3 of the 10 Republican hopefuls dont believe in evolution

jonny72

I swear if you plucked some warlord religious bigot from the Dark Ages in Europe and put him on a parapet today.. he'd spew exactly the same rhetoric that seems to come from the mouths of all Republicans.. blah blah sun rotates around the earth.. blah must smite muslim invaders blah.. blah execution, torture, state of war blah .. and guess what.. he'd have a big audience.

In finland people would think maybe he was a comedy act, but in the deep south of the US, wow he'd probably get a standing ovation, then some rich fat white guy would invaribly come up and give him a few pointers on how you can really exploit these people's fears and ignorance to make more than a few bucks.

Theres seems to me to be a unusally large core of well-meaning, but ignorant, unworldly, backwards people in America (much to the frustration and dismay of the other Americans).. and around this core, the vultures feed.. the evangelic leaders, the scam artists, the TV talking heads all whipping them up in a paranoid religious frenzy.. but none of these parasites can manipulate this core as well as the Republicans complete with their rightwing firebrand "git offa maw lawn' preaching..

And I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised, that despite all the scandal, all the failures, all the corruption that they can get this group of idiots to vote for them again.

They've had their way for nearly a decade now, and they've just screwed up, over and over and over, they've almost irreperably destroyed America's image abroad, they're turning the place into a police state, they've entered a neverending war, the list just goes on and on and on..

And to top it all off, they seem to think that they've somehow vindicated themselves entirely because we all know, that of course, it was all Donald Rumsfeld's fault..

/huge rant
//deep breaths, calm blue ocean

Zambia

jonny72 wrote:

I swear if you plucked some warlord religious bigot from the Dark Ages in Europe and put him on a parapet today.. he'd spew exactly the same rhetoric that seems to come from the mouths of all Republicans.. blah blah sun rotates around the earth.. blah must smite muslim invaders blah.. blah execution, torture, state of war blah .. and guess what.. he'd have a big audience.

In finland people would think maybe he was a comedy act, but in the deep south of the US, wow he'd probably get a standing ovation, then some rich fat white guy would invaribly come up and give him a few pointers on how you can really exploit these people's fears and ignorance to make more than a few bucks.

Theres seems to me to be a unusally large core of well-meaning, but ignorant, unworldly, backwards people in America (much to the frustration and dismay of the other Americans).. and around this core, the vultures feed.. the evangelic leaders, the scam artists, the TV talking heads all whipping them up in a paranoid religious frenzy.. but none of these parasites can manipulate this core as well as the Republicans complete with their rightwing firebrand "git offa maw lawn' preaching..

And I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised, that despite all the scandal, all the failures, all the corruption that they can get this group of idiots to vote for them again.

They've had their way for nearly a decade now, and they've just screwed up, over and over and over, they've almost irreperably destroyed America's image abroad, they're turning the place into a police state, they've entered a neverending war, the list just goes on and on and on..

And to top it all off, they seem to think that they've somehow vindicated themselves entirely because we all know, that of course, it was all Donald Rumsfeld's fault..

/huge rant
//deep breaths, calm blue ocean

All this and no link to anything even the names of the three ??

jonny72

I think they've been identified as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Aaand they aren't alone..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/

"Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact."

mike65

That 3 US republican contenters think the earth is evolutionarily-speaking flat, is frankly only a suprise in terms of how small the number is.

Mike.

RalphCifaretto

jonny72 wrote:

I think they've been identified as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Aaand they aren't alone..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/

"Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact."

They are the figures I've seen before. I'm sure if you looked at the Republican party membership the proportion who deny the theory of evolution would be much greater than 30%.

Scigaithris

jonny72 wrote:

Theres seems to me to be a unusally large core of well-meaning, but ignorant, unworldly, backwards people in America (much to the frustration and dismay of the other Americans).. and around this core, the vultures feed.. the evangelic leaders, the scam artists, the TV talking heads all whipping them up in a paranoid religious frenzy..

Politics as usual? Media as usual? Opportunists as usual? Vested interests as usual? Could we substitute the word "America" with the names of other nations? (And please don't remind us of northern Ireland history or the position of the Church regarding evolution)

dave2pvd

It is quite amazing. I have met so many intelligent, articulate, accomplished people here that do not believe in evolution. Their faith tells them not to. So they don't.

I make a good effort to insert the word 'evolution' in a sentence at least once a day. People wince, just a little. Sometimes you can see pupils dilate ever so slightly. That means you've just been judged.

Oh, and don't think it's just the deep-South, it's just as bad in the mid-West, in a more waspish-protestant kind of way. And just about anywhere else away from the urban centers. The South is just more energetic about it all. We have revivals. And get saved. (You do know you're all going to hell, right?).

jonny72

Scigaithris wrote:

Politics as usual? Media as usual? Opportunists as usual? Vested interests as usual? Could we substitute the word "America" with the names of other nations? (And please don't remind us of northern Ireland history or the position of the Church regarding evolution)

Eh, I'm talking about the Republican party here, if you wanna gripe about Fianna Fail be my guest..

Essey

Just because you :rolleyes: don't believe in God doesn't make that belief wrong. Everyone subscribes to something whether its a belief in God or a disbelief etc.. nobody lives in a vacuum. Peoples thought processes are shaped by those beliefs but that doesn't mean that they are prejudice against those that do not share their belief system. Your anger seems to be coming from some ill defined place - have you discussed this with someone?:cool:

jonny72

Essey wrote:

Just because you :rolleyes: don't believe in God doesn't make that belief wrong. Everyone subscribes to something whether its a belief in God or a disbelief etc.. nobody lives in a vacuum. Peoples thought processes are shaped by those beliefs but that doesn't mean that they are prejudice against those that do not share their belief system. Your anger seems to be coming from some ill defined place - have you discussed this with someone?:cool:

God told the current president of the United States to invade Iraq.. or am I wrong? Religion and politics don't really mix very well, and the Republicans seem to be taking a step back in that respect. Any belief systems you don't agree with? lets start with fanatical Islam..

Scigaithris

jonny72 wrote:

God told the current president of the United States to invade Iraq.. or am I wrong?

Depends on how you define the US Republican Party god? Texaco?

The Republican prophet? Former Texas oilman G.W. Bush?

The Republican apostles? The US oil lobby?

The choir? Oil stock investors?

The parishioners? Americans who drive gas-guzzling SUVs?

The holy sacrifice? Blood for oil?

.

Gobán Saor

jonny72 wrote:

one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact."

This is the really scary bit IMHO.:eek:

FTA69

Essey wrote:

Just because you :rolleyes: don't believe in God doesn't make that belief wrong.

No the fact that religion is based on lies and bullsh*t makes that belief wrong. At the end of the day the belief comes down to God making the world, a divine power nobody can see or contact, and the belief we go to some mystical plain when we die. How is that so fundamental belief much different to say the Davidians, or those who believe aliens were responsible for human civilisation? Come to think of it, aliens are probably a bigger likelihood.

Sand

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't make that belief wrong. Everyone subscribes to something whether its a belief in God or a disbelief etc.. nobody lives in a vacuum. Peoples thought processes are shaped by those beliefs but that doesn't mean that they are prejudice against those that do not share their belief system. Your anger seems to be coming from some ill defined place - have you discussed this with someone?

I kinda agree - dont have time for people who are out and out hostile to religion. Its like slagging off kids for believing in Santa. If someone wants to believe fairies live at the bottom of their garden or theres some invisible super being living high in the sky who created everything, hears their every thought and intervenes in their daily life and the lives of everyone else...well fine. I can see that organised religion offers a social binding and some sort of moral code for people who need to be given that.

Only bothers me when they try to spread their stupidity or enforce lip service to it, or attempt to sabotage genuine understanding of the world because it doesnt fit with their storybook. Thats when it stops being a harmless personal belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny72
one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact."

This is the really scary bit IMHO.

Agreed. Anyone who comes out of college claiming that needs to have their degree suspended, be sent to a proper college, and the college that they graduated from needs to be shut down and its teaching staff forbidden to teach again.

jonny72

Sand wrote:

Agreed. Anyone who comes out of college claiming that needs to have their degree suspended, be sent to a proper college, and the college that they graduated from needs to be shut down and its teaching staff forbidden to teach again.

No, people over here are genuinely very surprised by it. I mean we in Europe have _already been through_ all this. Its just a natural progression.

I don't believe in witchcraft, witch burnings, female circumcision, human sacrifice, stonings, head-shavings, forced marriages, all these general by-products of the exploitation of religion and people's faith.

How after all the wars, scandals, lies, phoney anti-terror laws, secret prisons, slow economy, terrible this terrible that.. how is the Republican administration still in power?.. one reason.. Religion.. this giant chunk of religious America.. I believe the evangelicals have a voting block of nearly 50 million.. am I right?
This Republican administration has been so incompetent, its staggering, the administration of the world's only hyperpower, made up of these kind of people, neo-cons, the phoniest of politians and all because they were clever enough to yolk the power of them thar religious folk.

dave2pvd

Sand wrote:

Anyone who comes out of college claiming that (creation) needs to have their degree suspended, be sent to a proper college, and the college that they graduated from needs to be shut down and its teaching staff forbidden to teach again.

What on earth are you talking about? It's not a product of university. This is upbringing: family instilled and Sunday-school reinforced. It's not that different from the attempted Catholic upbringing I had no so long ago. The creation part is a mere detail in the whole fairy-tale. It's no weirder than the 'requirement' to confess sins or you'll go to hell. I'll bet you know some people who still believe that?

Essey

FTA69 wrote:

No the fact that religion is based on lies and bullsh*t makes that belief wrong. At the end of the day the belief comes down to God making the world, a divine power nobody can see or contact, and the belief we go to some mystical plain when we die. How is that so fundamental belief much different to say the Davidians, or those who believe aliens were responsible for human civilisation? Come to think of it, aliens are probably a bigger likelihood.

Lies and Bull**it is merely your Subjective opinion. There is an endless array of unexplained phenomenon that we can neither see, feel, taste or experience but nevertheless we acknowledge its existence. Science recognizes the existence of Black Holes - have you been in one lately – seen one – experienced one? Because Religion has been twisted by some doesn’t mean that it’s fundamentally “evil” and that there is no higher power than you. Because someone believes in the existence of a God being doesn’t make them an idiot. Rather for one to ridicule someone because their belief system in a divine power is different than yours is to expose yourself as unenlightened and dogmatic as you have accused them of being.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Albert Einstein

Dr_Teeth

"Lies and Bull****" is a fair comment to make on the silly, unproven, fantastical claims which are religion's bread and butter.

An astronomer will not tell you he knows 100% that there are black holes. He would show you what has been observed, and talk to you about what the most likely explanations are (given our present understanding based on the work of countless other scientists over many decades). He'd then invite you to join all the other astronomers out there who making even more observations in an attempt to replace the current understanding with an even better one! If you really wanted to, you could spend your whole life trying to disprove the concept of black holes using observations of the universe and scientific methods, and astronomers would cheer you for it!

A religious nut however, would tell you that the world is 6000 years old, and the reason he know's this is that it says so in a book that was beaten into him as a child. If you suggested a different idea based on observations of the real world, no doubt he'd tell you to go to hell.

Essey

Dr Teeth - the bread and butter of religions if love, compassion and kindness. If some choose to warp this concept then don't blame God. My point was that there are things that we "believe" exist yet can not prove - (at least yet). Many people embrace religion its not necessarily "Beaten" :eek: into them - but very dramatic analogy.:cool:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the bread and butter of religions if love, compassion and kindness. If some choose to warp this concept then don't blame God.

what has burning forever in eternal hellfire got to do with love, compassion and kindness?

leninbenjamin

Essey wrote:

Just because you :rolleyes: don't believe in God doesn't make that belief wrong. Everyone subscribes to something whether its a belief in God or a disbelief etc.. nobody lives in a vacuum. Peoples thought processes are shaped by those beliefs but that doesn't mean that they are prejudice against those that do not share their belief system. Your anger seems to be coming from some ill defined place - have you discussed this with someone?:cool:

personal beliefs aren't necessarily the problem. it's when you inflict your views on someone else. haven't there been cases of schools refusing to teach evolution or something along those lines? now that's why a line has to be drawn.

on the universities issue: for the most part universities are supposed to teach scientific method and rigor etc. it's all part of the university philosophy really. I would agree that it is kind of worrying that more and more people are coming out of these institutions and rejecting the more "scientific" of the two theories. it just seems a rejection of the whole essence of what universities stand for (if that makes sense). I mean science and creationism can't really live side by side.

oscarBravo

Stopped being a Politcs thread - if it ever was one - a looong time ago.

Dr_Teeth

Essey wrote:

Dr Teeth - the bread and butter of religions if love, compassion and kindness. If some choose to warp this concept then don't blame God. My point was that there are things that we "believe" exist yet can not prove - (at least yet). Many people embrace religion its not necessarily "Beaten" :eek: into them - but very dramatic analogy.:cool:

Humans were moral entities, that loved their families and built societies LONG before Abraham supposedly talked a burning bush. The concepts of love, compassion, kindness.. morality in general have absolutely nothing to do with organised religion.

Look, if you limit your faith to saying "I believe God created the universe and that I should thank him for it every now and then" I don't think anyone would have a problem. You wouldn't be making any falsifiable predictions and your belief wouldn't have any negative impact on anyone else. But religious people simply can't leave it at that, and insist on adding in completely untrue and frankly crazy stuff.. and then try to force it onto others.

Zombrex

Essey wrote:

Dr Teeth - the bread and butter of religions if love, compassion and kindness.

No, the bread and butter of religion, at least western religion, is convincing someone that something is wrong with them and that they need the specific religion because of this.

There is a reason why you don't have the Pope, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Martian Luther, telling people that any religion will do, just try and be nice to each other.

Essey wrote:

My point was that there are things that we "believe" exist yet can not prove - (at least yet). Many people embrace religion its not necessarily "Beaten" :eek: into them - but very dramatic analogy.:cool:

How many people don't choose the religion they grow up with? Last time I checked more people become atheists than change from the religion of their parents.

bonkey

Essey wrote:

There is an endless array of unexplained phenomenon that we can neither see, feel, taste or experience but nevertheless we acknowledge its existence.

Perhaps, but not in the sense that I think you mean.

Science recognizes the existence of Black Holes - have you been in one lately – seen one – experienced one?

Science didn't just dream up the notion of black holes, decide they sounded like a good idea, and make them a canonical part of science as a result.

Science doesn't have a single holy book which has been decided to be infallible, wherein the existence of black holes is written, which is why science recognises their existence.

Rather, science has through progressively better models of the universe concluded that black holes should exist, then figured out what effects one would see if the do exist, then went and figured out where those effects should be seen, and found them. Over time, the theory has passed increasingly greater numbers of such falsifiable tests, which is why science "recognises" the existence of black holes.

This is true of all scientific theory.

Given the choice between words written thousands of years ago in a book said by some to be infallible and the best science has to offer, I know where I will put my money every time.

People are, of course, free to believe in whatever they choose.

I, for example, choose to believe that people who put faith in the literal truth of Genesis or the like are not people I would in turn put my faith in to occupy any position of secular authority.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Albert Einstein

It should be noted that Albert Einstein repeatedly went to pains to make it clear that he did not believe in a personal God, which is the type of "higher power" posited by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.

if anything, he was dismayed at how often people choose to misinterpret or misrepresent comments that he had already clarified his stance on, to make it appear as though he did not reject the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/other notion of a personal God.

In terms of this thread, while he may not side with those who are expressing deep-seated anger at the mere concept of religion, he would certainly not have given any credence to Creationists of the type who believe in the literal truth of Genesis.

Sangre

Essey wrote:

Lies and Bull**it is merely your Subjective opinion. There is an endless array of unexplained phenomenon that we can neither see, feel, taste or experience but nevertheless we acknowledge its existence. Science recognizes the existence of Black Holes - have you been in one lately – seen one – experienced one?

Belief in black holes is based on an educated guess resulting from material observation and theory.
Religion (well most) is the opposite of an educated guess, going as far as rejecting established knowledge and science and instead accepting a higher belief.

Zombrex

Essey wrote:

There is an endless array of unexplained phenomenon that we can neither see, feel, taste or experience but nevertheless we acknowledge its existence.

True, but there is a difference between acknowledging their existence and assuming you know what it is was.

For example, a Christian might believe God is talking to them in their head. Now clearly something is happening, because the Christian will tell you straight out "God talks to me".

But it is in that jump from that something to God is talking to me that the problem lies.

Religion quickly makes up an answer that is pleasing to the people who want a pleasing answer. Whether or not it is actually true is rather beside the point. It is no more true than any other answer that someone can make up, but people will believe it is true because they want to believe it is true.

Science on the the other hands attempts to slowly find out what is actually going on, with little regard for whether the answer will be pleasing to anyone.

Essey wrote:

Because someone believes in the existence of a God being doesn’t make them an idiot.

No, but it does mean they are prone to accepting explanations for things because they are pleasing to them rather than because they are true or likely. I don't think this makes someone an idiot, but I do think that in doing so they abandon rationality and reason.

Say someone feels a presence in their head. The idea that this presence is God attempting to communicate with them is far more pleasing to them than the idea that it is a trick of the mind. They will accept the former explanation over the latter, despite the fact that the latter is a far more rational explanation.

Ultimately it is down to strength of judgment, willing to put the likely explanation over an unlikely but pleasing explanation.

A lot of people are not willing to do this because the comfort gained from the unlikely explanation is worth more to them than the sense of really understanding what is actually happening (ie the truth). The truth can often be very discomforting.

Essey

Mordeth wrote:

what has burning forever in eternal hellfire got to do with love, compassion and kindness?

I would have expected a more intelligent answer from a "moderator"

Sand

What on earth are you talking about? It's not a product of university. This is upbringing: family instilled and Sunday-school reinforced. It's not that different from the attempted Catholic upbringing I had no so long ago. The creation part is a mere detail in the whole fairy-tale. It's no weirder than the 'requirement' to confess sins or you'll go to hell. I'll bet you know some people who still believe that?

If a student comes out of an educational facility rejecting common sense, reason and all available evidence in favour of a story book then that educational facility has failed on two levels - they accepted the student, and then they failed to educate the student on even the most basic fundamental level of examining the evidence and reaching a reasonable conclusion.

It doesnt even have to be the conclusion theyre told to find - leave that to the church of socialism tbh - but it ought to be something that can at least be argued without saying "Well it says so right here in Ezekiel 13:48, right after the part where God commands them to slay all the women and children".

Oh and for the record, no I dont know anyone who still believes theyll go to hell if they dont confess their sins. Id find it very odd if someone came out with that tbh, though whatever floats their boat. I would have serious doubts about that persons cop on though.

dave2pvd

Sand wrote:

If a student comes out of an educational facility rejecting common sense, reason and all available evidence in favour of a story book then that educational facility has failed on two levels - they accepted the student, and then they failed to educate the student on even the most basic fundamental level of examining the evidence and reaching a reasonable conclusion.

I am trying to recall the part in my 3rd level education where religion was even discussed. You did use the words 'college' and 'degree', if I recall.

Are you confusing secondary school/high school with university? In university, unless you're studying in a somewhat related field, 'faith' will not be examined, thus the student is unlikely to question aspects of faith.

As for their failure in accepting the student for entry: again, what on earth are you talking about? How would an institute discern an individual's lack of sense and faulty reasoning in advance of entry?

Zombrex

dave2pvd wrote:

In university, unless you're studying in a somewhat related field, 'faith' will not be examined,

I don't think that is Sand's point.

In college students should be encouraged to reason and examine, not just in the subject of degree, but life in general. The fact that they don't directly tackle religion doesn't mean that a student will not gain the reasoning skills to tackle religion on their own.

dave2pvd

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think that is Sand's point. In college students should be encouraged to reason and examine, not just in the subject of degree, but life in general. The fact that they don't directly tackle religion doesn't mean that a student will not gain the reasoning skills to tackle religion on their own.

I think some folks cling very tightly to their faith. Perhaps logical reasoning, encouraged and refined still won't penetrate down to the depths of their fundamental religious beliefs? In other words, these beliefs are stronger and farther instilled in the individual than reasoning skills learned in university.

I know some extraordinarily analytical engineers (sitting not far from me right now) - these guys are remarkably logical in their approach to tackling a complex problem, yet they are devout creationists.

Personally, I see a conflict. How can one have such strong 'blind' faith, yet be highly questioning and understanding of cause & effect in other aspects of life? I couldn't be that person - but I see many who are. I respect these people for who they are, despite my bafflement towards their belief set.

Sand's original espousing:

Sand wrote:

Anyone who comes out of college claiming that (belief in creation) needs to have their degree suspended, be sent to a proper college, and the college that they graduated from needs to be shut down and its teaching staff forbidden to teach again

seems to be just a wee bit extreme to me. Smacks of intolerance, especially for one who doesn't:

Sand wrote:

have time for people who are out and out hostile to religion.

Zillah

Essey wrote:

Dr Teeth - the bread and butter of religions if love, compassion and kindness.

Ahahahaha...

Oh wow. Really. Hahahaha. You need to pay more attention to history.

Sangre

Zillah wrote:

Ahahahaha...

Oh wow. Really. Hahahaha. You need to pay more attention to history.

I disagree, the religious love wars and are compassionate about oppressing people.

Sand

I am trying to recall the part in my 3rd level education where religion was even discussed. You did use the words 'college' and 'degree', if I recall.

Are you confusing secondary school/high school with university? In university, unless you're studying in a somewhat related field, 'faith' will not be examined, thus the student is unlikely to question aspects of faith.

As for their failure in accepting the student for entry: again, what on earth are you talking about? How would an institute discern an individual's lack of sense and faulty reasoning in advance of entry?

Yes I did, and Ill repeat - anyone who believes in the creationist myth despite all the available evidence that supports evolution to the point where it is practically certain as the sun rising tommorrow simply because it says so in an old book does not fit any definition of educated that involves reason, objectivity and knowledge. Anyone who spouts such nonsense whilst wielding a degree degrades the very concept of 3rd level qualifications. Any institution or degree which is associated with those people is similarly degraded.

Are we very clear yet on what I'm saying? Degrees and 3rd level education are supposed to be about reason and objectivity, not irrationalism and superstition. And no, I wouldnt qualify a theologian as being much more impressive than someone who studies up on the matrix franchise tbh.

As for failure inherent in taking on such a student - universtities and 3rd level institutions screen candidates, usually by academic record to date. If someone so resistant to reason slips through the net and takes the place of another person who can be educated and is open to reason then the university has failed. If they get through x years of exams and take the degree then theyve failed again - it demonstrates you can grab their degree without even having basic common sense.

Personally, I see a conflict. How can one have such strong 'blind' faith, yet be highly questioning and understanding of cause & effect in other aspects of life? I couldn't be that person - but I see many who are. I respect these people for who they are, despite my bafflement towards their belief set.

Probably because they dont question - they simply learn by rote, following others examples and the paths others have blazed. Both in their jobs and their personal beliefs. I doubt they had an original view they didnt borrow from someone else. If they can honestly ignore evidence and stick to the myth of creationism then they demonstrate that they simply lack the ability to reason things out.

seems to be just a wee bit extreme to me. Smacks of intolerance, especially for one who doesn't:

I'm not being extreme or intolerant. If someone wants to believe that rubbish, fine. Plenty of people believe in tarot, healing crystals, angels, so on and so forth. I will form opinions though, and it wont be positive. I might disgree drastically with a view thats based on someones view of a set of facts, but Ive zero time for a view thats simply "Because the Bible says so". Thats not reason, thats not education.

InFront

bonkey wrote:

It should be noted that Albert Einstein repeatedly went to pains to make it clear that he did not believe in a personal God, which is the type of "higher power" posited by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.

Can someone actually explain what that means? I'm always coming across this and nobody ever expands upon it, does it even mean anything? And please don't bother trying to explain it if you don't know either.

Because I don't believe in a "personal God" in terms of one who is here for me, so to speak, or one whose function is my betterment. It's just a curiosity, if anybody can explain it.

I find the way both sides seem to battle over Einstein a little amusing really. Who cares?

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Can someone actually explain what that means? I'm always coming across this and nobody ever expands upon it, does it even mean anything? And please don't bother trying to explain it if you don't know either.

Because I don't believe in a "personal God" in terms of one who is here for me, so to speak, or one whose function is my betterment. It's just a curiosity, if anybody can explain it.

I find the way both sides seem to battle over Einstein a little amusing really. Who cares?

Einstein didn't believe in a super intelligent all knowing "being" that sits outside of time and has direct and personal communication with humans because we are considered special by this intelligence ... in other words he didn't believe in God as a person,nor as something takes personal interestest in humans, in the traditional Abrahamic sense. The "personal" in Personal God doesn't apply to you, it applies to the God itself, God as a person or something with a personality and personal interests.

His belief was closer to something like the idea of "Mother Nature"

Einstein is brought up mainly as an example of a really really smart person who also believed in God, as a challenge to atheists who say that ultimately God is an irrational belief. This is of course countered by atheists who point out that Einstein didn't actually believe in what most theists would term "God"

Tar.Aldarion

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god.
Spinoza believed that God was Nature/Universe.
He didn't believe in a god. Simple.

Son Goku

InFront wrote:

I find the way both sides seem to battle over Einstein a little amusing really. Who cares?

He did and that's what matters. During his lifetime and after his death he has been quoted in support of things he disagreed with and it genuinely caused him a lot of distress. There is no battle, he simply did not believe in God, all people have to do is stop misquoting him.

InFront wrote:

Because I don't believe in a "personal God" in terms of one who is here for me, so to speak, or one whose function is my betterment. It's just a curiosity, if anybody can explain it.

Wicknight already explained it, but yeah he thought that there wasn't such a being like God with a sense of personhood.

bonkey

InFront wrote:

Can someone actually explain what that means? I'm always coming across this and nobody ever expands upon it, does it even mean anything? And please don't bother trying to explain it if you don't know either.

Because I don't believe in a "personal God" in terms of one who is here for me, so to speak, or one whose function is my betterment. It's just a curiosity, if anybody can explain it.

I don't understand your question.

You seem to be saying you don't know what a personal God is, but also that you don't believe in one.

I find the way both sides seem to battle over Einstein a little amusing really. Who cares?

The religious often try to "hijack" Einstein to support their cause, given that he is one of the most celebrated scientists of the modern era.

The logic seems to be that if someone of the caliber of Einstein could believe in a God, then all arguments against any aspect of religiosity, in favour of education, reason and science are somehow suspect.

Not only is the reasoning flawed to begin with, but it also involves misrepresenting Einstein.

If we wish to accurately protray Einstein's position with respect to religion, these quotes are far more useful:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Dimitri

Yes I did, and Ill repeat - anyone who believes in the creationist myth despite all the available evidence that supports evolution to the point where it is practically certain as the sun rising tommorrow simply because it says so in an old book does not fit any definition of educated that involves reason, objectivity and knowledge. Anyone who spouts such nonsense whilst wielding a degree degrades the very concept of 3rd level qualifications. Any institution or degree which is associated with those people is similarly degraded.

Yet communal confirmation is often an accepted means of proof even at third level and beyond, why than when surrounded by people of similar beliefs should someone automatically question them. Yes there is an enormous array of evidence that suggests evolution to be a reality, but when surrounded by creationists, a third level graduate who by rights should be an apt and capable scientific researcher, and in all probability is, cannot be blamed for choosing to have faith. While evolution is almost certain, to someone brought up in a creationist environment creationism is equally certain. For them it becomes a fifty-fifty split and personally i'm surprised there aren't more!!

dave2pvd

Sand wrote:

anyone who believes in the creationist myth............does not fit any definition of educated that involves reason, objectivity and knowledge. Anyone who spouts such nonsense whilst wielding a degree degrades the very concept of 3rd level qualifications....

Sand, replace 'any' with 'my'. Stop making such big sweeping definitive statements.

Sand wrote:

Probably because they dont question - they simply learn by rote, ............they demonstrate that they simply lack the ability to reason things out

Learning by rote does not a career make - at least not in my field. Let me re-iterate: despite a belief in creationism, there are a lot of highly intelligent, questioning, reasonable, logical people out there. They just don't question that part of their faith. I've met them, a lot of them (that's America for you). You have not, obviously, met such types. Which is fine, you will and you'll be intrigued by their (odd) take on life and the universe beyond. To me, holding a belief like creationism dear is a big contradiction amongst some. So on that small point maybe we'll agree.

Sand wrote:

a view thats simply "Because the Bible says so". Thats not reason

I agree with you on that point too.

Let's not thunderdome this to thing death. Come visit over here some time and I'll introduce you to some very odd folk. They're everywhere.

I see odd people....:eek:

InFront

bonkey wrote:

I don't understand your question.
You seem to be saying you don't know what a personal God is, but also that you don't believe in one.

No, I explained what I don't believe in and said I didn't understand what Einstein believed in (in terms of religion).

Anyway as someone else pointed out, his belief was in Spinzoa's God, which clarifies things.

bonkey

dave2pvd wrote:

Sand, replace 'any' with 'my'. Stop making such big sweeping definitive statements.

If you can't explain how "reason, objectivity and knowledge" can be reconciled with what Sand is attacking, then you should consider that he is not over-generalising.

If you can explain it, then I'd be most interested in hearing your case.

To me, holding a belief like creationism dear is a big contradiction amongst some. So on that small point maybe we'll agree.I agree with you on that point too.

So you agree that its not a reasoned, objective, knowledge-based position, but think Sand is out of order for saying so?

dave2pvd

bonkey wrote:

If you can't explain how "reason, objectivity and knowledge" can be reconciled with what Sand is attacking, then you should consider that he is not over-generalising.

My point is that there are people out there who have "reason, objectivity and knowledge" yet believe in creationism. Not all of them, but certainly some of them. A paradox? Yes, so it would seem.

bonkey wrote:

So you agree that its not a reasoned, objective, knowledge-based position, but think Sand is out of order for saying so?

not a reasoned, objective, knowledge-based position => not the belief in creationism, no (at least not to me). Sand's denouncements of such people's mental accuity is too strong however. Reasoned, objective, etc, can still apply to other aspects of their outlook on life and its challenges.

He is over-generalizing, because he is applying a very rigid definition of what makes a person have reasoning, objectivity and be knowledgeable - he excludes the ability for them to also believe in creationism. I am saying that it is possible, I have met such people.

I don't claim to understand it.

Sangre

If people don't apply reasoning and objectivity to all aspects of their lives they're not being objective or reasoned are they?

bonkey

dave2pvd wrote:

My point is that there are people out there who have "reason, objectivity and knowledge" yet believe in creationism. Not all of them, but certainly some of them. A paradox? Yes, so it would seem.

There's nothing paradoxical about it. There are people who can show that they are capable of objective, reasoned, knowledgeable reasoning, but that they choose not to apply same in certain circumstances.

I wouldn't condemn such people to the extent that Sand does. As I said previously, I simply believe they should not be trusted to hold any secular position of responsibility, given that they have demonstrated that when it comes to a choice between reasoned, objective, knowledgeable decision-making and following their faith, they will choose the latter regardless of whether it requires abandoning the former or not.

Reasoned, objective, etc, can still apply to other aspects of their outlook on life and its challenges.

I'd more-or-less agree.

As I said, I see it to be a case that they are "faith first". When there is no conflict, then their actions can be in agreement with what a neutral observer would consider reasoned, objective, etc. When there is a conflict, reason etc. loses.

He is over-generalizing, because he is applying a very rigid definition of what makes a person have reasoning, objectivity and be knowledgeable - he excludes the ability for them to also believe in creationism.

Take someone who acts on impulse, never stopping once to consider if their actions are moral or immoral.

Such a person could be accurately called amoral, agreed?

Now lets say that 99% of the time, their amoral actions mirror what we consider to be moral. Does this make them "moral, except in one or two sitautions", or are they still amoral?

I am saying that it is possible, I have met such people.

I believe its a matter of perspective.

I know kids who do what their parents tell them, except when its not in accordance with what the kids themselves want to do to a sufficient extent. Are they "obedient, except in certain situations", or are they "disobedient"?

If its a case, for these people, of "faith first", then are they really being objective? Or are they "objective, unless it conflicts with my faith".

dave2pvd

Right, we have degrees of objectivity, morality, etc. To be definitive about any human characteristic is a bit too black and white. This is not mathematics.

I can't answer the amoral question. I can think of examples where the 1% amoral action wouldn't necessarily have me brand the person amoral. Especially if it is tax evasion

I abhor the idea of a creationist in charge. Bush's admin and Bush's (ex) congress have made many 'faith-based' changes to the running of this country. The legislation to move govt funds towards 'faith-based' charities and away from ones that don't conform always bothered me hugely. Family planning is de-emphasised and abstinence promoted. Asinine in the extreme, guided by its creators' belief set/faith.

Let me add this to the mix: some of these 'reasoning creationists' that I am trying to describe have actually gone to great lengths studying the creation vs evolution argument and found the theory of evolution to be faulty. Such conclusions are arrived at 'using' reason, objectivity and knowledge on the part of the student. Having said that, you should see some of the bizarre arguments in the literature condemning evolution....

Zombrex

dave2pvd wrote:

Let me add this to the mix: some of these 'reasoning creationists' that I am trying to describe have actually gone to great lengths studying the creation vs evolution argument and found the theory of evolution to be faulty.

What do you mean by "faulty"?

dave2pvd

Wicknight wrote:

"faulty"?

Wrong

Zombrex

dave2pvd wrote:

Wrong

Certainly the theories and models of evolution have been altered and updated through out the years based on new evidence and new theories, but I'm not sure Creationists had much to do with that. Few Creationists even understand evolution well enough to discover faults with the theory, since most Creationists tend to come from fields outside of biology.