Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

Well, let's ask Dawkins why he hates religion, shall we? Does anyone suppose that is a natural intellectual result of studying science?

But perhaps we could make a start at looking inside and finding our enemies there, whether they are religious or secular (or feline)...that's all I'm saying.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes it just as you say: he was once religious, and the act of studying natural science led him to eventually reject the supernatural.

I understand and agree with you that conflict is not an outside phenomenon. Discussions like this one (and others I've had since "coming out" as an atheist) I reckon are good for making me look at my ongoing issues regarding standing up for myself vs. letting it go (vs. whatever else is there!). I appreciate your pointing out what I forgot.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

Angela, Mr. Harris may not have made "recommendations" but he FLOATED THE IDEA.

You're right, I missed it. Did you add that in an edit?

It sounds like you are saying that he was wrong to float this particular idea, right? If that is so, who gets to decide who gets to float which ideas? Weren't you earlier asking how to avoid the medieval book-burning mindset? I don't think he was irresponsible or malicious in floating this or any of his other ideas.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Regarding the ethical consideration of self-defense (a gun held to your head) as pertains to the belief in the gunman's head: Imagine a person has declared that his dedication to god demands that he murder thousands of innocent people on your country's soil as a means of worshiping that god

well i don't know of any religion that demands that - even 9/11 terrorists ...maybe thuggee...or human sacrofice..anyway....
but lets look at another situation .You're in a bar, you punch someone in the face. Why the judge asks...well his religion advocates killing me and he looked suspicious.....

and like hate speech laws and the label of 'terrorists' - once you can prosecute or make someone a bogey man, its amazing how the defition expands once you provide people with that power.

Many here have rightfully said that many people have abused religion in the name of good or God....Communism used the excuse of equality, the french revolution brotherhood of man if so much evil can be done in the name of good, just imagine what can be done with a concept like this!


anyway back to the topic - it think it is a false/polarized debate, both sides are a little right a little wrong....

[Megan]

By dor

anyway back to the topic - it think it is a false/polarized debate, both sides are a little right a little wrong....

So, seeing as how you take issue with Mr. Harris, as well as religious excesses, is it OK now if I say things like:

"Kill the dangerous people" is a meme that is equally "useful" and sinister in the hands of religious or secular people?

[Megan]

By Angela

It sounds like you are saying that he was wrong to float this particular idea, right? If that is so, who gets to decide who gets to float which ideas?

Weren't you earlier asking how to avoid the medieval book-burning mindset? I don't think he was irresponsible or malicious in floating this or any of his other ideas.

I advocate a free forum of ideas. Let's just be aware of the implications of ideas that come up, though, because ideas go places. The person floating them may have nothing directly to do with where they go.

Dawkins himself is harmless, I think, but he could be the foundation of some very bad spin-offs.

Well, think of Social Darwinism, eugenics and Nazi Germany, for an example of bad spin-offs.

"Kill the dangerous people" has some very chilling historical precedents, and the mere suggestion of it raises red flags for me.

But Harris has every right to publish his ideas, IMO.

PS: Plenty of people have studied science, rejected the supernatural and not gone on to launch a vendetta against it. I speak as one who was very religious, then very anti-religious at one time.

[Angela]

"Kill the dangerous people" is a meme that is equally "useful" and sinister in the hands of religious or secular people?

The same might be also said of "a society based on common ownership of property."

Megan, you know that memes take on a "life" of their own, like a virus. We can try to be aware of the implications of where they might go, but it's impossible to predict as there are infinite possibilities. Darwin put forth his ideas, and maybe he wanted people to change how they see the world. I think Dawkins and Harris are similarly reporting on their own findings, however they were arrived at. Dor, too.

What do you suggest concerning being aware of the implications of floating ideas?

[Megan]

"Kill the dangerous people" has been adopted by the "society based on common ownership of property," so they are not really separable.

It's not too hard to predict where "Kill the Dangerous People" is going, I trow.

All you have to know is who is doing the deciding, and who they think is threatening them, physically or ideologically.

What do I suggest about being aware, well, maybe look at historical precedents. That's always good.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

What do I suggest about being aware, well, maybe look at historical precedents. That's always good.

okay. I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the effects of censorship and political correctness than I am about the implications of where Sam Harris' musings might lead. I'm sure others' concerns lie elsewhere.

"Trow"??

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

personally I think religion provides a wonderful framework, cultural and folk memory and 'wisdom of the ages' in which to explore other things...

It does. But is religion the only framework which can do this well? Is it possible for culture, tradition, and timeless wisdom to exist without religion? Why or why not?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It does. But is religion the only framework which can do this well? Is it possible for culture, tradition, and timeless wisdom to exist without religion? Why or why not?

religion is the only framework for exploring spirituality and spirtual questions - or the 'correct' one, just like for example, (and i think the great error of many atheists) one should not explore or try to answer spirtual questions with science, or reason, or likewise, scientific questions with religion...sometimes the line becomes blurred of course, but as i have alluded to in other posts, i think that spirituality is a natural desire and make up of man and mankind, and when you deny that you throw yourself out of wack...which might explain dawkins
even if you don't believe -i think you should take time to explore that part of you -

you mentioned exploring other religions - well to some extent yes, but then it just becomes a pick and choose schmorgesboard and you really don't grasp any of the 'big' concepts that might come through concentrating on one...
Those are the conclusions I have personally come to.

[Angela]

Just to be a stickler, Dor, Michael didn't include spirituality in his question; he only echoed your remark about "culture, tradition, and timeless wisdom."

I don't believe that appreciation of the works of mankind requires a belief that a supernatural power is responsible for it all. If it did, I would also have to wonder why the Big SP invented that little midge insect that lays its eggs in a larger live body, which then incubates them till it explodes when the eggs hatch. yechh. But I don't.

One can be awed by the majesty and beauty of nature and human accomplishment within the mere framework of being present. No need to figure out what power made it all possible is needed to enjoy the fruits of the universe. "Why?" is a fun and valuable question, but it's not necessary for this purpose.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Just to be a stickler, Dor, Michael didn't include spirituality in his question; he only echoed your remark about "culture, tradition, and timeless wisdom.".

Yes and I noted to him that the framework of a religion provides a framework to explore spiritual questions - including that culture , wisdom ect colllected and filtered through a spiritual perspective..... you can study, say the awe of nature - from a scientific perspective, artistic one, whatever,...i am just saying that spirituality is an aspect of human nature that one should explore well, the spiritual perspective.. looking at a painting for example, and analyzing its chemical make up is different from looking on it as a thing of beauty, as a technical execution, as a reflection of the artists love, ect.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

Yes and I noted to him that the framework of a religion provides a framework to explore spiritual questions - including that culture , wisdom ect colllected and filtered through a spiritual perspective..... you can study, say the awe of nature - from a scientific perspective, artistic one, whatever,...i am just saying that spirituality is an aspect of human nature that one should explore well, the spiritual perspective.. looking at a painting for example, and analyzing its chemical make up is different from looking on it as a thing of beauty, as a technical execution, as a reflection of the artists love, ect.

Do you think, then, that the appreciation of that painting, for example, is by its very nature spiritual? In other words, if you are appreciating the beauty of the artwork you are necessarily performing a spiritual act?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Do you think, then, that the appreciation of that painting, for example, is by its very nature spiritual? In other words, if you are appreciating the beauty of the artwork you are necessarily performing a spiritual act?

can be, depends...sometimes creating it too. sometimes it can appeal to say maternal instincts or admiration of them (like mary cassat), to everyday life, to humor, painting is as wide opening as saying 'writing', i think

[Angela]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying you can enjoy a creative work and that can be a spiritual act, or you can enjoy a creative work and that can be a non-spiritual act. You recommend I (all of us) explore the spiritual version. Right?

Since I believe there is no god, do you feel it is possible or impossible for me to enjoy the painting from a spiritual standpoint?

If your answer is "it's possible" -- what does that mean, then? What would be the difference in my looking? Exactly how would it be different from simply enjoying the beauty, appreciating and being amazed by the talent and work that went into it, and feeling the pleasurable sensations that result? (I wouldn't describe that as "spiritual", but you might.)

If your answer is "it's impossible" -- then do you feel I'm missing out on some aspect of the art?

(I'm using artwork as an example, but my questions would also apply if it were a gorgeous sunset or the feeling of holding hands with Danger Man.)

[Angela]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

you mentioned exploring other religions - well to some extent yes, but then it just becomes a pick and choose schmorgesboard and you really don't grasp any of the 'big' concepts that might come through concentrating on one...

I don't have time to deliver a proper response to that post (I intend to, later), but I wanted to pop out this question:

Let's say there exist only three religions, for the sake of argument: Shintoism, Babylonian, and Scientology. Are you saying that it's better to randomly choose one of these and concentrate on it, rather than learning about all three? If so, how do you choose?

[Megan]

By Angela, Today 02:56 PM

okay. I guess I'm a bit more concerned about the effects of censorship and political correctness than I am about the implications of where Sam Harris' musings might lead. I'm sure others' concerns lie elsewhere.

I made it very clear that I was not advocating censorship, so I have no idea how that answer was responsive.

As for it being merely "politically correct" to warn against suggesting that people might need to be killed for their beliefs (not their actions, their beliefs), I find it astonishing that you could trivialize that outcome.

The stand-out historical precedent that warns against killing people for their beliefs is the Holocaust! Trivialize that! Dare you?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

I made it very clear that I was not advocating censorship, so I have no idea how that answer was responsive.

As for it being merely "politically correct" to warn against suggesting that people might need to be killed for their beliefs (not their actions, their beliefs), I find it astonishing that you could trivialize that outcome.

The stand-out historical precedent that warns against killing people for their beliefs is the Holocaust! Trivialize that! Dare you?

No, no, Megan, please listen. I just re-read my remark and see that it could read as snarky, but I promise you I didn't mean it that way.

I am absolutely clear that you don't advocate censorship, quite the contrary, and in no way meant to imply that you did.

I was not connecting political correctness to the warning you mention. My only intention was to say what MY priority was, not to trivialize any other priority, and I added the "others lie elsewhere" as a way of honoring those other priorities. When I wrote "polical correctness", I was thinking of Harris' and Dawkins' politically incorrect opposition to religion, and worried about censorship (not by you) of them. My "okay" at the beginning was meant as a friendly agreement that I AGREED with your suggestion of looking at historical precedent.

Yikes! I feel so thoroughly misunderstood over this post! I will be more careful in future posts. Sorry, Megan, offending you was the last thing I would want to do.

[Megan]

...hmmm....but you're still more worried about other people censoring Dawkins and Harris for their political incorrectness than you are where their ideas might lead...even with millions of people being burned at the stake, squashed, eviscerated, gassed and shot for their beliefs as catalogued in hundreds of pounds of history books at your local library?

People might be "censoring" Dawkins & Harris, as in "taking them to task/finding fault," but is anyone, anyone at all, saying we should be banning-books-censoring them? Yes? No? Maybe? If not, do you think people merely shouldn't disagree with them? Naw, I know you don't think that...

I wasn't personally offended (have no worries--I have the hide of an elephant) just astonished...and I still kinda am, actually.

Probably I'm misunderstanding you?

Edit: But still not feeling the teeniest bit unfriendly towards you, please understand!

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I don't have time to deliver a proper response to that post (I intend to, later), but I wanted to pop out this question:

Let's say there exist only three religions, for the sake of argument: Shintoism, Babylonian, and Scientology. Are you saying that it's better to randomly choose one of these and concentrate on it, rather than learning about all three? If so, how do you choose?

Well that's hypothetical that's not practical to answer IMHOP, anymore than 'lets say there's one religion were you sacrofice virgins, another where you sacrifice children'.....

My general advice is this; study the one that is closest to your culture...if you have none , then choose the one that predominate in your societiy's culture - in america that would be some form of protestantism... in India, some form of hinduism (though say in Punjab it might be Sikhism or islam) if something really pulls you into another religion, explore it..
when you have the cultural context, it is easier to stay undeceived by the 'exoticism' (which i think is a problem in cross cultural romance but that 's another issue)

If you're uncomfortable with that i would say just take some 'spiritual time' each week to explore the idea that there might be something beyond or bigger or stranger than reason, than science, than hate than love than time....if that makes any sense...and ultimately to think about the whys - which science really can't answer science can tell us the hows - science I don't think is the vehicle for contemplating the meaning of life.

Originally Posted by Angela

If I understand you correctly, you're saying you can enjoy a creative work and that can be a spiritual act, or you can enjoy a creative work and that can be a non-spiritual act. You recommend I (all of us) explore the spiritual version. Right?

well let's back up a bit - I am just trying use art as an example - and part analogy - we'd be missing out on a whole lot if we looked at a Turner seascape and just thought "oh there's some ultramarine blue - that's made with lapiz and linseed oil" - that certainly can be fun (its called ultramarine not because of the color but because it came from overseas) but you'd be missing out on a whole lot, wouldn't you? and trying to explain the beauty of the canvass in terms of chemical make up would be sort of convulted, woudln't ? or even saying we are stimulated by bright colors because of evolution.... I feel, in this analogy science is the fact part - taking in the beauty, ect is the 'religion' part

[Megan]

Angela, I really, really don't have a need to extract an answer from you. All I ask is that you consider what the weight of history brings to bear upon this subject. That's all I ask.

In his definitive work The Destruction of the European Jews (Quadrangle, 1961), Raul Hilberg presents some insights that are as relevant to the United States today as they were to Nazi Germany a half-century ago.

If we believe that we must remember the tragedies of history so that we will not repeat them, we ought to pay special attention to Hilberg’s assertion that in a Western society, destructive activity is not just a technocratic phenomenon. The problems arising in a destructive process are not only administrative but also psychological. [...]

Our political and religious leaders, as well as ordinary citizens, must be persuaded to refrain from dehumanizing people into viruses and cancers residing in an evil empire which Scripture [or science] admonishes us to destroy.

The euphemisms of war must be exposed for what they are -- words and phrases that fool us into accepting the unacceptable. Dehumanizing the “enemy” and euphemizing the weapons of war and war itself is a deadly combination that, unfortunately, has historically been successful in defending the indefensible.

Dehumanizing People and Euphemizing War

Meant totally friendly.

[Angela]

Dor: Okay, got it. Thank you for answering.

Megan: Okay on the considering the weight of history.
To your question from the previous post: Yes, I still am more concerned about the threat and repercussion of censorship and oppressive political correctness (in general, not just D&H) than I am worried that Harris' ethical speculation (in particular) will lead to bloodshed.

After taking in your concerns about the larger question, it's possible that my scale may be adjusted. Let's stay in touch.

and yes, by "censorship" of course I mean squelching/obliterating, not merely disagreeing with.

It has been quite a virtual day, hasn't it, Dor and Megan?
Tomorrow I'm commited to communicating only thoughts that make me feel good when I think them, and that have a positive intention for the recipient. I'm sure you'll keep me to my word.

Sweet dreams.

[Michael Chui]

Megan - Invoking Godwin's Law, are we? Note that one of the great crimes of Hitler was also censorship.

Originally Posted by dor

religion is the only framework for exploring spirituality and spirtual questions

What does this mean for people who consider themselves spiritual, but non-religious? Are they therefore religious, against their will?

Originally Posted by dor

My general advice is this; study the one that is closest to your culture...if you have none , then choose the one that predominate in your societiy's culture - in america that would be some form of protestantism... in India, some form of hinduism (though say in Punjab it might be Sikhism or islam) if something really pulls you into another religion, explore it..

Essentially, the principle of religion, therefore, is "more of the same, unless you feel otherwise"? I'd say most atheists are "really pull"ed into atheism.

Originally Posted by dor

when you have the cultural context, it is easier to stay undeceived by the 'exoticism'

And instead, you're deceived by normalcy. "No matter how strange something is, you give it enough time it becomes normal." There is no such thing as safety.

Originally Posted by dor

explore the idea that there might be something beyond or bigger or stranger than reason, than science, than hate than love than time....if that makes any sense...

Should I take hallucinogens to help me out with that, or is it enough to expect an Aes Sedai to weave a Gateway into my room and offer me passage to Two Rivers in Andor and see the Cauthon house where Matrim grew up? I know that's entirely unreasonable, but isn't that the point?

Originally Posted by dor

science I don't think is the vehicle for contemplating the meaning of life.

Neither can religion, unless you say it does. Religion, as you describe it, is entirely subjective. It can fulfill whatever part of your desires you wish it to.

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is 'mere'. I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?

Originally Posted by Richard Feynman

To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty of nature. If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.

So says a man who has scientific equations named after him.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So says a man who has scientific equations named after him.

I will respond more tommorow but...."Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars" I do not agree with this. There are many artists who were also scientists or interested in science, davinci, of course, but nearly all classlically trained fined artists have vast scientific and anatomical knowledge it is essential for drawing the human form....so fenyman is setting up a false comparison as are you, frankly - i didn't say the knowledge detracted from it - in fact i said it can be interesting and fun. I just said its another way of looking at it. go back to my painting example - what part do you disagree with? again, science is about hows...not whys. yes sometimes the two become fuzzy but my main, big point is you're denying a large part of your make up as human being...and no dropping acid is going to help that anymore than getting drunk.

"For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it."
here is where he crosses over into arrogance, or gross misjudgment...'the man who named equations after him' apparently cannot see or puts at lesser value the great truths that are in master works of artists - he may have personally found it that way...but that would go back to my point about seeing everything from one persepective and not contemplating the other....

"And instead, you're deceived by normalcy. "
come on. this is just silly - its a lot easier to understand, for example, a novel or work of art when you are from that culture.

[Megan]

Okay on it's been quite a virtual day! I think we've all gotten along swimmingly, considering the material at hand and how it's usually handled!

Thanks for considering historical considerations, and I do share your concern for oppressive political correctness.

Okay on sweet dreams!

Now, Michael, I never advocated censorship, and it might be considered censorship to bring up Godwin's Law (which is, after all, a big, bad MEME), ya know?

In any case, a discussion about a book which considers premptorily killing people for their beliefs is clearly not covered by Godwin's Law. So there!

Edit: Or, maybe you meant I was trying to end the thread a la Godwin? Nope. You guys are too much fun.

[Erock]

Hey I can't get the link to work to the article. Anyone care to find me another?

Thanks

[bylto]

Sorry Erock, I don't know what's wrong with it. Can anyone help? Click on the link below to see the error message.

Build Your Life To Order ™ » Blog Archive »

[bylto]

Think I got it fixed Erock, click the link now.

Build Your Life To Order ™ » Blog Archive » The Creation vs Evolution Debate - The Solution (Well, To My Satisfaction)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

my main, big point is you're denying a large part of your make up as human being...

If you define religion as culture, then you are correct. If you don't, then you are not necessarily correct and must explicate exactly why religion is a "large part of ...a human being".

Originally Posted by Megan

Or, maybe you meant I was trying to end the thread a la Godwin?

Yup, that was what I meant. I always have Godwin's Law in the back of my mind when I consider bringing up Hitler or the Holocaust in my discussions. Sometimes I ignore it.