Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
Perhaps I misunderstood you.
When it comes down to it, we are all going to die.
True.
How shall it go for us then if we spent our lives purposely, with malice aforethought, mocked the very words that Jesus gave us to lead us to salvation?
Do you have any proof that Gould engaged in this kind of mockery?
Depends on your perspective. Sure, Gould was good at ridiculing (in a nice way) those who questioned him, but the ability to ridicule and scorn neither implies truth nor victory.
Quotes of scientists waxing eloquent about nothing doesn't add anything to the argument.
But as it happens, Roger Penrose is considered a raving nutter by his own peers (and rightly so), making his made-for-media-consumption schtick all the less compelling.
How so?
Come now. There are certainly Christians with exemplary moral character, but there are also self-described Christians, including some of the clergy of various denominations, who are quite immoral -- just read the headlines......
So what? None of that has nothing to do with the fact that the atheistic approach to evolution offers no basis for anything more than relativism, and with the mechanisms of evolution in mind one cannot possibly condemn the infliction of harm.
If you want to believe that only your denomination can give man morality, go ahead, but there's just too much evidence to the contrary.
What evidence might that be? Certainly not the evidence of evolution, as its mechanisms run counter to the morality to which you seem to be referring. What you're trying to do here is have your cake and eat it, too. You talk about "morality" as if it were an absolute thing, yet you champion a view of evolution that precludes absolute morality. An atheist quite simply has no rational way to defend absolute moral claims.
We're also told that he was raised by an avid atheist. Seems to be a common malady of evolutionists.
I'm assuming "crystalk" was referring to his scorning of religion, and Christianity in particular. If you are indeed a pastor, you of all people should know that no one can spurn Christ and expect to get a free pass. The free gift is eternal life, but like any gift, it must be accepted. A gift that is rejected is never possessed. And the reason "crystalk" can dare to imply this is that it's said rather pointed by Jesus Himself.
I don't know what Gould's personal relationship with God was (or, more importantly, is). But if he rejected God's gift of salvation, where could he have placed his hope?
the definition of bipolar---anti matter/truth!
You have a grand--unified theory of atheism---creation?
I dare say the biggest regret of most of the people who feel that way is not having been able to do it to him personally while he was still alive....
I am serious.
I think VadeRetro, PatrickHenry, and myself are done laughing at cancer.
It truly is tragic in hindsight.
Gould, a Harvard University professor, joined the faculty in 1967 as a professor of geology. He advanced to associate professor in 1971 and to professor in 1973.
Gould was neither a biologist nor a microbiologist, so just what are his qualifications so as to be considered a an expert in biology. Appears to me his only qualification was that other even less qualified people liked his conclusions irregardless of the fact that he never presented any evidence. At best he was a philosopher of biology, and a poor one at that.
After rereading this thread, I tend to agree with you.
But, but, but, the millenium has already started! Both 1/1/2000 AND 1/1/2001 came and went with nary a True Believer disappearing into thin air. Any Day Now...?
Before denigrating someone else's qualifications, you might wish to try looking up "irregardless."
There is no such word in the English language.
Their second greatest regret is not getting to use Gould's books as kindling for the fire.
May he find justice, too.
Tuor
Webster's:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Godspeed, The Dilg
PMFJI,
There are two general ways of looking at morality. One holds that there is a single moral code that we should be able to eventually discover, and is objectively the best code to follow, because this flows naturally from the facts of the real world. The other holds that there is no such objective morality, and therefore we must meekly aquiesce to everyone else's claim to their own private moral code - a sure recipe for disaster - or invent a supernatural authority figure who can float down like a deus-ex-machina and impose an arbitrary moral code on us and intimidate us into treating it as if it really were objectively true.
To put it another way, a person who believed in God and in natural law would say, "God recognizes what is good and bad, and wants us to follow the good", but a creationist would say, "there is no good or bad, so God must come up with a good and a bad for us to follow".
Within the natural law camp, there is also a division: Those who believe our innate understanding of right and wrong was a gift from God, and those who believe this understanding simply flows logically from human nature. Consider these words from America's Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
One camp focuses on the word "Creator", assumes it can only be a supernatural person, and concludes that if there were no such creator we wouldn't have any unalienable rights. The other camp focuses on the word "endowed", and concludes that it's our inherent status as human beings - the rational animal - that explains our individual rights, and that the specific identity of the Creator is incidental. Thus the Creator could be a purely natural process instead of a supernatural person, and a moral system based on individual rights would be just as valid and logically sound.
I believe this is why creationists are so emotionally wrapped up in tearing down a basic theory of mainstream science that happens to create problems for a specific religious interpretation, why they persist even when it makes them look silly, why they insinuate that evolutionists really want to tear down society, and why it's all so staggeringly un-persuasive to us on the evo side.
Except Huxley was wrong. It is *not* an honorable position, but a cowardly one. I freely admit that it would be a great weight off my mind to *know* the truth, but I don't. Instead, I have faith...and occasional doubts: this is, evidently, what God intended by not providing any physical proof of his existance (the sort of proof that science could use).
Agnosticism is the practice of hedging your bets, of being afraid to be right or wrong: it is *not* honorable, IMO.
Tuor
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.