Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Sounds like a trick question to me. After all, in the context of the question, what does "truer" mean except closer to a "universal moral standard"?
Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
This pretty well sums up our society today which is reaping its rewards through the infiltration of Darwinism...eh? Our faith gives HOPE.....the lack of which has destroyed our youth today. I mean... how much hope can you have, if you believe that you are a mere accident...a blob of nothing that transformed from chemical goo? (Not to mention that a lack of belief in Divine architecture absolves them from accountability to anyone or anything) I guess I choose to believe that I was fearfully and wonderfully made by the hand of God... for a REAL purpose. :)
69 Posted on 08/19/2001 13:41:47 PDT by LaineyDee
This is really a non-answer. What if I reason that torturing babies is fun? Marquis de Sade reasoned that torturing women was fun. It's your reason against his. Whose reason is right? Obviously, reason is a tool or a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Reason is not a destination but a vehicle. Reason is used to perceive truths and logically requires a beginning PREMISE.
Well, I guess I'll accept the faint praise. But I "started" long ago with "Only a Trillion" and "The Wellspings of Life".
Do they promote my survival and the survival of my progeny? Morality which stresses cooperation will do such. Morality which stresses "every man for himself" does not. If I and my progeny do not survive, neither will our morality; therefore only morality which promotes survival will survive.
If your goal is to get to heaven, then by all means you must follow revealed morality. That is between you and God
If your goal is a pleasant, just, stable and productive society, you need morality codified into laws and traditions. These may use your revealed morality as a starting point, but the details are invented. And more to the point, unless you care to kill everyone you doesn't share your religion, then laws and traditions are going to be compromises. Again, invented.
This is not a question of what works - that is useless in morality becuase it makes cruelty and non-cruelty equal (the very antithesis of morality). No, Christian moral principles come from God, and are absolute, universal, essential, eternal, immutable; whereas your moral principles are mutable, relative, self-centered, non-essential, and temporal. Night and day.
There is nothing inherently evil about a rationally-derived morality. If the morality promotes survival, the morality will survive. If it does not, it will not. The Golden Rule promotes survival.
Yeah, I'm sure you always consider whether or not your moral decisions promote your survival before you make them. Rationally-derived morality as you described it has no foundation and no standards other than self-interest. It was in Hitler's self-interest to slaughter 6 million jews.
In general, the difficulty with religious matters always reverts back to the historical baggage of the usual controversies, the stereotypical hysteria-producing BIG ISSUES. It's difficult to cut through that and reach an elevated discussion. What is implied by "God" is a mysterious spiritual reality. Some of the kneejerk, vulgar, anti-Christian personal attacks you see with some posts indicate the cultural and intellectual poverty of ... sophomoric --- atheism. The victims of an impoverished and shallow culture. It's too bad because if they took the time to do the reading, the study, and the interior work, they would realize the reality of man's spirit. Well, they'll find out eventually along with everyone else...
17 Posted on 08/17/2001 16:50:32 PDT by veritas_in_enigma
But you run the risk of pissing off the parents of the children you are torturing, who will promptly track you down and ensure that your views do not make it into the next generation.
De Sade's partners were all willing participants in his ... obsession.
I haven't the time to elaborate right now, but I believe that to be objectively untrue. Customs, traditions, morals, all figure into the survival of a culture. That is why some freepers can be conservatives without attributing their morality to any revealed document.
The majority of people don't want to hurt other people. They band together together, form governments, to protect themselves from psychopaths, who have no inborn inhibitions.
Gee, I thought it was from the prologue of a published, book-length work....
js1138, just answer me a question: I had two respondents to that post. Both of you chose to "attribute motives" to Dr. Feynman, and both of you ignored the point of Grandpierre -- who very modestly observed that science ought to be understandable WRT the objects to which it refers. That it really ought to explain the phenomena with which it purports to deal, not just stop at the "water's edge" of mathematical statements, and then just remain "agnostic" about what such statements actually mean.
Now the reason I thought that remark had some merit is that I've been reading and posting here at FR for a long time now. And it has been my experience that, on numerous occasions, different posters (presumably people working in scientific fields) have told me, WRT say, QM, "it doesn't matter what it means; it only matters that it works." Or words to that effect. The implication being: "Hey, we've got the equations. Who needs anything else?"
What is your view of this matter?
No it doesn't. You don't seem to be grasping the point. Cruelty is self-defeating. Those practicing such "morality" go by the boards relatively quickly. You don't want to be treated cruelly, do you? So, obviously you make a deal with those around you: "I won't treat you cruelly, if you don't treat me cruelly. Live and let live." If you start treating the others cruelly, they're going to gang up on you and eliminate you from the gene pool.
I have made that point many times on these threads (with the caveat that I am a Jew, not a Christian). Some posters (Gore3000, a few others) have argued (I hope G3K will correct me if I am misconstruing him) that evolution is inherently atheistic. I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me.
Some "scientists" do enter into social and political realms not mandated by their empirical findings and ... proliferate goofy science --- in the form of an ideology of scientism - everything real can be explained in terms of scientific materialism.
Once again I agree with you that those who argue that materialism explains everything are wrong, and exceeding the limits of what science can legitimately teach us.
I think one would have to recognize that, among those who accept scientific materialism, there is a tendency to create the impression that "Evolution" contradicts the Judaeo-Christian mythology of human origins (Genesis) and in some way weakens the credibility of Christianity as a whole.
I agree that the theory of evolution does not contradict Genesis; I wish some of your fellow anti-evolutionists would recognize this as well.
ALL Laws are based on someone's moral values. The only question is whose? If they are based on Stalin's (atheism), then all religious persons are persecuted and murder is considered a pragmatic good toward the furtherance of the State. However, if laws are based on universal moral principles of all men being created equal, personal liberty, limited govt., freedom of conscience (ALL CHRISTIAN VALUES), then that society will thrive. Sadly, our nation is chucking those values at light speed, and the laws are changing with the values, arent' they? Abortion legal, atheistic direction of the State, government intrusion in ever facet of human life, property rigts not respected, etc. etc. etc. Oh yeah, let's talk about morals and how they relate to laws.
But it was in the world's self-interest to remove him before he came after them. His actions showed the world he was incapable of abiding by civilized conduct (which also predates Christianity) and was a threat to everyone.
69 Posted on 08/19/2001 13:41:47 PDT by LaineyDee
Not one creo has yet called him on this continued behavior. Not one creo disbelieves his story of being unable to see the CV page until A-G and only A-G linked it for him two days ago. You and I, Aric, are dismissed as liars for remembering ourselves doing exactly the same thing A-G did two nights ago, only we did it back in June.
(And even now, after his supposed apology, his web site says: "Although his username is RIGHT WING PROFESSOR, he refused to say yes or say no. So it became obvious he isn't and was embarassed of his username.")
These behaviors, still ongoing, would be in breach of this supposed agreement. This thread has demonstrated that the creo side lacks even one responsible adult to enter into a binding agreement for them.
I expect eventually to make some kind of pledge of good behavior beyond the FR posting guidelines. The real force for change, however, will be the evo side shunning the bad apples. They're the only ones who can see everything relevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.