Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Is the clergy letter project a waste of time ?

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:46    Quote My symptoms were very similar to cancer. I feared the worst when I began to pass blood. Although my diagnosis wasn't great (IBD), I was relieved that cancer was ruled out. But I still have a lot things to be thankful for. Like the work of Professor Bryan Brooke: I think you missunderstood me there ;) I ment God, Vishnu, Thor, Zeus or any other mythological, transcendant being, and not real persons. Ofcourse I definatly agree with you about Bryan Brooke, people like him are the persons who deserve the praise. PS: I'm very glad for you, and indeed also thankfull for Prof. Brooke for helping you and millions of others.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,08:50    Quote I always wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what. I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own. Maybe. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,09:15    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2008,08:50) Quote I always wonder: what? I hear that often, that people have enough to thank for, but I never hear exactly what. I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own. Maybe. I ofcourse mean the thanking of mythological, transcedent beings, not actual persons. Heck, I've got plenty to thank for regarding people. For example, I definatly have to thank my study councelor for helping me choose a Bachelor that would really suit me. I couldn've done it without him.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,09:58    Quote Several obscure churches that have a few dozen members are not going to break any delf with a majority of evangelicals I'm afraid. The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that. Please take a moment to read the above, several times if needed, before continuing. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 18 2008,09:58 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,11:26    Quote Ofcourse I definatly agree with you about Bryan Brooke, people like him are the persons who deserve the praise. At least we've agreed on something assassinator. Quote The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that. Then who is it aimed at Wesley ? Or is it merely preaching to the converted ? I still feel that a several big name evangelicals need to come out and support it for it to have any impact. Christians who haven't made their minds up about evolutionary science are the ones that will be influenced. Steve Chalke is the only evangelical leader that supports evolution in the UK. I'm not sure if he agrees with the CLP or not.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,11:35    Quote Then who is it aimed at Wesley ? The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,11:57    [quote=Peter Henderson,Aug. 18 2008,11:26] Quote   Quote The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that. Then who is it aimed at Wesley ? Or is it merely preaching to the converted ? I still feel that a several big name evangelicals need to come out and support it for it to have any impact. Christians who haven't made their minds up about evolutionary science are the ones that will be influenced. Steve Chalke is the only evangelical leader that supports evolution in the UK. I'm not sure if he agrees with the CLP or not. Now we're going in circles.    It's been explained that (A) people committed to an anti-science position are not targeted by the CLP and (A) the idea is to provide abundant evidence that  it's possible for religious beliefs and acceptance of biological evolution to coexist, mainly for the benefit of people who aren't sure.  Many of those people are members of congregations who are being told by their pastors that they can't believe in the bible and science at the same time. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2008,15:32    Quote it's possible for religious beliefs and acceptance of biological evolution to coexist I've just watched the last of Richard Dawkins' new series "the genius of Darwin". According to Dawkins you can't believe in God and accept Charles Darwin's view the world. Evolution and religion are incompatible. It's illogical to think that they are (according to Dawkins) i noticed he had a go at the Archbishop of Caterbury,Rowen Williams (who accepts biological evolution) as well. Dawkins also emphasised the fact that over time Darwin came to abandon Christianity. To be honest, as I have said before, it's for these reasons that I feel uncomfortable with evolution Sunday. I still feel the clergy letter project misses the point. Dawkins doesn't help.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2008,05:29    Dawkins has the nasty tendency to generalise religion. It's true that certain interpretations of religions, like literal interpretations of christianity. But, at least from my p.o.v, it seems like Dawkins thinks that's all there is, that only such literal interpretations exist. Ofcourse it's 100% true that such literal interpretations of any religion are incompatible with evolution and maybe science in general, but those aren't the only interpretations possible. And because Dawkins attacks any religion like it's all just literal and orthodox, I'm not a big fan of him. Quote At least we've agreed on something assassinator. I thought we were just misreading eachother for the most part ;)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2008,10:01    The extremes, literalist Christians and evangelical atheists, are both fond of the conflict model. They agree that faith and the findings of science are incompatible. They disagree about which way people should jump, but they both insist that a jump to an extreme is needed. The CLP clarifies for people who aren't already in one of the extreme groups that although both extremes tell them that they have to jump to one of those positions that, no, they don't have to; there are large numbers of people who have both faith and an appreciation for science as it is practiced now. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

MIchael Roberts Posts: 13 Joined: Oct. 2003 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,16:33    Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 18 2008,08:38) Quote Is "All Souls" a denomination that explicitly adopts biblical literalism All Souls is a well attended evangelical Anglican church in London Wesley. In my opinion it's the sort of church that should be paricipating in this .It's been prone to YECism  though: http://www.allsouls.org/ascm....EE70B99 But from what I can gather, there's been some opposition to it. Several obscure churches that have a few dozen members are not going to break any delf with a majority of evangelicals I'm afraid. The problem with All Souls is that its previous Paul Blackham was totally YEC and led his vicar Bewes up the garden path. Several years ago there was fricition over YEC with John Stott involved - he's ended up sitting on the fence. More and more Anglicans especially clergy are becoming YEC - I guess 5-10% of clergy. Michael (author Evangelicasl and Science - Greenwood Press 2008

rhmc Posts: 340 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2008,17:32    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2008,09:50) I think this may reflect the story that if all the troubles of the world were put in a bucket and you could draw out anyone's, you would -- after reflection -- choose your own. Maybe. at 17yo, i spent a summer working with crippled children in a easter seal society camp.  the camp existed to give the children's parents a 10 day break from the 24/365 care they were giving. on your worst day ever, you'll not be as bad off as the majority of those children were. a seriously life changing summer. i'd definitely choose my own troubles.

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2008,11:09    To the delight of AiG, this minister has chosen to reject the clergy letter project. I can't believe a Methodist minster has written this nonsense for AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....hodists   Quote If Dr. Zimmerman and others really want to pursue full scientific research and the truth about origins, then they should not be alienating people by calling them such things but encouraging them to pursue every path of discovery and thought. Instead he is creating a situation where people like me who have moved from a theistic evolutionist worldview to a young-earth creationist worldview over the last 30 years will become marginalized. Does not Dr. Zimmerman have his mind open to the major scientific discoveries in biology related to the complexity of the human cell, as well as to the mapping of the DNA that shows intelligent design? Plus there are other scientific fields that support a biblical model rather than an evolutionary one.   Quote I believe that God created the universe in six solar days as stated in Genesis 1 and supported by Exodus 20: 8–11. To say that the stories of creation, Noah’s Flood, etc. are poetic (non-historic)—and therefore the only way to convey biblical truths to ancient peoples so that they would understand these accounts—is not acceptable. This would indicate that God was giving the prophets a spirit of falsehood to convey truth. The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. God is not a God of falsehood. He gave the prophets His anointing to tell the truth in order to convey to us His invisible attributes of power and divinity.   Quote To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is. Ultimately, the naturalism of evolution does not belong—nor is it compatible—with the plain teaching of Scripture related to creation and the origin of life on earth. As usual, AiG make a big thing of Rev. Shunk's qualifications:   Quote Rev. Dale Shunk has a B.S. in Physics from Edinboro University and a M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary. He has been married to Annabelle for 35 years, has two grown children and one grandson. He enjoys astronomy and seeing people touched by the beauty, majesty, and order of God's creation when looking at the stars in his homemade telescope. Many have trusted their lives to Christ during these star-gazing sessions. He currently is the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Somerset, Pennsylvania. I grew up in the Methodist church and it certainly wasn't extreme. How does the United Methodist church in the US fit in the grand scheme of things there ? In NI there are three Methodist denominations. The Methodist church in Ireland is the mainstream one and it is definitely not YEC (yet). YECism has made some inroads in the denomination in England. The other two denominations that label themselves as "Methodist" are the Free Methodists and Indipendant Methodists. Both are YEC.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,08:45    Coming very late to the party.  I haven't posted here in months. My background:  I was a fundamentalist minister for 18 years before leaving ministry in 2001. Christian ministers typically have very little interest (let alone training) in science.  They also believe those who are on the forefront of the ID movement are honest, intelligent, science informed Christians who have investigated and found that the Biblical account best represents the science--or at the least the science does not contradict the Biblical account. Many of them truly believe science is prejudiced against a theistic world view. In addition many would lose their job, home and complete social circle if they rejected literalism.  That's a huge emotional obstacle to overcome--and most ministers are not consciously aware of that tention.  It's easier to keep the status quo. If a minister begins to question his party's line, he will feel threatened and isolated. Initiatives like the CLP allow ministers to know they are not alone, that there are others who have accepted contemporary science and "lived to tell about it."  Over time they can begin to see there are many so-called "experts" who are supressing truth in the name of Christianity. I know many on this board see fundamentalists as being unreachable with any common sense.  For the most part that's likely accurate.  But always keep in mind that most fundamentalists are born and indoctrinated into their beliefs and some, when given the chance, are able to later see the error of their ways. Any nudge you can give them is good.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,09:29    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Sep. 16 2008,14:45) Coming very late to the party.  I haven't posted here in months. My background:  I was a fundamentalist minister for 18 years before leaving ministry in 2001. Christian ministers typically have very little interest (let alone training) in science.  They also believe those who are on the forefront of the ID movement are honest, intelligent, science informed Christians who have investigated and found that the Biblical account best represents the science--or at the least the science does not contradict the Biblical account. Many of them truly believe science is prejudiced against a theistic world view. In addition many would lose their job, home and complete social circle if they rejected literalism.  That's a huge emotional obstacle to overcome--and most ministers are not consciously aware of that tention.  It's easier to keep the status quo. If a minister begins to question his party's line, he will feel threatened and isolated. Initiatives like the CLP allow ministers to know they are not alone, that there are others who have accepted contemporary science and "lived to tell about it."  Over time they can begin to see there are many so-called "experts" who are supressing truth in the name of Christianity. I know many on this board see fundamentalists as being unreachable with any common sense.  For the most part that's likely accurate.  But always keep in mind that most fundamentalists are born and indoctrinated into their beliefs and some, when given the chance, are able to later see the error of their ways. Any nudge you can give them is good. Hallelujah, praise be. Someone got it! Oh I know lots of other people got it too. I'm just being a sarcastic prick. Sue me! Pretty much anything we do to encourage people of faith (or people of no faith) to understand and accept science is a good thing. Some methods will be more successful in some environments than others. The CLP won't winkle Ken Ham out of his hidey hole, but it might be a lifeline to someone else. There are other things to do with the Ken Hams of this world. My personal preference involves a very very big stick and some angry wolverines. Overcoming the psychosocial and cultural barriers which people put in place is a key part of this goal. The fact that there are many different cultural and psychosocial barriers, and that each requires its own specific solution does not in any way negate or prefer the applicability of one solution over others in a global sense. I.e. it is highly unlikely that there is one simple solution to a multifactorial, diverse set of problems. So the short answer to the question posed by the title is: No and Yes. No where it is applicable, yes where it isn't. Gee, could it be dependant on context? It seems to me that I've said something similar about a related topic once or twice before. Louis -------------- Bye.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2008,11:31    Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 15 2008,09:09) To the delight of AiG, this minister has chosen to reject the clergy letter project. I can't believe a Methodist minster has written this nonsense for AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....hodists     Quote If Dr. Zimmerman and others really want to pursue full scientific research and the truth about origins, then they should not be alienating people by calling them such things but encouraging them to pursue every path of discovery and thought. Instead he is creating a situation where people like me who have moved from a theistic evolutionist worldview to a young-earth creationist worldview over the last 30 years will become marginalized. Does not Dr. Zimmerman have his mind open to the major scientific discoveries in biology related to the complexity of the human cell, as well as to the mapping of the DNA that shows intelligent design? Plus there are other scientific fields that support a biblical model rather than an evolutionary one.     Quote I believe that God created the universe in six solar days as stated in Genesis 1 and supported by Exodus 20: 8–11. To say that the stories of creation, Noah’s Flood, etc. are poetic (non-historic)—and therefore the only way to convey biblical truths to ancient peoples so that they would understand these accounts—is not acceptable. This would indicate that God was giving the prophets a spirit of falsehood to convey truth. The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. God is not a God of falsehood. He gave the prophets His anointing to tell the truth in order to convey to us His invisible attributes of power and divinity.     Quote To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is. Ultimately, the naturalism of evolution does not belong—nor is it compatible—with the plain teaching of Scripture related to creation and the origin of life on earth. As usual, AiG make a big thing of Rev. Shunk's qualifications:     Quote Rev. Dale Shunk has a B.S. in Physics from Edinboro University and a M.Div. from Asbury Theological Seminary. He has been married to Annabelle for 35 years, has two grown children and one grandson. He enjoys astronomy and seeing people touched by the beauty, majesty, and order of God's creation when looking at the stars in his homemade telescope. Many have trusted their lives to Christ during these star-gazing sessions. He currently is the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Somerset, Pennsylvania. I grew up in the Methodist church and it certainly wasn't extreme. How does the United Methodist church in the US fit in the grand scheme of things there ? In NI there are three Methodist denominations. The Methodist church in Ireland is the mainstream one and it is definitely not YEC (yet). YECism has made some inroads in the denomination in England. The other two denominations that label themselves as "Methodist" are the Free Methodists and Indipendant Methodists. Both are YEC. Wow.  Never has the phrase "Holy Shit!" been more apposite. Given this: Quote The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. I look forward to the Rev. explaining that Jesus actually tried to shove a camel through the eye of a needle. Peter, I think the United Methodists here are usually pretty liberal - the church a few blocks from my house has a lesbian pastor, and was on alert against a possible Fred Phelps demo a couple of years ago.  (He never showed up - too busy making a dick of himself at military funerals).  However, there's no guarantee that "First United Methodist Church in Somerset, Pennsylvania" is affiliated with the UMs, or with anyone else - independent groups of nutcases can, and do, call themselves whatever they like. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,13:05    Just to stir the pot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/12/robert.winston Quote As an example of misplaced scientific certainty Winston said the traditional "determinist" approach to genetics was proving to be too simplistic. "We can't any longer have the conventional understanding of genetics which everybody pedals because it is increasingly obvious that epigenetics – actually things which influence the genome's function – are much more important than we realised … One of the most important aspects of what makes us who we are is neither straight genes or straight environment but actually what happens to us during development." Quote Lord Robert Winston has renewed his attack on atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, whose arguments he said were "dangerous", "irresponsible" and "very divisive". The science populariser and fertility expert said that the more bombastic arguments of atheist scientists were making dialogue between religion and science more difficult. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,13:42    The folks on either side who subscribe to the conflict model do want to make dialogue between religion and science more difficult. Each thinks that people will come down on their side, or that the people who will not do not matter. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 18 2008,13:42 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,13:53    YEC and literalism are where the heart of the conflict lives and breathes. I'm shocked sometimes by things I hear from friends and relatives, members of mainstream churches. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,16:20    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,19:42) The folks on either side who subscribe to the conflict model do want to make dialogue between religion and science more difficult. Each thinks that people will come down on their side, or that the people who will not do not matter. Wesley, I know of no one prominent on the science/atheist side who advocates conflict between science and religion. And I've read all Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Myers/Dennett/etc etc. I see PLENTY of less than conciliatory language that is frequently turned into straw men by a variety of people. For example, acknowledging the existence of an epistemological conflict between faith and reason is in no way an advocacy of (social/political) conflict between religion and science. It's the is/ought fallacy writ large in this "conflict". Nor is it some appeal for certainty or any such drivel. The old joke goes "just because I know about gravity, it doesn't follow that I want to fall down". The distinction some people seem incapable of making is that wanting undeserved religious privilege to diminish is not the same as wanting the destruction of all religious people/religions etc. Speaking as one of those horrid, Churchillian, conflict-loving, evil, nasty, whatever atheistic scientists I am over the moon for any help we can get to improve science communication and education from anyone. I couldn't care less what private religious thoughts people have. Not only do I think that it's good to get "moderate" religious people on the team, so to speak, I think it's essential. What I don't want though is any ally who is less than committed to the cause. What amuses me greatly about all of this is we are having no conversation about providing an inclusive accommodations for astrology believing students (for example). This is an explicit example of religious ideas receiving unwarranted privilege. There are no comparable conversations being had for any number of quasi/pseudoscientific notions. But then religious ideas are perhaps more prevalent and certainly better supported. Religion is here to stay, in some form or another. The "evil atheist/chuchillian/whatever" caricature camp no more want religion eradicated than the "lovely fluffy/chamberlain/accomodationist/whatever" caricature camp want to roll over and have the Pope rub their tummies. The straw flying around on the issue is frustrating. I certainly don't know of anything by the traditionally labelled "conflict supporters" on the science/atheism side which would lead me to think that they think people who disagree with them do not matter. Louis -------------- Bye.

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:14    Quote I couldn't care less what private religious thoughts people have. Not only do I think that it's good to get "moderate" religious people on the team, so to speak, I think it's essential. Well said Louis. I entirely agree.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:41    It would help if stuff not responsive to anything I said not be headed with "Wesley,". "Conflict model" is a phrase inclusive of far more than "eradication". It's interesting that "straw" gets mentioned when the basis of the rant was as quaint a Morlanization as I've seen. On the one side, it includes a plethora of statements that religion and rationality itself are entirely separate, and I do mean plethora. That takes care of all but the last sentence, AFAICT. As for "do not matter"... disjunction, I take it, is unfamiliar terminology? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:47    Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 18 2008,23:14) Quote I couldn't care less what private religious thoughts people have. Not only do I think that it's good to get "moderate" religious people on the team, so to speak, I think it's essential. Well said Louis. I entirely agree. And please bear in mind I am self confessedly one of those nasty atheist puppy kicking nun murdering ebola spreading church burners. I even advocate telling people that Santa doesn't exist. I'm REALLY EXTREMELY anti privileging religion, I am an ardent secularist, and yet I have absolutely zero problem with working with, alongside, on top of, under, left of and right of, for, with people who hold religious faith. I am more than happy to say "we may have our differences, but on THIS we agree". That is in no way an accommodation or capitulation. No one, not Dawkins, not PZ, not anyone is angling for the destruction of religion or the disenfranchisement or eradication of religion or religious people, or any similar ridiculous extremist straw man. All anyone is advocating is a policy of reasonable zero tolerance. This does not mean "no discussion" or "sack the religious" or anything similar. This means we examine proposals (like for example that of Michael Reiss) for content, then we swap the word "creationism" for "astrology" and see if the argument holds the same water. Religious belief is part of that wonderful diversity of human ideas. It's one I think can be immensely destructive and horrendously misused. It's a habit that can be incredibly dangerous, but it's a habit we cannot eradicate, nor are it's less than fulsomely pleasant elements universal, it IS however one we can minimise via education and a swathe of other vastly pleasant and reasonable means. No gulags, no indoctrination, no brainwashing. Simply improving the average quality of life and education does 50% of our work for us. Sorry folks, but that's a fact. People forget how atypical the religiosity of the USA really is in 1st world democracies. Louis -------------- Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,17:59    And what I'm saying to you is that you are confused if you thought that my use of "conflict model" referenced the ridiculous extremes you mention, and thus I have little notion of why you thought your response to be apropos to what I said. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,18:15    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,23:41) It would help if stuff not responsive to anything I said not be headed with "Wesley,". "Conflict model" is a phrase inclusive of far more than "eradication". It's interesting that "straw" gets mentioned when the basis of the rant was as quaint a Morlanization as I've seen. On the one side, it includes a plethora of statements that religion and rationality itself are entirely separate, and I do mean plethora. That takes care of all but the last sentence, AFAICT. As for "do not matter"... disjunction, I take it, is unfamiliar terminology? Wesley, Then please accept my apology for I obviously misunderstood and projected my own annoyance at some aspect of this debate onto you. And admittedly I leapt for the more extreme straw army that often gets raised (perhaps more due to personal frustration with it than any advocacy of it on your part). I didn't mean to accuse YOU of that particular brand of straw (although I've recently seen similar from good old Wilkins which depressed me mightily). What I gleaned from your comment was that there are people on both sides who desire conflict, who are making resolution more difficult deliberately. It's the "deliberately" I disagree with, it's the desire to make life more difficult that I disagree with. I'll come back to this in a second. I also disagree that anyone claims rationality and religion (two huge areas) are mutually incompatible or separate. I am a vehement exponent of the epistemological differences of reason/observation and faith/revelation, that however is not a distinction that maps cleanly onto religion. I think it's so obvious it's a given that there is rationality in religion. I think it's also obvious that there are huge quantities of well reasoned, observation based, reason based ideas in religion. I think anyone who denies THAT is burying their head in the sand (to be exceedingly polite about it). There are also ideas that are (formally) irrational and not products of reason. Hell, even that purported bastion of philosophical reason and logic Logical Positivism is not completely based on reason. The key difference being is that in many cases those ideas within religions that are demonstrably (formally) irrational have a huge degree of protection. I am well aware of the plethora of statements you mention, the word I disagree with is not "separate" but "entirely". I defy you to find me a prominent exponent who claims the universality or entirety of that separateness. I'll grant you can find nutters! But then I'm sure nutter hunting is not a road either of us would want to go down. I also grant that you (and I) can find many statements that are less than fulsomely accurate, but even {insert your prominent atheist of choice} at his/her most extreme doesn't deny the demonstrable positive products and rational elements of religion. Oh and disjunction is not unfamiliar, but again, I defy you to find any prominent "churchillian" (or whatever caricature we're going for) that espouses either element of your disjunct. Louis P.S. Please note that my use of "eradication" etc was specifically as caricature. Just like my use of "roll over and let the Pope rub their tummy" is caricature. The two way straw is what annoys me, one way straw is insufficiently annoying. FYI I explicitly do not think that YOU are one of the fans of straw. I am concerned that your statements above (rightly or wrongly) fall foul of a false equivalence. -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,18:17    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,23:59) And what I'm saying to you is that you are confused if you thought that my use of "conflict model" referenced the ridiculous extremes you mention, and thus I have little notion of why you thought your response to be apropos to what I said. It wasn't entirely apropos, I freely admit it. It was an extension to the general debate, and a reflection of my general dissatisfaction with people who I know agree with each other, disagreeing so vehemently. My bad if I failed to get that across. Louis -------------- Bye.

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,07:26    Quote I even advocate telling people that Santa doesn't exist. You killjoy Louis ;) This is in fact how the fundamentalists "get on" (as they say in these parts). There's a certain section of the fundies (the Brethren in particular but also in mainstream Presbyterian circles here) that are "anti Santa", telling the kids as soon as they can talk that Santa doesn't exist. In my opinion, this takes away the fun of childhood. Christmas was always a time of the year that I looked  forward to. I remember I could never get to sleep on Christmas eve. I also enjoyed meeting Santa at various local shops in the run-up to Christmas. Eventually I figured out (before my parents told me) that Santa was in fact mum and dad. It wasn't a devastating blow discovering that he wasn't real. I do realise that Christmas is an old Pagan festival incorperated into the Christian calendar (which is why the Brethren don't celebrate it). Cromwell of course banned. The modern Christmas was revived during Victorian times.

Melvin46 Posts: 1 Joined: Oct. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,12:24    The Clergy Letter Project is an affront to all Christians (followers of the Lord Jesus Christ).  The heart of a god of evolution is incompatible to the heart of the Living God of the Bible.  I recommend those who contend my assertion to read “Evolution and Ethics” by Sir Arthur Keith; and/or visit my blog http://foxat.blogspot.com/. -Mel

Spottedwind Posts: 83 Joined: Aug. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,12:37    Originally, I was going to let Mel know that there is no god of evolution but realized that it's pointless.  If he thinks that a god that used evolution couldn't possibly have the same compassion and love as a god of creation, then I don't have the energy to try to convince him otherwise. Bringing up evolution and ethics as if they are related makes me think that Mel is one of those 'is/ought' people. I wonder if Mel is a drive by or if he stuck around?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:22    Quote (Spottedwind @ Oct. 31 2008,11:37) Originally, I was going to let Mel know that there is no god of evolution but realized that it's pointless. Yeah, it's the anti-evolutionists that put Darwin on a pedestal that way, claiming he had (has?) lots of power over other people. Meanwhile, scientists and science have moved on since then, and regard Darwin as a scientist who was successful at the time. Henry

Pages: (3) < 1 [2] 3 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard