Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Husband

Evolution Is A Conspiricy!

Recommended Posts

Whatever your views on Dawkins assult on religious belief you simply can not argue with him about the theory of evolution by natural selection... or so i thought.

As he points out in this relentless assult there may be issues within the natural selection camp as to the nuts and bolts however the general theory is incontravertable.

Somehow i managed to watch the whole interview but i warn you, you start to get feelings of deja-vu pretty early on. How this didn't end up in a good bout of fisty cuffs is beyond me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4mLGmPMvls

These kinds of arguments are rife in the Anthropogenic Global Warming arena as well. AWG exists... its the nuts and bolts and the extent of the effect that is being discussed.

I like the implication that right wing theory is routed in darwinistic philosophy and that the right wing religious folk of america should be lapping up evolutionary theory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contradiction, that the people who most firmly believe that free nature could not create an eye seem to never look in wonderment and the huge co-ordination the free market produce to make and deliver a snickers bar, is a strange paradox.

The religion thing is a red herring, by people like Dawkins and creationists. The self-righteous will always claim that God agrees with them and Dawkins cannot accept religion and intellect going together. Essentially, they are on the same side in arguing that science and religion are not compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always amazed how so many religious types get hung up on the Creation.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God - it just proves that the Creation story was simply a story.

I know Dawkins has lots of other arguments against the existence of a God or Gods, but for me the concept of God is something of a distraction.

The real question is whether the universe/existence has a teleological purpose, and that's a question Dawkins can't answer, although I'm sure he has an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The contradiction, that the people who most firmly believe that free nature could not create an eye seem to never look in wonderment and the huge co-ordination the free market produce to make and deliver a snickers bar, is a strange paradox.

The religion thing is a red herring, by people like Dawkins and creationists. The self-righteous will always claim that God agrees with them and Dawkins cannot accept religion and intellect going together. Essentially, they are on the same side in arguing that science and religion are not compatible.

what i did find interesting about dawkins here is that he does give a nod to the many scientists who are religious and the religious who believe in evolution. keep science in science class and belief in either religious education or some other class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what i did find interesting about dawkins here is that he does give a nod to the many scientists who are religious and the religious who believe in evolution. keep science in science class and belief in either religious education or some other class.

Dawkins strikes me as one who is not quite skeptical enough. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that she says that she teaches the controversy rather than the contrary!

Has she attended this clinic?

Edit: If the link won't play then just Google (video) "Python Argument" and play it for yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what i did find interesting about dawkins here is that he does give a nod to the many scientists who are religious and the religious who believe in evolution. keep science in science class and belief in either religious education or some other class.

INdeed, but when the Pope came out as anti-creationism, is deserves, possibly, more than a nod. Nonetheless, I accept your point, it is indeed valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As, I suppose, a kind of amature scientist (via some hobbies) and a religious layman (amature religious person?) I see absolutely no conflict between science and religion, especially as the religion I follow specifically states that every last one of our myths is exactly that: a mytth. Some are actually very clever metaphors that reveal a whole new level of insight if read by someone with a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge, while others are obviously intended as helpful examples on how best to deal with certain situations and a good few are just entertaining stories.

Problems only arise when you get involved with fundamentalists who stupidly believe that 'their' holy books are literally, infallibly true or that anything they haven't named and measured can't possibly exist. Anyone who doesn't occupy either of those two, equally ridiculous, extremes should see that there is no problem reconciling science and religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
As, I suppose, a kind of amature scientist (via some hobbies) and a religious layman (amature religious person?) I see absolutely no conflict between science and religion, especially as the religion I follow specifically states that every last one of our myths is exactly that: a mytth. Some are actually very clever metaphors that reveal a whole new level of insight if read by someone with a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge, while others are obviously intended as helpful examples on how best to deal with certain situations and a good few are just entertaining stories.

Problems only arise when you get involved with fundamentalists who stupidly believe that 'their' holy books are literally, infallibly true or that anything they haven't named and measured can't possibly exist. Anyone who doesn't occupy either of those two, equally ridiculous, extremes should see that there is no problem reconciling science and religion.

The problem is, where do you draw a line in the sand and say: "Actually, our religion does insist that this particular miracle was a supernatural act, not just a metaphorical example."? All too often, believers will try and explain away miracles as metaphor rather than actual historical facts, simply because they realise how daft they sound in the cold light of modern day.

How much of a religious guide such as the Bible can be explained away as myth, metaphor, allegory or whatever before one is left with a pretty insubstantial collection of stories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, where do you draw a line in the sand and say: "Actually, our religion does insist that this particular miracle was a supernatural act, not just a metaphorical example."? All too often, believers will try and explain away miracles as metaphor rather than actual historical facts, simply because they realise how daft they sound in the cold light of modern day.

How much of a religious guide such as the Bible can be explained away as myth, metaphor, allegory or whatever before one is left with a pretty insubstantial collection of stories?

Quite so... modern logic would be as a greek gift to the Trojans. The logic should be to question modern logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
Quite so... modern logic would be as a greek gift to the Trojans. The logic should be to question modern logic.

I don't quite get your point RH, please explain further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite get your point RH, please explain further.

Well, there is a quite a strong tradition of philosophical skepticism which might serve the religiously minded better than rationalism, modern logic, scientific method etc. As you suggest, there is a battle to be fought... so would be best for them to choose "higher ground". :rolleyes:

Defences could include:

History of science,

Philosophy of science.

History of philosophy.

Continental idealism.

Post-modernism,

etc.

The irony is that in saving itself, religion might also save modernity..... if that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, where do you draw a line in the sand and say: "Actually, our religion does insist that this particular miracle was a supernatural act, not just a metaphorical example."? All too often, believers will try and explain away miracles as metaphor rather than actual historical facts, simply because they realise how daft they sound in the cold light of modern day.

How much of a religious guide such as the Bible can be explained away as myth, metaphor, allegory or whatever before one is left with a pretty insubstantial collection of stories?

Well, there is no 'supernatural'. Everything is natural. The idea that if scientists today don't know how a thing was done then it can not have been done is foolish in the extreme, as it takes for granted the 'fact' that our current scientific knowledge is exhaustive, when we all know it is anything but. A true scientist would never say, straight off the bat, that 'that can't have happened'. He would investigate possible ways that it might have happened and only when some incontrovertible fact stands in the way would he accept that the event could never have occurred and if no conclusive evidence emerges either way? Then it's a problem for a time when our knowledge has expanded. Anything less is ignorant assumption, the very antithesis of science.

As for the bible...well, it seems to be allegory, metaphor and a bit of history with a hideous amount of tribal bias. So many bits have been taken out that what's left doesn't make all that much sense as a holy book. As a political tool, it's second to none, mind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
The irony is that in saving itself, religion might also save modernity..... if that makes any sense.

Yes, I think I see what you mean. I know next to nothing about philosophy, though I'd like to learn more about it as I suspect it offers atheists space in which to explore the bigger questions without the need to believe in a fantasy friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I think I see what you mean. I know next to nothing about philosophy, though I'd like to learn more about it as I suspect it offers atheists space in which to explore the bigger questions without the need to believe in a fantasy friend.

Studying the history of philosophy/science, is kind of like back-tracking out of the rabbit hole. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
A true scientist would never say, straight off the bat, that 'that can't have happened'. He would investigate possible ways that it might have happened and only when some incontrovertible fact stands in the way would he accept that the event could never have occurred and if no conclusive evidence emerges either way? Then it's a problem for a time when our knowledge has expanded. Anything less is ignorant assumption, the very antithesis of science.

I disagree with your last sentence. It is quite possible to make educated assumptions, provided one is always willing to accept the possibility of the assumption being wrong. This is totally compatible with scientific process, in fact a critical part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm always amazed how so many religious types get hung up on the Creation.

Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God - it just proves that the Creation story was simply a story.

I know Dawkins has lots of other arguments against the existence of a God or Gods, but for me the concept of God is something of a distraction.

The real question is whether the universe/existence has a teleological purpose, and that's a question Dawkins can't answer, although I'm sure he has an opinion.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
Studying the history of philosophy/science, is kind of like back-tracking out of the rabbit hole. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Studying the history of philosophy/science, is kind of like back-tracking out of the rabbit hole. :rolleyes:

Or maybe like studying the maps left behind by your predecessors as you attempt to navigate through the complexities of the rabbit warren?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or maybe like studying the maps left behind by your predecessors as you attempt to navigate through the complexities of the rabbit warren?

Yes, but why on earth would you want to stay inside a rabbit warren? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Oh right... perhaps you were implying the "consolation" of philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolation_of_philosophy

Boethius writes the book as a conversation between himself and Lady Philosophy. She consoles Boethius by discussing the transitory nature of fame and wealth ("no man can ever truly be secure until he has been forsaken by Fortune"), and the ultimate superiority of things of the mind, which she calls the "one true good". She contends that happiness comes from within, and that one's virtue is all that one truly has, because it is not imperiled by the vicissitudes of fortune.

Boethius engages questions such as the nature of predestination and free will, why evil men often prosper and good men fall into ruin, human nature, virtue, and justice. He speaks about the nature of free will versus determinism when he asks if God knows and sees all, or does man have free will. To quote V.E. Watts on Boethius, God is like a spectator at a chariot race; He watches the action the charioteers perform, but this does not cause them.[5] On human nature, Boethius says that humans are essentially good and only when they give in to “wickedness” do they “sink to the level of being an animal.” On justice, he says criminals are not to be abused, rather treated with sympathy and respect, using the analogy of doctor and patient to illustrate the ideal relationship between criminal and prosecutor.

Boethius sought to answer religious questions without reference to Christianity, relying solely on natural philosophy and the Classical Greek tradition. He believed in harmony between faith and reason. The truths found in Christianity would be no different from the truths found in philosophy. In the words of Henry Chadwick, "If the Consolation contains nothing distinctively Christian, it is also relevant that it contains nothing specifically pagan either...[it] is a work written by a Platonist who is also a Christian, but is not a Christian work."[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but why on earth would you want to stay inside a rabbit warren? :lol:

My point is that you might need to navigate your way out, and that the "maps" might help.

Your metaphor of blindly backing out **** first is weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
My point is that you might need to navigate your way out, and that the "maps" might help.

Your metaphor of blindly backing out **** first is weak.

Well put sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that you might need to navigate your way out, and that the "maps" might help.

Your metaphor of blindly backing out **** first is weak.

Well, it depends how you take it. I was suggesting the idea of working backwards from a problematic position with a twist on the popularized metaphor for philosophic enquiry.

Of course, like any metaphor it fails at a certain point. I was being fatuous with it in the end. The general idea though is one of deconstruction, or doing an "archaeology of thought" as some might put it. I was also wanting to suggest the ideas of exit and escape.

truman-show-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.