I’m tired of these atheists’ knocking on my door holding the Book of Darwin

Heartlander

[jlogajan]

There are forces of good and evil at work in this world, why on earth would you choose evil?

The Bible commands us to kill homosexuals, allows slavery, and prohibits the mixing of different fabrics in clothing.

I wouldn't be looking to the Bible for inerrant knowledge on good and evil, thanks just the same. Not with that track record.

[Stultis]

The BS-o-meter just ran off the charts here! C'mon, now. Be honest. You know fully well that evolution is not taught as theory in our schools. You know that. It is taught as fact. Therefore, it can not be that important to you, for if it were, you'd make sure that the theory would be taught as theory. But such is not the case.

The difference between me and you is that I have no particular axe to grind. I would like to see science curricula do a better job in general of conveying an accurate understanding of the nature of scientific theory, and the role of scientific facts in testing theories. Unlike you I don't obsess about how some particular theory is taught.

I want the theory of evolution and the theory of photosynthesis, and every other theory to be taught non-dogmatically. In fact, while I would agree that the distinction between theory and fact is seldom well drawn in science education (you don't seem to have grasped it yourself) evolution is more likely than any other "theory" to be so identified!

Textbooks frequently lay out the evidence for evolution, which at least implicitly suggests a fact/theory relationship, but they never do so for the theory of photosynthesis, and rarely do so, and never to the same depth or extent, for any other theory. We are at least occasionally treated to differing scientific interpretations of evolutionary theory, but this is seldom done for other theories. (I happen to know, at least when I was in school, that there were significant scientific controversies about the process of photosynthesis, but I was never informed of them. I was taught the theory of photosynthesis "as fact". The word "theory" was never used at all.) We are never, ever told by a textbook that "some scientists believe" such and so about photosynthesis, but this used to be a common formulation in discussing evolution.

In short I doubt that you could show me a single biology textbook where, on a truly dispassionate analysis, evolution was not the LEAST dogmatically taught theory, yet it is all you are on about. I happen to believe that education reform, including improvement of texts and curricula, is important, but I have zero sympathy for special pleaders, whatever it is they are pushing for or against. To me you are like the folks who are always whining, for instance, about history textbooks lacking sufficient racial or gender diversity, but evince no concern whatsoever about the general quality of history education. You are the same way. You don't care one bit that theories as such are clearly distinguished from facts. For you this complaint is only a device for attacking those particular theories that you don't like or don't agree with.

[Stultis]

Quoting myself:

I happen to believe that education reform, including improvement of texts and curricula, is important, but I have zero sympathy for special pleaders

On reflection I have decided this is not quite true. I have sometimes sided with those forwarding specific complaints -- e.g. about social studies texts with an anti-capitalist message -- but would argue that such criticisms are best put forth in the context of a genuine, clear, and consistent commitment to academic principles that one would apply in the same way to other elements of the subject matter.

[BMCDA]

Of course I understood that it was meant to be a joke but it was funny only insofar as those atheists in your joke are quite different from us atheists here on FR. Somehow we have no problem talking about "nothingness" ;-)

[jennyp]

... In short I doubt that you could show me a single biology textbook where, on a truly dispassionate analysis, evolution was not the LEAST dogmatically taught theory, yet it is all you are on about. ...

Wow, I never thought of it that way, but you're right! (Excellent, thought-provoking post all-around, actually.)

[Pietro]

"Now that I think of it, I recall that our oldest complete copy was discovered in Instanbul (or somewhere), and it isn't really that old.."

Hmmm, I guess then that a complete text that was in excess of 2k is pretty rare, and that it matches word for word (alloawnces for "typos") the known current text, especially because it doesn't rhyme, is nigh on "unprecedented".

Re prophecy; perhaps the only way to prove the divinity of the Bible is through the accuracy of the prophecies contained therein. Indeed, for someone to be considered a true prophet of God his accuracy rate must be 100%. Biblical scholars have produced a daunting array of documentation demostrating that this is the case.

To an unbeleiver this is, how did you say it "self-fulfilled". However, their position and their arguments cannot be easily swept aside; despite what you read on this site. There is true scholarship and wisdom in their position.

[tracer]

Again, no offense was intended an no religion or doctrine was attacked, or so I thought. I didn't know that it was as dumb a joke as it turned out to be, given the fact that I apparently caused specific offense by goofing on a concept that I thought was general by definition. Please accept my apology for that.

I have a sincere question, however, as one who is interested in things existential and theological. What, in your view, is the nature of the "nothingness" (my word, I admit) to which I so insensitively referred? Are you referring to a belief system which addresses nature (as in Mother Nature) and the essence of man's being?

Thanks, and all the best....

[cracker]

Well said.

[PatrickHenry]

Hmmm, I guess then that a complete text that was in excess of 2k is pretty rare ...

You could fill a rather large bookshelf with the writings of the Greek playwrights, historians, and philosophers, and a lot of that stuff is about 23 centuries old. We have a ton of writings from the Roman republic, about 20 centuries old. Granted, the bible is older. But that's not necessarily proof of its miraculous origin. We have old tax receipts and transaction records from some really ancient civilizations, and there's not a shred of divinity to be found in them. And of course there's the old temple writings in Egypt, but no one regards them as divine. Just old priestcraft.

[jennyp]

I never knew that so many on the right of the political spectrum were evolutionists. This is scary. You guys attack people of faith just as much as those on the looney left do. So, in my mind, you both are the exact same.

Nice company. Keep them, please.

Rdb3, there are two camps in the conservative movement: One camp (mine) believes in individual rights & responsibilities because of the facts of reality we see around us in the mundane, natural world, such as Man's nature as thinking beings & what kind of society is required for us to acheive our highest aspirations. (Our "eudaimonia", as Aristotle would put it.)

The other camp (yours, apparently) believes that things like objective morality & rights cannot be inferred, even in principle, from the real world. So you (in our opinion) construct a mythical, supernatural, all-powerful Authority Figure who acts like a deus-ex-machina in a Greek play: He solves the intractable dispute by stepping in & arbitrarily laying down a set of laws we must follow or else. This provides an objective standard for us to follow that "reality" itself does not provide.

Your side cannot understand how we can claim any possibility of objectivity in our moral codes, and therefore we must collapse into subjectivism & eventually nihilism. But our side sees your side as the true nihilists: As nihilistic as the most wanton libertine, since you deny the possibility of objective morality altogether! Except you see the world's essential meaninglessness & recoil from it, while the libertine accepts it & tries to grab whatever immediate gratification he can.

In reality, "meaning" is a, um, meaningful concept only in the context of a person who can think about such things. That person is us. (We know we exist, & we know we can think.) This is just as true whether we came to exist because of purely natural processes or some lonely god's science project. And our requirements as human beings for a fulfilled life are just as real. Unfortunately the best kind of societies & moral systems that fulfill these requirements are not self-evident - we had to learn those thru historical trial & error, and presumably we're still learning & refining. But objective Truth is still here.

In practice, most of the time we agree on specific issues. But in our opinion your side carries along this unnecessary baggage of your mythical Authority Figure, with his Big Book of Regulations, which was really written by sheepherders, & later refined & interpreted by church/state bureaucrats, all over 1500 years ago. (Do you really think it was objectively more moral for ancient Jews to never wear clothes made from mixed fibers? :-)

[jennyp]

Granted, the bible is older. But that's not necessarily proof of its miraculous origin. We have old tax receipts and transaction records from some really ancient civilizations, and there's not a shred of divinity to be found in them.

Proof that taxes are a gift from God. </liberal theologan mode>

[jennyp]

Re prophecy; perhaps the only way to prove the divinity of the Bible is through the accuracy of the prophecies contained therein. Indeed, for someone to be considered a true prophet of God his accuracy rate must be 100%. Biblical scholars have produced a daunting array of documentation demostrating that this is the case.

Mmmm... I'm not an expert on the Bible's prophesies, but here's an article that argues that Mohammed was prophesied in the OT!

[BMCDA]

No offense taken :-)

Concerning "nothingness" I cannot give you a satisfactory answer because I don't know what that is that which is not.
In a previous post you said that they don't believe in the existence of God, so their message about nothingness is silence. If this were true then it would also apply to other concepts such as Santa Claus or fairies for instance. So your message to your kid who still believes in these entities would also be about notingness and thus silence but we know that that's not true. You simply tell him that they do not exist or at least that no one has ever seen them or has any compelling evidence to support their existence and thus it is not wise to believe in them.
But maybe you meant that someone who does not believe in God believes in nothing (correct me if I'm wrong). That's simply not true. Someone who does not believe in God or gods and other supernatural entities does just that: not believing in them. He may believe whatever is in the realm of the natural. So I see no contradiction in being an atheist and believing in UFOs since they're natural if they exist.
Furthermore, atheism or nontheism (if you prefer that term) is not a belief system it is only a lack of belief systems that contain deities. (It's the same with professions: being a teacher is a profession whereas being 'not a teacher' isn't)

[tracer]

I didn't intend to say that someone who does not believe in God believes in nothing, because I (at least!) know that such is not true.

I read a fair amount of the writings of Bertrand Russell (e.g. "On Being and Nothingness") long ago -- when Ben Franklin was busing tables in a campus sorority -- but don't recall enough to intelligently discuss ontology, naturalism, etc.

Your explanation -- that atheism is not a belief system but, rather, is only a lack of belief systems that contain deities -- rings familiar, but my attempt at humor failed to correctly articulate that.

In any event, thanks for your gracious reply. I wish we could sit down in person and discuss such heady topics as the nature of man, and I do respect the beliefs of others and their right to them. Stay alert and safe...

[Pietro]

Thanks for the link. While I found it interesting, it would have been more enlightening had the author engaged a biblical scholar rather than an old man in the Trasvaar of S. Africa. The old guy appears to be little more than a straight man in a comedy act.

His claim that Mohammad was ignorant of the Old Testament is absurd. Mohammad lived in an area and time when there where many jewish scholars right at hand. He could have picked up alot of what the author speaks of just by having detailed conversations w/ any number of them. His other points strain credulity as well, especially when they are made at the expense of a less than learned partner.

Taking particular passages from Scripture out of context to make a contrary point is an old trick, and many are taken in by it. The prophesies he cites pertain to a great Prophet, they do not pertain to the Messiah, only Jesus most clearly fulfills messianic prophecy.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Indeed, for someone to be considered a true prophet of God his accuracy rate must be 100%.

That would exclude Jonah, wouldn't it?

[Pietro]

"That would exclude Jonah, wouldn't it?"

What false prophesies are you referring to?

[f.Christian]

"Consider someone who believes that Venus is smaller than Mercury-not because he has evidence, but because he read it in a comic book and always believes whatever he reads in comic books-or consider someone who holds that belief on the basis of an outrageously bad argument. Perhaps there is no obligation he has failed to meet; nevertheless his intellectual condition is defective in some way. He displays a sort of deficiency, a flaw, an intellectual dysfunction of some sort. Perhaps he is like someone who has an astigmatism, or is unduly clumsy, or suffers from arthritis. And perhaps the evidentialist objection is to be construed, not as the claim that the theist without evidence has violated some intellectual obligations, but that he suffers from a certain sort of... intellectual deficiency."

[rdb3]

But in our opinion your side carries along this unnecessary baggage of your mythical Authority Figure, with his Big Book of Regulations, which was really written by sheepherders. . .

I've seen these exact same words ("mythical," "Authority Figure," "sheepherders") by numerous primordial ooze believers on several threads. What's the matter? All of you cannot afford a thesaurus between you?

But, uh, don't you want to take back this lie you all are telling? You just lied through your teeth. Point out your lie, for I have laid it before you in plain sight.

[Lurking Libertarian]

"That would exclude Jonah, wouldn't it?" What false prophesies are you referring to?

Jonah prophesied that Ninveh would be destroyed in 30 days. It wasn't. In fact, the whole point of the story was that Jonah didn't want to deliver his prophecy because, knowing that God is merciful, he knew that God wouldn't carry out the threat he sent Jonah to deliver.