Of course the real question you need to ask is not 'what is reason', cause we have a fairly good idea what it is - the question you ought to be asking is 'what is faith'.

The bible's definition of 'evidence of things not seen by which the elders obtained a good report' appears to be equivalent to 'guesses which turned out to be correct'. But then this is contingent (that is to say 'knowing something by faith' is contingent) upon subsequent corroboration of that which is taken on faith which is more often than not simply lacking.

I hate to put it bluntly, but is there a real definition of faith which isn't just equivalent to 'making shit up'?

Nice clip. But I think "reason" shouldn't be so nice to "faith". If only reason could spread a bit more... bread amongst the hungry. (In the sense that man doesn't live on bread alone.) I tend to think that people get something from faith. Not sure if reason can do that. -tgs-

Faith is belief without evidence.

faith is not making crap up, faith is holding onto the truth regardless of the opposition to it.

"faith is not making crap up, faith is holding onto the truth regardless of the opposition to it" Faith is holding on to what you claim is truth not based on evidence but on wishful thinking. I don't accept as truth crap for which there is no evidence. Just because you claim it is true doesn't make it so. It's nice that you testify to what you think is true, but that doesn't cut it. You have to give reasons why you think it is true and then we can discuss whether those reasons are good ones or not.

You will learn to quit making double comments or you will no longer be allowed to post here at all. It is not difficult. You manage it occasionally so it's not impossible even for you. Click only once even if you get an error message.

The link to the transcript is broken. Remove the cloned "

Good post, BTW.

good clip, this programme looks very interesting. any chance you could post an audio file of the entire show? or is there somewhere I can find a torrent? Cheers, D

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/index.html for the full version

http://www.pen.org/ is also a good source for more of this topic

I do not agree with him saying that reason has/is become under attack.

He is falling into the same reasoning that he is criticising faith-based belief systems for doing. That any criticism or other held beliefs are a way of attacking.

While I believe sometimes it does go far (such as violence to non-believers), I feel it is ok for them to try and demonize 'reason' all they would like.

Saying that reason is being attacked is foolish and will not help our 'cause' at all.

What people need to do is just be open about their non-faith. If a person asks you or is complaining about ungodiness, tell them what you truely believe. That you are an atheist, or agnostic, or naturalist, or whatever.

You will be surprised at the response. As I have done this, I have shown people that I am indeed a good person (normally they know me for an extended period of time before encountering such a situation), that there are a lot of atheists out there(I'll even name famous atheists, dead and alive) and even how a lot are just too scared to say anything because of the reactions they can receive(I have received bad ones, but I do not let that deter me.)

At my former work place. I would always see tons of "Jesus saves from hell." stickers on the light poles. So, I walked up and pulled them all off.

It is not a crime to take them off public property (they are defacing). I would never deface someones own bumper sticker or private property.

When I visited it again today, to speak with some friends, I saw more that had been placed up. Most of them had already been scratched off by others (hey, maybe they will continue the 'trend'), but the people got persistant and put tape over some. So I walked up, during a very busy time of day, and pulled them off and threw them away.

Oh, and if the good man had told of examples of violence against non-religious people for their beliefs, I would of been fine with the attacking us arguement. But he went into how others oppose it.

Faith is essential to life. Otherwise we'd know everything. Sounds !@#$-ing boring.

There's faith and then there's faiths: there's different types of faith. I think it's important to make a distinction. For one, the idea of faith, as confident believe in the truth of a thing, is something we laypeople do all the time--especially with science. We have faith that the scientific method filters out inconsitencies till we understand the essence of a thing, which is a pretty overwhelming task, as even observing something changes the nature of it. It answers the questions plaguing us--about our own world--by the process of elimination. However, as the most worthless phrase in the human language is studys have shown, science is not infalable, though we sometimes treat it as such.

Also to have faith in a truth of a people. Like Norm here: I have faith that everytime I come onto this blog there will be some snippet of which will be new and intellegent. I think that faith needs reason, reason needs faith. However, if you rely on one over the other, then you're following something with a certain blindness that needs to continuously be proven--at all costs.

Marco,

You, as well as so many other people, are committing the common "fallacy of equivocation" on the word, "Faith."

Mary Gordon also committed it early in this program.

To use the word, 'Faith,' as if it meant 'confidence,' and then say that something akin to, "we all have confidence in X" equivocates because it uses the word, 'faith' in the vulgar sense, whereas the denotative meaning of 'faith,' is "Proof without evidence."

Even the oft-flimsy definitions in Webster's gets this one right (Def. 2b)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

People use this to make the point that "scientists/atheists/infidels have faith too." This is erroneous. When people do this, it is usually with a story like, “I have faith that my house will exist tomorrow.” The problem becomes evident when, furthermore, 'faith,' becomes synonymous with 'evidence.' That is, then you have had evidence repeatedly over and over that your house exists/will pee after drinking lots of water/etc., and thus now you have 'faith' (“confidence”) that it will do so again.

Hence, people conclude to think that ‘faith’ is necessary to a scientific enterprise (one that relies on evidence).

Not so.

Rational methods of inquiry use evidence, reason, skepticism, and other incredulous ways of knowing.

‘Faith’ means to hold to something/someone without hard ground, precondition, or contrary reason(s). It is from this that we get the synonym of 'faith' with other touchy-feely, ego-affirmative theistic language ‘confidence,’ ‘trust,’ ‘hope,’ 'loyalty,' ‘belief,’ etc.

Faith is belief without evidence, viz. conclusion without premises - amounting to rhetoric and sophistry - the opposite of an epistemologically naturalistic enterprise.

See: http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-chat/1050519/posts

Duncan, you are probably thinking of Hebrews 11:1-2, which is in accomodation with what you say:

"Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen. Because of it the ancients were well attested." (Heb. 11:1-2)

• Matt

Faith is essential to life. Otherwise we'd know everything.

Come again?

Faith is essential to life. Otherwise we'd know everything.

Honestly, I see no connection between these two sentences. Namely, because you have made none. There is no reasoning (pun not intended) behind it, no logical progression of thoughts. Just an informal proof is all I mean, of the sort you see in any essay: If A, then B, if B, then C, if C, then my thesis is valid. Your basic argumentative construction.

Unfortunately, you've left things at an unfinished stage, cutting out all the inbetween, and simply handing us "Exhibit A" and the conclusion. It would be like saying: "My roses are wilted. Italy won the World Cup."

The average reaction would be "Huh"? Because there is no correlation between two apparently unrelated statements.

I can only speculate as to your embryonic thoughts upon this subject. You apparently feel quite strongly about it, but your understanding of your position is still quite vague. I'd have to guess you're going for some sort of "a person's purpose in life is to seek knowledge" kind of a thing, but even that may be farther than what you meant.

Sounds !@#$-ing confusing.

There's faith and then there's faiths: there's different types of faith.

"there are" or "there're". Sorry. This is really just a pet peeve on my part.

I think it's important to make a distinction. For one, the idea of faith, as confident believe in the truth of a thing, is something we laypeople do all the time--especially with science.

The issue of laypeople attempting to understand science, or claiming to hold superiority over it, is a troubling development in its own regard. A recent example would be the global warming "debate." The word conjures up images of fiery battles between opposing schools of thought, with one side the eventual, and battered, victor. In truth, this "debate" has long since been settled among all peer-reviewed scientific publications, and all qualified scientists.

But the politicians and the entrenched interests (and if you enjoy cheap gas, you should count yourself among their number) continue to throw out this straw man, to confuse the public and maintain the status quo.

Your laypeople may depend on "faith", especially in regards to how they view and portray science (especially that of the "mad" variety), but this ultimately boils down to a perversion of facts too complex for the unwilling to comprehend.

We have faith that the scientific method filters out inconsitencies till we understand the essence of a thing

Now you're just reaching into your grab-bag of thesaurus phrases. "We have faith", "we place trust in", etc. are all common phrases of contemporary English. However, they are not used in scientific publications, except in an editiorial or explanatory form, for one simple reason: English is not logical.

The true (and here we see the vagaries of English once again. By 'true', I mean valid for scientific discourse, and not 'ready for textbook publication') scientific findings and conclusions are presented in a compact, logic-based format that would appear an incomprehensible code to the layman. Mathmatical formulas the level of calculus and higher are used freely, because there is no better, simpler way to transcribe these facts, conclusions, and ideas. Every sentence is carefully chosen from the vast but inconsistent fields of the English language so as to leave no hole unparsed.

which is a pretty overwhelming task, as even observing something changes the nature of it.

As if by Providence, (pun fully intended) the very same sentence provides me with the exact sort of gross oversimplification I just referred to.

Namely, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies directly only to matter at the subatomic level. And if you could apply principles of quantum mechanics to the macroscopic so easily, Schrödinger's cat wouldn't still be a topic of discussion.

It answers the questions plaguing us--about our own world--by the process of elimination.

Q.E.D.

However, as the most worthless phrase in the human language is "studies have shown", science is not infallible, although we sometimes treat it as such. (Edited for clarity)

Again, we slip not into scientific inconsistencies, but into the failures of laymen to properly interpret science. The media (and there is another topic independently worthy of discussion) does indeed cite scientific publications on a regular basis. However, they also cite sub-scientific studies, where trials have been carried out using scientific methods (double-blind testing, large testing populations, etc.), as being Scientific.

In truth, these studies may be commissioned by governments or corporations, and be insufficiently removed from bias, or their methods may not hold up to "n-decimal point" scrutiny. This is in the same vein as the "4 out of 5 dentists recommend" trash that is always being used to sell products. If an actor in a lab coat tells you it runs cleaner, it must be true, right?

Also to have faith in a truth of a people. Like Norm here: I have faith that everytime I come onto this blog there will be some snippet of which will be new and intellegent.

You may have faith, an irrational belief, that Norm will post again. You may base that off of previous experiences (look at the archive). You can even reasonably infer that he will post in the future (he must be paying heaps for all this bandwidth, he wouldn't let it go to waste). But ultimately, you do not have a Truth. There is no rock-solid reason that Norm will act the same way in the future as he has in the past. Your belief that he will, is just that. A belief.

I think that faith needs reason, reason needs faith.

Faith certainly does not need reason. In the Norm-posting example above, I offered up past behavior as a "reason" for future behavior. But it is not binding.

You could Beleive that puppies will fall out of the sky and eradicate poverty and disease tomorrow.

You could Beleive that armed terrorists are waiting at home to kill you and your family.

You could Beleive that the Prophet Steve and his UFO of Salvation will come and take you away to a better planet.

Each of these has varying degrees of "reason" in them, but ultimately none is dependent on it.

However, if you rely on one over the other, then you're following something with a certain blindness that needs to continuously be proven--at all costs.

But that IS science. There are no holy cows. If you can find a way to disprove gravity, and you can repeat it, and scientists around the world can repeat it, then they'll be rewriting the textbooks in a few years.

Science has no need or use for belief. Everything is up for grabs, provided you have the sufficient heft of proof to dislodge or reinterpret all the previous evidence.

I think the line between faith and reason is blurring. After all, the objection to evolution is based on "reason." The IDers claim it is the evolutionists not looking at the evidence. What better proof does one need than "God said he did it this way!" This, to them, is a well-reasoned argument, logically and empirically proven. Any "evidence" to the contrary MUST be wrong and "faith-based" (they often claim evolution is "faith-based"), as to hold on to an opinion in opposition to God Almighty is not looking at the "facts," as they see them.

It is not "faith" to them. It is "fact" (see Stipe's remarks). Not that long ago, I got into a discussion with a friend of mine on the subject of religion (she is a devout, evangelical Christian). At one point, I asked her why I shouldn't believe the Muslim faith (hey, in this country, it's on people's minds. that's the only reason I have for choosing that religion as an example), and she responded that "everyone knows Muhommed was a dangerous madman! No one in their right mind would follow something that so contradicted the bible!" When I pointed out that the bible was not the word of god to them, she became incensed and insisted "that's their problem! They're ignoring the evidence!"

It degenerated from there. Let's just say I'm "Demon-Infested," and will one day recant my "lies" (you see, in her mind, I cannot actually BELIEVE what I am saying, as I'm not stupid. Therefore I must be "lying"). The good news is, she is convinced her faith is strong enough to drive out my demons, and will continue speaking to me.

When I was in high school, I was offered a chance to debate the existence of god with the head of our school's bible club. I accepted, until I heard of their "restriction:" "You may only use bible passages as examples. It's the only truth needed." They called me "chicken" when I backed down.

We can't continue to request reason from them. In their minds, we're the ones being unreasonable. You want more proof? Pick up Ann Coulter's book. The entire premise is that "the Liberals" have created their own church, contrary to "god"'s wishes, and must be eliminated because of this blasphemy. Many, many, many people think this is a well-reasoned argument.

I'm just saying that, sad as it is, words like "fact", "evidence", and "reason" are subjective terms these days.

How do we fix this? I wish I knew. Until we solve it, however, I might very well start preaching on street corners, and demand that the government stop taxing me. After all, I'm practicing "faith."

Faith is essential to life. Otherwise we'd know everything.

Marco, logic and reason do not claim to know everything. On the contrary, beliefs and believers usually claim to not only know the “truth”, but the “absolute truth” in the universe. Only a believer could pretend to know about absolutes, something not even in principle testable for mortal humans. It’s not just religious belief, its any belief system though religion provides the most dangerous kinds.

Instead of owning beliefs, we can utilize hypothesis, theory, and models to make predictions about things in the world. In its semantic form, we can replace "belief" words with "thinking" words which better describes the formation of our ideas. We can use our imaginations to create new hypothesis towards desired goals. The wonder of the universe gives us a powerful feeling of inquisitiveness. Certainly we will fail sometimes, but disowning beliefs allows us to correct our mistakes without submitting our ideas to years or centuries of traditional time consuming barriers. Theory coupled with imagination can yield inventive thoughts and points of views.

By further understanding our language and eliminating unworkable essence words, we can communicate without resorting to preconceived ideas based on past beliefs. Our feeling of wonder about the universe provides us the fuel for exploration; how much more magnificent the results from useful thoughts than ones based on faith.

faith is not the same as conditioning.

one does not take the rising of the sun on faith. it happened yesterday, and every day before. there's no reason to have faith, because there is evidence of a pattern.

faith, real faith, is the belief in something that is not manifest, for which there is no evidence.

i know this isn't as difficult a concept as some people make it out to be. are they being deliberately obtuse?

Ricky Gervais on creationism. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I&search=gervais%20animals

faith does not rely on an absence of evidence, in fact it is reasonable to conclude that faith without evidence is worthless.

I tried posting this an hour ago, but it doesn't seem to have "taken"

Faith is essential to life. Otherwise we'd know everything.

Come again?

Faith is essential to life. Otherwise we'd know everything.

Honestly, I see no connection between these two sentences. Namely, because you have made none. There is no reasoning (pun not intended) behind it, no logical progression of thoughts. Just an informal proof is all I mean, of the sort you see in any essay: If A, then B, if B, then C, if C, then my thesis is valid. Your basic argumentative construction.

Unfortunately, you've left things at an unfinished stage, cutting out all the inbetween, and simply handing us "Exhibit A" and the conclusion. It would be like saying: "My roses are wilted. Italy won the World Cup."

The average reaction would be "Huh"? Because there is no correlation between two apparently unrelated statements.

I can only speculate as to your embryonic thoughts upon this subject. You apparently feel quite strongly about it, but your understanding of your position is still quite vague. I'd have to guess you're going for some sort of "a person's purpose in life is to seek knowledge" kind of a thing, but even that may be farther than what you meant.

Sounds !@#$-ing confusing.

There's faith and then there's faiths: there's different types of faith.

"there are" or "there're". Sorry. This is really just a pet peeve on my part.

I think it's important to make a distinction. For one, the idea of faith, as confident believe in the truth of a thing, is something we laypeople do all the time--especially with science.

The issue of laypeople attempting to understand science, or claiming to hold superiority over it, is a troubling development in its own regard. A recent example would be the global warming "debate." The word conjures up images of fiery battles between opposing schools of thought, with one side the eventual, and battered, victor. In truth, this "debate" has long since been settled among all peer-reviewed scientific publications, and all qualified scientists.

But the politicians and the entrenched interests (and if you enjoy cheap gas, you should count yourself among their number) continue to throw out this straw man, to confuse the public and maintain the status quo.

Your laypeople may depend on "faith", especially in regards to how they view and portray science (especially that of the "mad" variety), but this ultimately boils down to a perversion of facts too complex for the unwilling to comprehend.

We have faith that the scientific method filters out inconsitencies till we understand the essence of a thing

Now you're just reaching into your grab-bag of thesaurus phrases. "We have faith", "we place trust in", etc. are all common phrases of contemporary English. However, they are not used in scientific publications, except in an editiorial or explanatory form, for one simple reason: English is not logical.

The true (and here we see the vagaries of English once again. By 'true', I mean valid for scientific discourse, and not 'ready for textbook publication') scientific findings and conclusions are presented in a compact, logic-based format that would appear an incomprehensible code to the layman. Mathmatical formulas the level of calculus and higher are used freely, because there is no better, simpler way to transcribe these facts, conclusions, and ideas. Every sentence is carefully chosen from the vast but inconsistent fields of the English language so as to leave no hole unparsed.

which is a pretty overwhelming task, as even observing something changes the nature of it.

As if by Providence, (pun fully intended) the very same sentence provides me with the exact sort of gross oversimplification I just referred to.

Namely, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies directly only to matter at the subatomic level. And if you could apply principles of quantum mechanics to the macroscopic so easily, Schrödinger's cat wouldn't still be a topic of discussion.

It answers the questions plaguing us--about our own world--by the process of elimination.

Q.E.D.

However, as the most worthless phrase in the human language is "studies have shown", science is not infallible, although we sometimes treat it as such. (Edited for clarity)

Again, we slip not into scientific inconsistencies, but into the failures of laymen to properly interpret science. The media (and there is another topic independently worthy of discussion) does indeed cite scientific publications on a regular basis. However, they also cite sub-scientific studies, where trials have been carried out using scientific methods (double-blind testing, large testing populations, etc.), as being Scientific.

In truth, these studies may be commissioned by governments or corporations, and be insufficiently removed from bias, or their methods may not hold up to "n-decimal point" scrutiny. This is in the same vein as the "4 out of 5 dentists recommend" trash that is always being used to sell products. If an actor in a lab coat tells you it runs cleaner, it must be true, right?

Also to have faith in a truth of a people. Like Norm here: I have faith that everytime I come onto this blog there will be some snippet of which will be new and intellegent.

You may have faith, an irrational belief, that Norm will post again. You may base that off of previous experiences (look at the archive). You can even reasonably infer that he will post in the future (he must be paying heaps for all this bandwidth, he wouldn't let it go to waste). But ultimately, you do not have a Truth. There is no rock-solid reason that Norm will act the same way in the future as he has in the past. Your belief that he will, is just that. A belief.

I think that faith needs reason, reason needs faith.

Faith certainly does not need reason. In the Norm-posting example above, I offered up past behavior as a "reason" for future behavior. But it is not binding.

You could Beleive that puppies will fall out of the sky and eradicate poverty and disease tomorrow.

You could Beleive that armed terrorists are waiting at home to kill you and your family.

You could Beleive that the Prophet Steve and his UFO of Salvation will come and take you away to a better planet.

Each of these has varying degrees of "reason" in them, but ultimately none is dependent on it.

However, if you rely on one over the other, then you're following something with a certain blindness that needs to continuously be proven--at all costs.

But that IS science. There are no holy cows. If you can find a way to disprove gravity, and you can repeat it, and scientists around the world can repeat it, then they'll be rewriting the textbooks in a few years.

Science has no need or use for belief. Everything is up for grabs, provided you have the sufficient heft of proof to dislodge or reinterpret all the previous evidence.

I know it may be pointless to argue semantics when debating the English language has little bearing on the larger issues at hand, however I see a distinct difference between "belief" and "faith".

Belief is a somewhat informal and less evidense-driven hypothesis. You have beliefs in your life based upon observations or experiences you have had, however subjective it may be. The truth or factuality of these experiences is irrelevant; the point is, belief is based off of SOMETHING. Logically speaking, it may or may not be valid: I observe x. Therefore I conclude y. The logical validity depends on whether or not x leads to y. This is how scientists can have beliefs about the natural world, not claiming them to be absolutly true unless it is proven that x leads to y. Religiously speaking, the same applies. Whether x actually leads to y is irrelevant - but y is based off of x nonetheless. The Ancient Greeks had a belief system surrounding their natural world - every storm, every disaster, every natural act was explained as the will of the many gods above. We know that these gods are not in fact causing changes in weather, but rather weather is caused by air and ocean circulation of heat and moisture. In this case their religion was developed to explain the world around them. It was based upon those observations.

Faith is a different beast. Faith does not involve observation or experiences, but rather blind insistance regardless of facts or experiences presented to oneself. If there was an equation for it:

[anything], therefore y. [nothing], therefore y. [-y], therefore y.

Regardless of the logic, facts, or reason used to affect or disprove y, y persists because the person of faith sayes so. Period. I am sure that many people of such faith argue that they have seen or experienced something to convince them that their faith is fact, however it tends to boil down to their desire to see what they want to see. Here faith exists before 'observation' and persists regardles of it. I would argue, that faith is not a necessary component of religion. Belief, yes. But faith has served a purpose in organized religion as long as it has been coupled with government, and that is control. If every individual developed their 'beliefs' by their own accord, 'faith' would not exist, nor would it be necessary for an organized religion. Just a thought!

Erick,

I follow you. (AsinineAmerican, I'm not readin' your extensive tome. Sorry. I have a life.)

In its semantic form, we can replace "belief" words with "thinking" words which better describes the formation of our ideas.

I agree with this. However, there are some things we will never prove and may never be able to prove till we evolve to a higher level.

You cannot prove a negative. You cannot go into a room and say there are no needles in here. Just like you cannot prove there are no influences beyond our comprehension.

I'm not advocating traditional ideas of faith. As Mary Gordon said, absolute faith is an addiction. Or, 'tell me what to think.' However, I'm saying faith is important to me as a metaphysical explianation for, what is currently, unexplanable. We might be able to find answers to these, but in the mean time, I rely on a certain amount of belief without seeing. However, as Ms. Gordon and Salman Rushdie pointed out, Faith without doubt is a tool for the powerful. When faith comes into the argument, then it can't be questioned, which is (a metaphorical) evil.

EXCELLENT POST NORM!

My belief is that themes present in 90% of the world's religions will some day have scientific evidence to support them. We simply lack certain observational tools as Tesla lacked an Oscilliscope and so used his own body to test current, inventing using Faith and Reason (informed intuition).

Religions (like all socially impacting organizations) should never be protected from scrutiny. Churches fuck up because people fuck up. Scrutinizing them can only make them stronger and the Faithful should recognize this and embrace it.

btw: I'm not saying "someday people will walk on water" but I am saying that someday we may discover some odd bio-current in our bodies that is sensitive to other currents. Perhaps that synchs up with a global current like objects with sympathetic frequencies (tuning forks). Thus "souls" and "great spirit", etc.

AsinineAmerican, I'm not readin' your extensive tome

What a chicken shit response Marco.

Hey Marco

Here's another symptom of an "Unknowing Believer"

Symbolic Dismissiveness of a Critic.

Any point you were trying to was rendered useless because you couldn't handle a rational argument.

shudder

how about we deal with whats bugging us today rather than waiting or wishing wed evolve so we could deal with it a little better .. ?

"(AsinineAmerican, I'm not readin' your extensive tome. Sorry. I have a life.)"

I believe he has a life as well ... Hopefully still anyways.

That is the most absurd arguement ever, and probably points out a major problem with society.

They do not wish to read or spend time on a subject. They would rather get it condensed in a short 3 sentences.

Why is this a problem? Well, it is hard to explain all of science and how it works in such a small space.

Richard P. Feynman has written and spoke about this problem (I've read it in a book about him called, Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track). Not so much about how people have a lack of attention span, but that when trying to explain something new to someone, they must know the extensive (200+ years) amount of backlog science has built up. It is extremely hard for them to understand it elsewise.

Many scientist do not publish to the immediate mass media press as they are either to busy with there work or do not wish to as they do not see it as their 'problem'. They of course do sometimes, but the majority of the time you are getting people that have close to no knowledge on the subject or even the scientific process. This can add a lot of misconceptions about certain theories and the processes which can screw up peoples view points.

"how about we deal with whats bugging us today rather than waiting or wishing wed evolve so we could deal with it a little better .. ?"

I do not think that scientist or people that believe in evolution are waiting for ourselves to evolve ... Mainly because they actually understand the fundamentals of it and realize that it takes hundreds of thousands of years and we are only on this planet as single individuals of a maximum of about 120 or so. Though, I am assuming that is what you meant when you said 'wishing wed [sic] evolve'. Disregard if that was not what you meant.

Many people believe that evolution is going towards some 'godly' creature. That there will be a perfect creature.

Besides perfect being subjective, evolution has no 'goal.'

Evolution normally occurs when there is pressure from the enviroment to do such. If a creature becomes almost perfectly adapted to its current space in the world, it has no 'pressure' to evolve. Slight changes might happen, but it will not normally go far unless it starts to change.

http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/teaching/te2.htm

Has more links and better explanations that I can write up, and I urge you to read it even if you think you know about evolution.

I thought I understood it but was sorely mistaken when I read through misconceptions awhile back.

Cheers.

of course if something requires 200 years of knowledge then it is going to be largely incomprehensible. yet the truth is the simplist of things .. even a child can understand true things. in fact they are the best scientific test of all..

the only problem is it requires the total enslavement of every facet of your life ...

not many want to admit that they are wrong.

'it' in the second paragraph there refers to 'the truth' ... i'll need to learn to edit better...

Stipe, the amount of pabulum you attempt to feed us in six sentences is astounding.

"Of course if something requires 200 years of knowledge then it is going to be largely incomprehensible."

A disingenuous statement, at best. It twists, out of context, vonmeth's statement, and uses it to imply that scientific knowledge is so far beyond mere mortals as to be pointless.

I disagree with its pointlessness, although I understand the frustration.

"Yet the truth is the simplest of things"

Really? There's only one truth I need to know? And it's simple?

My bullshit detector is going off, but it has been wrong before, so let's continue . . .

"Even a child can understand true things"

Not every child can understand differential calculus, but I'm sure at least one could.

Of course, if you lie to a child, you're likely to be believed, too.

I suspect you're insulting me. It certainly smells like an insult. You seem to be implying that, if I don't accept this "truth" you are hinting at, then I am not as smart as a child.

"In fact, they [children] are the best scientific test of all".

Ever play "Got yer nose!" with a child? The first time I tried it on my little sister, she ran screaming to her room. Did she bother to look in a mirror? No.

I felt terrible, but that is neither here nor there.

The point is, children are a test of squat. They're gullible in the extreme, and anything that promises candy or punishment can sway them, whether it's true or not. Isn't that why we tell them to beware of strangers?

Now I'm genuinely suspicious of this "truth" of yours. If children are its best test, then I can only suspect that means you want no test performed.

"the only problem is that the truth requires the total enslavement of every facet of your life"

To be polite, I will start with a rather broad interpretation of what you said and agree. Yes, every truth rules over every one of us. No matter how much free will I throw at a truth, it's going to remain a truth.

That, however, is a let-down. By your build-up, I was expecting a "Eureka!" moment of clarity, insight, and truth. Instead, I get fed something I've known for a long time. You're right, though. A child knows this.

Were you trying to make a religious point? I rather suspect you were. If that's the case, I have a bit of advice: When trying to convert an atheist, the last thing you want to do is compare your religion to enslavement.

How can you compare your religion to enslavement, and not expect us to think religious people are nuts?

"Not many want to admit that they are wrong"

Granted I wouldn't like it, but I would admit it if I was proven wrong. I'm not making the claims, here. You are. How about leaving the pseudo-intellectual tomfoolery somewhere else and offering me some proof?

If you have more than two paragraphs to write, then give me a ring. Otherwise, take your medication.

Marco, it takes a lot more than a couple of paragraphs to really understand anything. Those with attention deficit disorder can't make their way through any complex thought process, and they are the ones who need to take their medication.

Sorry, Jo-jo, I wasn't paying attention. What did you say?

In the hours since I wrote my comments in response to Stipe, I have been thinking about the tactics I used. They were a little lacking.

I called Stipe's comments, "pabulum", "disingenuous", "pseudo-intellectual tomfoolery", and, if you stretch my intent a bit, "crazy."

I apologize. I was frustrated at the implication that, because I do not believe the way he does, I am not as smart as a child. Still, this is not an excuse, and there is no good excuse to have done what I did.

I stand by my analysis and conclusions, but regret the name calling. That's no way to win friends and influence people.

So, I apologize.

The problem these debates have is that proponents of faith and "reason" (for lack of a better term) often encroach on each other's turf. The latter does this just as often as the former.

To say thaot gravity is a matter of faith is foolish, it is a clear demonstation of scientific theory in action. We experience gravity every day.

We have not, however, experienced a wormhole, as far as we know. In fact, we've never seen one. Detected one. Proved it exists. Their existence is a theory (in the kind of way ID proponents would say "it's just a theory") or in other words it's a matter of faith that they exist. You can justify your faith with a math formula if you like, but we still have not "observed" it.

My Christian faith is a very reasonable thing to me. It guides my life in many ways (none of which the people in this site really care about).

Another problem that makes this debate worse is that the proponents of "reason" never admit they are wrong. Ever. That thing about scientists having the equivalent of a peer-reviewed consensus about the Earth being flat hundreds of years ago? They say we just found new data.

Well yes, and you were also wrong. People of "reason" should admit when they are wrong, it will take a lot of the anger out of the purely faith based types.

Religion will have an easier time staying on its side of the fence if science manages to do the same: sticking to what's observable and keeping its mouth shut about what they are "certain" about until it is.

As a demonstration that I do not have science, Norm, I hope you don't mind, I'd like to plug my blog recent articles on my trip to the Field Museum in Chicago. Flame away.

http://nominalme.blogspot.com/2006/05/evolving-planet-at-field-museum-part-i.html

http://nominalme.blogspot.com/2006/05/evolving-planet-at-field-museum-part_31.html

http://nominalme.blogspot.com/2006/05/evolving-planet-at-field-museum-part.html

Sorry if the plug was out of line Norm, feel free to edit it out if it is.

Another problem that makes this debate worse is that the proponents of "reason" never admit they are wrong. Ever

If a proponent of reason does not admit that they are wrong, when they really are wrong, then they are de facto not proponents of reason.

grin im off home as soon as possible to look up the meaning of "pabulum".

Of course if something requires 200 years of knowledge then it is going to be largely incomprehensible. not a disingenuous statement, at all. If people are expected to either take experts at their word or to undertake years of study themselves, that is an unfair demand.

i reserve the right to disagree with any and all theories on life and the universe based on what i believe and who i trust. the alternatives (studying exhaustively or accepting blindly) are respectively impossible and unacceptable.

scientific knowledge is not far beyond mere mortals as to be pointless. extensive theories are. im not one who thinks that its even necessary to try and explain everything .. though there is nothing inherently wrong about getting as much right as possible.

yes the truth is the simplest of things and there's only one truth ... and it's simple. your b.s. meter is broken.

no not every child can understand differential calculus .. but my comments regarding childlike acceptance are based on faith .. not theory.

i try to avoid insults, but i will say that to accept the truth i propose requires a 'setting aside' of intellect and reason much like becomming a child again.

the point is, children are a test of faith. they accept what they hear on trust and faith whether it's true or not. that is exactly why we tell them to beware of strangers.

you are right to be suspicious of this "truth" i promote. children are its best test, and the only way to test it is to offer it to someone and watch their response. would you mind if i offered you a small piece and see what response there is?

be warned - accepting this requires the total enslavement of every facet of your life. you are required to set aside your own understanding and wisdom in favour of the wisdom and intellect of the creator of the universe.

its easier if you understand that humans are, to the individual, broken and incapable of correct analysis.

noted this is a very unpopular stance to take when you have to insist that one must reject findings that do not line up with a biblical account.

please be advised .. im not trying to make a religious point .. my ideas should all be totally evident in human behaviour and general observation .. everything i say should have a basis in reality .. and i will accept any honest challenge to what i believe and answer it in the same manner.

your advice is noted, but when trying to convert an atheist i have to be honest .. what i promote is foolishness to anyone who does not trust god. but as i trust god, handing every part of my life over to him not only makes perfect sense, but in fact is the only fulfilled existence.

i cant compare what i believe to enslavement and not expect you to think i am nuts. but you do me a disservice when you call it religious. religion is something one does when one does not know what else to do.

i cant leave the tomfoolery somewhere else and offer you proof beyond pointing at things in creation that back up what im saying. if you wish to discuss how creation meshes perfectly with faith against how naturalism explains faith then im all ears.

if indeed im still able to post here.

i promise i always push post only once...

Faith is a fact. Oh no! Did I just say faith is a fact? I meant a facet.

Mike, I'm downright confused when you say that science is overstepping its bounds. What in the universe is not open to testing and observation? Are we supposed to stop at some point and say, "that's the territory of the gods"? What authority figure gets to make that decision?

Do I need to explain how DEEPLY insulting it is to say there are things I have no right to try to understand?

Do you really so misunderstand what a "theory" is that you equate it with "faith"? There are fine definitions of "faith" floating around this comment thread, and your blog on the Field Museum indicated you've been exposed to what "theory" means. I'm not going to bother with it.

The earth is round. Some scientists thought it was flat, other scientists proved them wrong. If it had been doctrine, then no one would have challenged the theory in the first place. When proven wrong, the scientists changed their mind. If scientists never admitted they were wrong, we'd still have "flat-earth scientists", and it would be all of them.

Religion will have an easier time staying on its side of the fence if science manages to do the same: sticking to what's observable and keeping its mouth shut about what they are "certain" about until it is.

What a ridiculous statement. What is it about Christians that they have such a persecution complex despite the fact they are the majority religion in this country?

That argument they use about being so persecuted is so tiresome and tedious. Being told you are wrong is not persecution—it is honesty. Grow up and get an real and substantive education. Stop believing in lies and sophistry and maybe we won’t “pick on you” by continuing to tell you you’re wrong. Oh, and please stop trying to shove your religious-based pseudo-science into the study of science in our public schools and public debate about scientific discoveries.

Someone above put it correctly about the false "conflicts" that are created by "the faithful" because they wish to be included in arguments in which they have ZERO epistemological credibility.

Worse, corporate sophists masquerading as scientists help to denigrate science by creating bullshit counter-claims and another "conflicts" with accepted science in order to promote the narrow self-interest of corporate profits. That is for another discussion, however.

Religions jump the fence for far less credible reasons than the pursuit of economic self-interest. They do it to protect their dogma, false and specious and childish though it may be. They do it because they refuse to let go of the myths and fairy tales to which they cling with their "faith."

Jumping the fence? Oh, how the "faithful" do that all the time. They have no problem not "sticking to what's observable and keeping its mouth shut about what they are "certain" about until it is," as the commenter "Mike" so adamantly sneered.

Like the phony GRAND debate over evolution versus—say, what are the Bible-thumpers calling their pseudo-scientific sophistry vis-à-vis the origin of life these days? Creationism? Intelligent Design? God-a-lution? Talk about jumping the fence, Mike; how about religious people jumping the fence here?

There is no scientific debate about the grand theory of evolution. All credible scientists agree that, based on the continuing evidence produced by fossil records, genetics, and other scientific discoveries in about a gazillion different scientific disciplines, evolution is consistently provable by scientific method, MUCH MORE SO than just about every other grand scientific theory (such as, for instance, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)

The only "debate" here is created by fundamentalist and evangelical Christian religious sects who use sophistry, pseudo-science, and outright lying to force their views on the uneducated and undereducated audience to which they preach. Talk about jumping the fence!

Just ask the federal judge in Dover, PA who ruled against the inclusion of "Intelligent Design" in public school curriculum. He found that the ID and Creationism proponents were LYING about their intent: they were NOT trying to further science, they were promoting their religion, and they were LYING about that in the most repugnantly disingenuous manner possible.

Science and scientists don't "jump over the fence" to interfere with religions nearly as much as knee-jerk religions do it to interfere with science and the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists are, more than anything, just the messengers of the scientific conclusions they spend years discovering.

Religions, however, jump the fence all the time to interfere and meddle with the pursuit of knowledge, especially when such knowledge is antithetical to narrow, stupid, outrageous, childish, silly, and completely specious religious "faiths" and dogma.

Look, most intelligent and thoughtful people believe that everyone has the right to practice any religious faith. I, for one, despite being an atheist, believe that my fellow citizens should have the right to practice any faith, and I am willing to defend that right with every fiber of my being.

But what I DO NOT, and WILL NOT do, is respect the faiths being practiced, especially when people of that faith meddle in the pursuit of knowledge like the "faithful" did in Dover, PA.

The scientists and other progressive thinkers who "jumped over the fence" to defend evolution in the Dover case used reason, scientific data, and other rational methods to state their case. The "faithful" of Dover (and the religious-based "science" organizations that backed them) weren't even honest about their intentions, let alone their so-called "science."

So you be the judges about this "fence-jumping" thing.

Stipe:

“Pabulum” is my favorite word. I love the spelling, the way it rolls off the tongue. Frankly, I find excuses to use it. I’m glad you did not take offense.

I took your comment as “disingenuous” because of the way I interpreted it as “It’s too difficult to understand all of science, so don’t try. Instead, rely on blind faith!” I was wondering if I had misinterpreted, but in your newest comment, you still offer no alternative to blind faith, and even offer the creepy line, “. . . but I will say that to accept the truth I propose requires a ‘setting aside’ of intellect and reason, much like becoming a child again.” If this isn’t an advocacy for blind faith, I don’t know what is.

I’m not big on blind faith. In fact, I’m so against faith that I think the phrase “blind faith” is redundant. I have my own theory of how the universe started (Here’s a hint: There was never a “before the universe” moment). It is logically consistent, and as far as I can tell at least one physicist agrees with me, but I do not have faith in it. If someone came along with better proof that something else was going on, I’d adjust my view and move on. Hell, frankly if someone came to me with proof of a god, I’d adjust my view and move on. I’m not really emotionally tied to the notion one way or the other. Of course, the deity whose existence was proven might provoke a strong emotional reaction in me, but you get the idea.

You speak a lot on the subject of suspending reason and rejecting “findings when they do not line up with biblical account”, as if your faith were more true to you than something you can hold in your hand. I admit I admire your dedication, but I simply cannot give up my logic and reasoning skills. I need something I can hold in my hand that proves the existence of a god (PLEASE not a banana. It’s a really, really stupid, easily dismissed argument). Not literally, of course, but something tangible. Anything that proves your assertion that there is only “one simple truth” I need to know.

Later on, you say: “I reserve the right to disagree with any and all theories on life and the universe based on what I believe and who I trust. The alternatives (studying exhaustively or accepting blindly) are respectively impossible and unacceptable.” Now, this is your right. You are a grown adult. Knock yourself out. It is nothing more than saying "I rely on blind faith, but I don't rely on blind faith", but, as I said, you are an adult. The question becomes, however, how do we raise the children? Do we teach them the “theory” that the Earth revolves around the sun. Do we only teach the bible? Or do we “teach the controversy”? Oh, and if you try to teach them it’s ok to rape your enemies’ women (hey, it’s in the bible), you and I would have to have a “talk.”

Now, that’s just in the case of Christianity. There are other faiths whose documents conflict with modern-day morals and science, and, since there’s equal proof that THEIR deity is the Big Man on Campus, we’d have to teach their faith’s version of science (I don’t know the other religions as well, although I’m sure they can be just as goofy).

Or, do we do the sensible thing and teach them true, honest reason and science only?

phil - i appreciate the candour.

please believe me when i insist that intellect and reason are vital human traits .. and the abandonment of them is the mark of an insane person. im not asking anyone to do that. what im asking is much harder.

i propose that the creator of our reason and intellect has to be trustworthy .. and the only logical action is to start our knowledge and reason with an understanding of him. unfirtunately this means giving up everything we thought we had figured out for ourselves .. even if it were somewhat correct, gods way would be totally correct.

im not big on blind faith either, but i dont find the term at all redundant. i also fail to understand how you equate my critical nature toward proposed theory as being a ambivalent use of blind faith. i wont accept what someone says just because they have spent 6 years studying it, i will analyse the situation for myself and apply their knowledge as i see fit.

when it comes to teaching my kids i will teach them as i see fit. and i will be accountable and responsible for it. and i demand nothing less from everyone else.

im going to read through your links, though i think i have a fair idea of how to respond already. trust me .. i was rejecting the banana theory 6 years ago ... i wont be mentioning it again ;)

please note - with any discussion about the bible the first thing that is always at issue is your personal relationship with god. you cannot disprove god by insisting that he is stupid or evil. that simply makes all of our existences a lot more unbearable.

your first link is about geocentricity. theyve missed a few key verses:

Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

nothing about foundations there .. the foundations spoken of must be peculiar to earth ..

this issue of foundations may find its answer in the flood account:

Genesis 6:11b on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

if the earth was on foundations that were destroyed and caused the flood then that would go a long way toward a workable earth crust theory as opposed to plate tectonics.

it would also produce a theory to explain a lot of other natural events that are seemingly unrelated and have no firm reasons at present.

unfortunately to tie all these things together requires an acceptance of biblical truth, which most people are not willing to do.

(these scientific theories are not my own)

your second link is a little more difficult to deal with calmly. my opening disclaimer remains - it is entirely illogical to try and disprove someone exists because that person is evil. that only dooms us all if the evil one is god.

i will approach this with a very sharp sword .. i do not want to get into a debate over whether god is evil or not. my only point in this post is to show that if one trusts god then that trust is not misplaced.

it will help if you can first see a few things: 1. killing people is not murder if god ordains it 2. slavery in the bible is obviously not the same as slavery today.

the first 3 examples given contain no acts of rape. the 4th and 5th examples are not acts of rape and better translations will say so. 6, 8 and 10 are the realm of human depravity and the consequences thereof. 7 and 9 are not issues of rape but rather of slavery.

all of these issues are extremely difficult to be seen justifying and i take no pleasure in doing so.

Alex –

Bravo!

Stipe –

I apologize for the delay. I am not avoiding. I had a very long day yesterday, and didn’t have a chance to respond until now.

I appreciate your bravery in defending your bible. I fully intended it to be difficult, as my intention was to have you demonstrate for me what it means to have absolute, blind faith in the inerrancy of the bible. You offer me “the one truth”. I’m going to test it, not accept it blindly. If you felt a twinge of guilt, that is your own, personal conscience asserting itself, and you reexamining your relationship with your god. Whether it brings you closer to said deity, or farther away, I applaud what was clearly you exercising free will. Maybe in a couple days, you’ll realize that your “geocentrism busting” quote didn’t contradict the previous quotes at all (they moved the damn page, but you can find it here). Then I’ll be really happy, because you’ll be using “reason”. This comment thread is about faith and reason, after all.

However, I did not intend to be cruel. If you feel I was being cruel, I truly apologize. If I ever again step beyond bounds you are comfortable with, say the word and I will back off.

Thank you for your answers, and for being so honest. Since my desire was only to see your thought processes on the subject, not question your thought processes, I will let the matter drop.

My assertions were not designed to disprove the existence of a god, and I do know that it is silly to assert something doesn’t exist simply because it is evil. If I believed evil didn’t exist, I wouldn’t be the cynical, jaded bastard I am. I haven’t begun to, nor do I ever intend to, disprove the existence of a god. I simply state that I have seen no credible evidence of a god, therefore I do not believe a god exists. It’s identical to saying “I have seen no credible evidence of alien spaceships, therefore I do not believe alien spaceships exist.” Is it my job to disprove the existence of alien spaceships, or is it the job of those who say alien spaceships exist to provide credible proof?

At any moment, aliens could land in their spaceships and dance the Macarena in downtown Detroit. A deity might make her/his/its existence known by attending a Nascar race. Both situations would surprise me, but I adapt quickly.

It’s interesting to note that 1) I would continue to believe the Macarena is an insipid dance, and 2) I would still believe Nascar races are asinine.

By the way, how can you say that the bible is inerrant, and NOT call that blind faith? It takes A LOT of faith to say a book written by dozens of men (possibly women, too. I’m not up on my biblical scholarship) thousands of years ago (not to mention told as oral history for years before that), and translated many times over until it was finally in your language is somehow the literal word of god. Which version do you believe is the literal word of god? Why? What about all the alternative (Gnostic, Coptic, etc.) texts that also claim to be about your god and Jesus, but weren't put in any version of the bible? On what evidence do you dismiss them? ( "The Holy Spirit guided them" is the same as saying "God did it" is the same as saying "I just have faith".) I don't need a detailed explanation (it would probably ramble more than I do), but I would like to (once again) get a feel for your thought processes. You say you don't rely on blind faith, yet you still haven't offered me a shred of evidence.

I agree that one should be held responsible for one’s children’s education, but let’s actually look at the situation: We have a public school system, which is necessary and valuable to our society as a whole. Everyone, of any faith (or lack thereof), is allowed to attend said public schools. I would even go so far as to say that for some people it’s the only way to have their children to be educated. What do we teach there? Do we “teach the controversy” of geology? Physics? How about, in biology, teaching that your emotions are controlled by extra-terrestrial ghosts (as the Scientologists believe)? It hasn’t been disproven, and there are a LOT of conflicting theories regarding the origin of emotion (although they all have some fundamental, non-alien, agreements that were at the very least taught in my high school). How should we teach the history of the Middle East? The bible, qur’an, and independent studies disagree on the historical existence of some figures like Muhammad and Jesus (Just to let you know, I suspect some of the “independent studies” to be absurdly dismissive of evidence, but nonetheless they disagree). Since history is a patchwork of whatever scant evidence is available, what do we do? Should they really have taught Greek mythology in my school, since I had to memorize the names of all those gods? Was that “state-supported religion”?

Like it or not, your god’s “truth” isn’t the only one claiming to be inerrant fact, and the proof of the others is just as compelling. So, we can teach ALL faiths to children, or we can simply teach proven, verifiable science and leave the supernatural to someone else.

For the record, I think Naturalism is hand-waving, feel-good nonsense, so please don’t imply I’m a Naturalist.

again. thanks you for your posts .. they read genuine .. if i can be allowed to butcher the english language like that. im going to try and write posts that refer only to concrete matters rather than waffle on about matters aethereal ... if you see me start to expound on things you cant verify please pull me up. this does go against my nature as i believe we all eventually come to a place where evidence doesnt work .. but i am going to try.

on cruelty - i dont think youre being cruel because youre citing history. im obliged to respond to history as i accept it. its always difficult though when the characters in history (who come to represent present day people) do things that are wrong. cruel would be to accuse me of the same things .. you havent done that.

on blind faith - i would appreciate if you would acknowledge that i do not promote blind faith. i have said numerous times that faith must be backed up by evidence. you can accept things on blind faith, but its generally not a very safe practice.

obviously if you accept something i say on blind faith im not going to complain too much ;)

on geocentricity - i do think a correct reading of the verses you linked to negates the idea that the bible promotes the earth as the physical center of the universe. most of the verses were about the foundations, pillars and establishment of the earth and if that is truly an internal feature of the planet then the verses have nothing to do with geocentricity.

all other references i will concede if youll concede that language today is similarly geocentric.

on bible inerrancy - i believe by faith that the bible accurately portrays history. given that we can test history i fail to see how this could be referred to as blind faith.

care needs to be taken when considering the source material against modern translations. fortunately the science of biblical scholarship is well established and largely trustworthy. most importantly the science is very accessible. i dont accept the caricature that i believe everything blindly.

every time you ask for evidence i will point to archaeology first. for every coin mentioned in the bible there is an ancient example in a collection somewhere. for many of the names in the bible there is an independant historical mention somewhere. for many of the datable events there is corroborating timeframes in other sources.

the stories told reveal authors who were speaking from within the setting or writing down their recollections of the time. this lends the stories credibility.

as with all history i regard everything presented as a story. when i read the story i am faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting different parts. when it comes to the bible i have yet to read a passage that i reject either in part or in entirety. granted many do reject the bible, but to say i accept it blindly is patently false.

on education - when i say i will take full responsibility for my childrens education (including their ability to punctuate and capitalise) i mean it. sending them off for 8 hours a day to have someone else teach them is not taking responsibility. i understand the public education system is well establised and heavily relied upon, but do not confuse what everyone else does with what i consider responsible.

finally on truth - i accept that what i call truth isn’t the only claim to inerrant fact, but the proof of others is not compelling for me. so i will teach what i believe to be right .. and i expect everyone else will do the same.

oopsy .. fixed ..

hi all, interesting stuff.

phimarlowe, you may want to mention to your evangelical friends that there are more evidence to suggest that Jesus, not Mohammad, is a dangerous madmen as cruxification is reserved for hardcore criminals, traitors and mad men during that time. And unlike Christians, Muslims have the basic courtesy to accord Jesus with respect although he was considered a rival prophet whose message was not considered mainstream by the Muslims. Kindly also remind her that faith is no excuse for bigotry, ignorance and blind hatred. She does her faith no credit.

Such faith only highlight the need for reason as faith has a tendency to promote self-righteousness, intolerance, bigotry, hatred and has led its followers to do great evil in the name of greater good.

vonmeth, there's new research to support what you said:

"Many people believe that evolution is going towards some 'godly' creature. That there will be a perfect creature.

Besides perfect being subjective, evolution has no 'goal.'

Evolution normally occurs when there is pressure from the enviroment to do such. If a creature becomes almost perfectly adapted to its current space in the world, it has no 'pressure' to evolve. Slight changes might happen, but it will not normally go far unless it starts to change."

I'm hoping Norm will post the link to the article in a new thread, so I will just leave an exerpt here on what happened to the finches on Galapagos Island after the time of Darwin.

"In 1982 a breeding population of large ground finches, Geospiza magnirostris, arrived on the island and began competing for the large seeds of the Tribulus plants. G. magnirostris was able to break open and eat these seeds three times faster than G. fortis, depleting the supply of these seeds. In 2003 and 2004 little rain fell, further reducing the food supply. The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds. That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation, Grant explained in a recorded statement made available by Science."

sorry for the typo:

Stipe, I do think your faith is wrong. But not hers.

Mary's comment about the power trip that faith gives to faithful is being insightful.

It highlights clearly why the faithful is always so defensive i.e. with their claims of being persecuted or stubborn as they do not want to relinguish their power over non-faithful whom them believe they can save as long as these non-faithful believe everything the faithful wants them to believe.

They over-glorify their self-proclaimed roles as messengers of God, i think.

kes .. how about you mention that Jesus, not Mohammad, was a dangerous madmen as cruxification is reserved for hardcore criminals. i dont argue that your version of the story does not follow logically.

your idea that muslims have the basic courtesy to accord Jesus with respect is completely bizarre in that context though. do you credit muslims with some virtue christians dont have because they respect a madman?

please be consistant in your rejection of jesus as god.

i'll reserve any comment on the evolution aspects mentioned for a more appropriate thread. sorry, i missed the responses to my earlier posts.

Ironic?

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21. (KJV)

The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. – Proverbs 14:15. (KJV)

The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. (Proverbs 18:15)

Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD (Isaiah 1:18)

Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I directed my mind to know, to investigate, and to seek wisdom and an explanation, and to know the evil of folly and the foolishness of madness. (Ecclesiastes 7:25)

once bitten, twice shy ..

thrice bitten and ...

what?

Stipe –

We’re soon going to get into difficulties not easily expressed in short comments. I’m already noticing that we are rambling on longer and longer. This is not to say it’s a bad thing (decent conversation is important), but it is slightly unkind to Norm’s bandwidth., especially since we are straying farther afield from the topic of this post I will try to remain brief and to the point.

People I know often say things like, “The sun is going over the horizon,” which is horribly, horribly wrong. I will concede your point about language today, although I will continue to correct that little bit of American verbiage whenever it rears its ugly head. I further concede (although you did not ask me to) that I am being very literal and unfair to translated and retranslated poetic language. Except for “it will not be moved” in one of the verses, I can let my imagination play until I fit it to the testable reality. I do not, however, have all of the references to “pillars” and “foundations”, so it is difficult for me to know if my interpretation fits all known data, but for the data I have it is presumptuous of me to dismiss it as “wrong”. The fact that you feel the need for a theory alternate to plate tectonics makes me suspect my interpretation falls short when further data is included.

When I see Sodom and Gomorrah (they always sounded like Godzilla foes to me) have been dug up, and both had been destroyed by volcano (I suspect this a reasonable interpretation), I will still, sadly, see this as evidence only that the bible contains some record of history. I have a book of short stories based on H.G. Well’s “War of the Worlds” wherein the stories of actual, historical personages reacting to the Martian invasion are presented. I can look at history, and establish that the cities truly exist. I can see that the person presented really did exist, and was in that city at that time (except in the case of a couple mistaken authors). Am I to conclude from this that Martians invaded the Earth in the late 1800’s?

I mean no disrespect when I say you have faith, and I have no wish to offend, but I must stand by what I see. To go from, “some of the bible’s claims of history are supported” to “My god exists and the only truth I need to know is contained in this bible” IS an act of faith. Why does this offend you so? I’m not saying that faith is a bad thing. I lack it, myself, but I happen to consider that an aberration. I’m not even saying you lack reason. It is clear you put a great deal of thought, analysis, and research into interpretation of your faith, as well as this comment thread. It is possible to have both faith and reason, as was discussed in the post that started this all.

I’ll tell you what: show me, with reason and / or with evidence, that your god exists and I will back off of my claims that you are showing blind faith. If you cannot do that, yet insist that your god is real, then it is the very definition of faith, nothing more,

Home-schooling is reasonable. I’ve seen it work beautifully, and I’ve seen it work horribly. It depends on the parent(s) involved. You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and caring person (“Stipe” SOUNDS male to me, but I am simply not sure, and will not assume). I’m sure your child/ren (current and/or future) will do well. I wish that more people who disagreed with science and / or the lack of “faith education” in our schools would do that, rather than trying to muck up a perfectly reasonable, necessarily secular institution.

phil. thankyou. i expect to be able to reply in kind.

i dont think we're off topic - hopefully my thoughts here will show this. i readily accept that evidence will never lead to a decision to accept gods standards. i find that many attitudes are unwilling to even acknowledge that a biblical worldview has evidence at all.

my 'story' approach to history demands that i respect the consistency of your retelling of biblical events. i refer to the bible as historical fact, you refer to it as historical fiction .. i have no argument to make until i notice inconsistency.

the link between biblical statements and the shortcomings of plate tectonic theory is tenuous .. the bible is not a science text afterall. it is an area of study that i am interested in though.

your challenge for me to produce direct evidence of god is where the rubber meets the road. from my viewpoint the only direct evidence i can offer for god is wrapped intrinsicly in faith .. if i am denied the right to refer to his works and word then my only proof relies on blind faith.

i appreciate your civility and kind words regarding my future .. and i am astounded that you appreciate the evidence i present and how it justifies my views .. but i would trade all of my limited coherency and educated guesswork to gift you even a seed of faith...

PS. male and so far kidless ... ;)

kes -

I was under the impression that nailing people to crosses was more of a pastime in that era. ;) Also, while what you said is funny to point out, let's be honest: A man claiming to be a prophet and deity swaying a large number of followers against the established order IS the worst sort of criminal in that government's eyes. Don't we still use the death penalty for treason?

As for Muslims having respect for Jesus, I have heard this before. I'm hoping for the chance to converse with more of them before our president's "Crusade" wipes them off the face of the Earth. They seem like nice people.

I have nothing against faith as personal decision. I've met kind, accepting folk with a wide variety of faiths, and I would even say that faith does a lot of good for some people. The problem is that it is a slippery slope. To accept that one's god demands certain dictates be followed is fine. To demand that others submit to one's god's dictates is not. Others might be hellbound, doomed by karma, really naughty (as far as I know, this would sum up the Buddhist opinion of trangressors), or whatever, but that is their choice.

philmarlowe: "People I know often say things like, “The sun is going over the horizon,” which is horribly, horribly wrong."

Why is this wrong, let alone horribly, horribly, so?

inwit -

It is a nice, poetic description of dusk, but, in reality, the sun isn't going anywhere (as, hopefully, we all know). It's still (It moves through space, but not across our sky). It's the Earth that is moving, spinning around and around, giving the illusion that the sun moves. Since the sun isn't going anywhere, the statement is wrong. It's horribly wrong because it also says "over the horizon", as if the Earth were flat. The second "horribly" is added because I enjoy hyperbole. :)

If I had faith in the intelligence of my fellow humans, I wouldn't mind it. But this has been a pet peeve of mine since I actually heard someone say "We all know the sun orbits the Earth! We say it all the time!"

Stipe -

I could go on and on about the sciences of biology and physics and how they demonstrate the blble is not to be taken literally. This isn't the post for that, but I could. But, in the end, it boils down to my very first comment on this thread: We have different definitions of "fact." As long as science disagrees with the bible, it will be incorrect science in your eyes.

We will disagree, but we are different people, and different people will disagree on a lot of things. Do you like mushrooms? I can't stand them, and wish they would go extinct. However, as long as you aren't eating babies, and I'm not bombing churches, I see no reason we should dislike each other.

Since I know what your faith means to you, I appreciate the sentiment that you would give up valuable things to "gift" me the "seed of faith". Thanks.

philmarlowe,

I take it you would have no objection to the expression "the sun disappeared over/below the horizon?" Or would you prefer ". . . disappeared from view over/below the horizon" to emphasize the fact that the sun has not ceased to exist after it has disappeared? Though I suspect you might object to "the golden orb sank into the Pacific." (Incidentally, if we are going to be pedantic about language, as opposed to geography, planetary science, or astronomy, I think Strunk and White have a thing or two to say about your usage of the adverb "hopefully.")

"Since the sun isn't going anywhere, the statement is wrong. It's horribly wrong because it also says "over the horizon", as if the Earth were flat."

The Earth doesn't have to be flat to have a horizon or for the sun to disappear from view over/below it.

Amateur and professional astronomers use expressions such as "the planet [Mars] can be found in the constellation Virgo"—or the even more succinct "Mars is in Virgo"—on a given date. I don't think any of them is confused and thinks that the red planet has left the Solar System and taken residence among the stars in the constellation Virgo. Or that the father of Romulus and Remus is having carnal relations with a Vestal.

Similarly, when astronomers say that the quasar 3C 273 is in the constellation Virgo, they are referring to celestial projections only. In fact, 3C 273 is at least a million times farther away from the Earth than are the stars of the constellation Virgo.

Inwit -

Your points are all valid and correct. I am, indeed, being pedantic to the point of absurdity. It's an irrational hatred on my part (I think I referred to it more politely before as "a pet peeve"), and it has lasted for too long a time. All because some kid got it wrong almost twenty years ago. I need to get over myself.

Strunk and White? Weren't they an old vaudeville act? (I know, they wrote The Elements of Style. I'm just kidding) I had drinks with college friend (a linguistics major who now is an office grunt) just the other day, and the subject of Strunk and White came up. He's of the opinion they threaten to ruin a "rich, vital language". Now, you mention them to me. Coincidence? I think not! I'll need John Edward to verify, but I'm pretty sure those bastards are haunting me.

I'm curious what it means to astrologers when "the father of Romulus and Remus is having carnal relations with a Vestal." At the very least, it meant bad things for the Vestal in question . . .

Peace.

cheers phil. dislike was never an issue for me either .. though i dont think we could communicate at all if we didnt agree on the definition of fact.

yes we disagree and no this probably isnt the best place to continue doing so .. seeya around ;)

Faith-Was there faith before Christ?Or just belief? Niether there was only obedience or disobedience to the prophets and the law. Noone knew of Faith til Jesus spoke of it.So Faith comes by hearing of it in the first place.Once you have heard of it you can choose to believe it or not by your God given freewill. Those that hear the word of faith who choose to then believe it have put their faith to work by adhering to the message of Faith according to Jesus.Those who hear and do not according to Jesus put not their faith to work therefore believing in themselves as unto a God. If men believe in themselves as like gods then they set themselves up as idols having faith in whatever thought they think worthy to themselves and others hoping others will believe the same as they to promote their agenda with a god-like appearance. This is confusion at its core. The very word "faith" stagnates the Christian Theology and cause but to their peril. Faith serves no other purpose than one to believe in God the Father of Jesus through Jesus. For there is no other way but by Him can you achieve the glory of meeting or abiding with God.

Anyone who says they have faith is telling the truth but they do not know how they got it.I told you that faith derived from Jesus well Jesus said that "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" So now you have heard the word of God now having faith I charge you to continue in God's word to continue receiving faith through His word.

This I pray for you that your seed grow when watered . In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord Amen