Louis Pasteur began to champion changes in hospital practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes, he was opposed by the medical community and branded a lunatic. But Pasteur has been shown to be right. Does this mean the medical community is also anti-science and anti-hygiene? Rubbish. The fact that some people from a particular community, at some times in history, oppose a particular idea is not evidence, for all time, that all people of that community are similarly disposed. The naturalists have no monopoly on science nor any right to the state establishment of their religion.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson
Religious people aren't "banning the teaching of evolution." They are simply not requiring that it be a part of the curriculum; there's a radical difference. It is true and good that Christianity is not the state religion of the United States, but it is also true and good that naturalism isn't either. Evolution is only the best naturalistic explanation for the origins of human and other life. There are fundamental problems with evolutionary theory, such as the fossil record and the information content of single cells. The only reason evolution survives as a thory is that there are no better naturalistic explanations. That is, there are no better explanations that assume there are only natural causes. Assuming that there is no God involved is not the same as proving it. And requiring the teaching of a theory based on the assumption that there is no God is substantially equivalent to an establishment of naturalism and/or atheism as a state religion. As for the anti-religious sentiment; I'd say your post demonstrates that well enough. Christians and other religious people merely muster enough power to oppose the un-Constituional establishment of atheism/naturalism as the state religion, and you're worried about "anti-anti-religious persecution."
In case you're worried that our children won't be learning enough science, I'd like to de-bunk the argument that Christianity is anti-science. Christianity is pro-science, where that menas natural science, and not naturalistic science. What follows is taken from a BreakPoint commentary I received by email:
The article was excellent. We need privacy for all the reasons Dave described, and you've provided a demonstration of how some of the sentiments can be so engrained in our society that people don't even realize when they hold those ideas or why people should be allowed to hold opposing ones.
If you're a US citizen, please call or write your congressional representatives and ask them to oppose this legislation.
Sincerely,
Xandy Johnson