Good letter

Tim Robbins

Interesting letter from Fr Sean McDonagh in today's IT. Good to see a theologian showing scientific acumen and acceptance life began as we understand it scientifically and not as in Genesis, which can only be an allegory or a myth. It's good to the RC church accepting Science and showing that acceptance.

Good letter from Fr McDonagh here, may point I think is that he is shown scientific acumen and acceptance life began 3.7 billion years ago, not with creation myths in Genesis
Madam, - When people tell me that environmental awareness has grown dramatically in recent years, I tend to be sceptical. True, during the past two years, there has been a sea-change in public knowledge of the dangers of climate change. Still, in my experience, only about 30 people will turn up to a talk on climate change in any average-sized town in Ireland, and most of them will be over 50.
No such awareness has yet emerged regarding the destructive consequences of the massive extinction of species which is taking place across the world today. The renowned Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson believes that the "quenching of life's exuberance will be more consequential to humanity than all the present-day global warming, ozone depletion and pollution combined".
Yet the media coverage of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Bonn (May 19th to 30th) has been minimal. Arguably, this conference is the most important in the world this year. The reason is simple: we are now witnessing the sixth largest extinction of life on the planet since life began 3.7 billion years ago. We need to halt this haemorrhage immediately, or future generations will have to live on a biologically impoverished planet.
While it is important to discuss the Lisbon Treaty, 1,000 years from now people will be mixing up the Lisbon Treaty with the Treaty of Westphalia. On the other hand, a million years from now, if humankind survives, people will still be mourning the impoverishment of the life of the planet which took place in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They will ask why those living then were so short-sighted and destructive. - Yours, etc,
Fr SEAN MCDONAGH,
Dalkan Park,
Navan,
Co Meath.

kelly1

Hello Tim, I still have some difficulties with evolution.

While I understand that the random mutation process is filtered via natural selection, I still find it very hard to accept that life came from non-life. Clearly evolution has taken place in the past and life on earth is billions of years old. However there are still difficult questions to answer e.g. How did DNA and sex come to be.

The way I see it, God had to be involved at some point after the big-bang. I think God must have got the ball rolling, so to speak, by creating the first basic lifeform(s). Or if that isn't the case, God must have know before the big-bang what the outcome of evolution would be. Personally I prefer to think that God has always been "guiding" evolution in the right direction towards its ulimate goal, which is man. But of course my opinion on this is of little consequence.

Life is just too perfect to be random. I mean, man and woman are *made* for each other. Why aren't we all the same sex? I just can't see how evolution can be a complete theory.

Even if it does turn out to be a complete theory for how physical life arose on planet earth, evolution is a completely separate matter from God's creation of each individual soul.

God bless,
Noel.

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

Personally I prefer to think that God has always been "guiding" evolution in the right direction towards its ulimate goal, which is man. But of course my opinion on this is of little consequence.

Life is just too perfect to be random. I mean, man and woman are *made* for each other. Why aren't we all the same sex? I just can't see how evolution can be a complete theory.

This argument is flawed. If man is evolution's "ultimate goal" then why is life still evolving?

There are several convincing theories as to why sex came to be - and it doesn't just happen in humans, or even mammals. For example, read about Bill Hamilton's theory on how sex evolved as a defence against disease.

Man is certainly not perfect - I mean physically. There are parts of the body that, if designed, are completely backwards, the eye, for example. A much more fitting explanation is evolution by gradual steps.

Maybe you need to do a bit more background reading on evolution before dismissing it.:)

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

While I understand that the random mutation process is filtered via natural selection, I still find it very hard to accept that life came from non-life. Clearly evolution has taken place in the past and life on earth is billions of years old. However there are still difficult questions to answer e.g. How did DNA and sex come to be.

Agree with you on DNA. That's still at hypothesis stage. Gender can be explained by natural selection and mutation.

The way I see it, God had to be involved at some point after the big-bang. I think God must have got the ball rolling, so to speak, by creating the first basic lifeform(s). Or if that isn't the case, God must have know before the big-bang what the outcome of evolution would be. Personally I prefer to think that God has always been "guiding" evolution in the right direction towards its ulimate goal, which is man. But of course my opinion on this is of little consequence.

Well I don't believe in God, but if I did I would see it this way.
We know natural selection created all species in the world today. We don't know exactly how or what God did to create natural selection or why he used natural selection. It is beyond our understanding.

My point is that the RC Church seems to embrace and accept Science, almost seeing it as a way of examing God's cosmological creation.

This is an entirely different approach to conservative biblical Churches most of whom seem to be Scientifically illiterate or terrified to understand evolution. I think this is because in order for RC to be the biggest Church they must accept mainstream Science and adopting crackpot position are impossible.

I also think it is because a lot of RC Priests are very well educated and would have a sophisticated understanding of science and philosophy. The crackpot Christian churches don't seem to have that many people who are well educated. Most RC Priests are now more interested in living the gospel by doing charitable and humanitarian deeds than arguing brain dead creationism.
Fr. Peter McVerry would be a very good example.

Finally, I think it's because the RC Church accepts criticism from the outside. Because they are a large church like the Anglicans and Lutherans the probability of them having to engage in debate and open criticism is much higher. This means crackpot positions again are much harder to adopt.

kelly1

Malari wrote: »

This argument is flawed. If man is evolution's "ultimate goal" then why is life still evolving?

That may be so. But man is still top of the pile and I can't see any other mammal ready to knock us off our perch. It's not planet of the apes any more is it? We're not fighting for our lives in the jungle.

Malari wrote: »

There are several convincing theories as to why sex came to be - and it doesn't just happen in humans, or even mammals. For example, read about Bill Hamilton's theory on how sex evolved as a defence against disease.

OK, there may be a natural explanation.

Malari wrote: »

Maybe you need to do a bit more background reading on evolution before dismissing it.:)

I didn't dismiss evolution, did I? What I'm saying is that there are gaps that science can't explain and I'm skeptical that science will provide the answers. To say that science will eventually find all the answers is to put a lot of faith in science (i.e. ourselves)

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

I just can't see how evolution can be a complete theory.

I read this as a dismissal! I suppose that depends on what you consider it to be a complete theory of.

And saying man is top of the pile is only from a development of consciousness viewpoint. We may not be running from lions on the savannah where we originally evolved, but evolution is a blind process and not striving towards some goal. Mammals are not the pinnacle.

If you don't consider us fighting for our lives against infectious diseases then maybe you need to look at it from another angle.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My point is that the RC Church seems to embrace and accept Science, almost seeing it as a way of examing God's cosmological creation.

Just a side note, I beleive there was much excitement in the Church when Stephen Hawking announce the big-bang theory which said that the universe, including time, had a beginning and will continue to expand indefinitely. At least it didn't refute the belief that God created the universe out of nothing.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is an entirely different approach to conservative biblical Churches most of whom seem to be Scientifically illiterate or terrified to understand evolution. I think this is because in order for RC to be the biggest Church they must accept mainstream Science and adopting crackpot position are impossible.

The Church is strong enough in its faith in God that it's not afraid to have it's own science department/observatory. There should be no clash between scienctific knowledge and religion but unfortunately Christian fundamentalists are doing Christianity harm by bringing ridicule upon themselves and other Christians by association.

philologos

Malari wrote: »

I read this as a dismissal! I suppose that depends on what you consider it to be a complete theory of.

Irrespective of what it is a theory of, evolution is dependant on abogenesis or life coming from non life for it even to have occurred in the first place?

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

Irrespective of what it is a theory of, evolution is dependant on abogenesis or life coming from non life for it even to have occurred in the first place?

That's one of my main concerns with evolution. I find it very difficult to conceive how a cell could somehow randomly come together. Even very "simple" cells are quite complex aren't they? BTW, I never studied biology, as if this wasn't obvious!

Malari

Jakkass wrote: »

Irrespective of what it is a theory of, evolution is dependant on abogenesis or life coming from non life for it even to have occurred in the first place?

Well there's my point. Evolution does not claim to answer the origins of life, but how life changes and develops in response to the environment. So if you see it as a complete theory for how life developed then of course you have a problem with it.

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

That's one of my main concerns with evolution. I find it very difficult to conceive how a cell could somehow randomly come together. Even very "simple" cells are quite complex aren't they? BTW, I never studied biology, as if this wasn't obvious!

Hmm, belief in god from personal incredulity in anything else.

It's not quite enough to say it can be a concern just because you have difficulty with it. I personally find astrophysics unfathomable but I don't claim its theories are not enough of an explanation just because I don't get it.

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Tim, I still have some difficulties with evolution.

While I understand that the random mutation process is filtered via natural selection, I still find it very hard to accept that life came from non-life. Clearly evolution has taken place in the past and life on earth is billions of years old. However there are still difficult questions to answer e.g. How did DNA and sex come to be.

"snip"

I just can't see how evolution can be a complete theory.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, evolution only explains the diversity of life. Evolution is a complete theory, but its the theory of how life changes over time, not how it began. Saying it doesn't seem like a complete theory because it doesn't explain the beginnings of life, is like saying Newtons laws of motion don't look like complete theories because they don't explain where matter came from.

kelly1 wrote: »

Even if it does turn out to be a complete theory for how physical life arose on planet earth, evolution is a completely separate matter from God's creation of each individual soul.

Again, evolution will never turn out to be a complete theory for how life arose, because its a theory that only explains how life has changed over time.

kelly1

Thanks for the clarification Mark. I live and learn.

In that case, the thing I have difficulty with is abiogenesis by natural means.

ryoishin

I cant see why both eveloution and and God cant both be belived by some.

To know more about the world around you can help bring you closer to the divine (maybe).

marco_polo

kelly1 wrote: »

That's one of my main concerns with evolution. I find it very difficult to conceive how a cell could somehow randomly come together. Even very "simple" cells are quite complex aren't they? BTW, I never studied biology, as if this wasn't obvious!

You are not alone there it is one of the least well understood areas of sciencific research (lots of differing hypothesises but no scientific grade theories as far as I know). Compared to other established scientific fields it is just a baby, with a relatively small number of active researchers by comparison.

However I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting that a bunch of simple molecules just happen to randomly arrange themselves into a modern cell one day. If some form of abiogenisis did occur then it was likely a gradual process involving many different stages.

kelly1

marco_polo wrote: »

However I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting that a bunch of simple molecules just happen to randomly arrange themselves into a modern cell one day. If some form of abiogenisis did occur then it was likely a gradual process involving many different stages.

Which begs the question, what is life. Is life a complex arrangement of molecules or does every living thing have a soul as many theologians believe*.

*plant and animals have mortal souls and only humans have immortal souls.

CerebralCortex

Life is a complex arrangement of molecules.

marco_polo

kelly1 wrote: »

Which begs the question, what is life. Is life a complex arrangement of molecules or does every living thing have a soul as many theologians believe*.

*plant and animals have mortal souls and only humans have immortal souls.

That is a question that scientists, philosohers and theoloians have mused on for centuries. Although I like this quote by Carl Pilcher director of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute: "It’s far easier to say what life isn’t"

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Life is a complex arrangement of molecules.

How can you be so sure there's nothing more to life? That's too reductionist for my liking.

calahans

kelly1 wrote: »

Which begs the question, what is life. Is life a complex arrangement of molecules or does every living thing have a soul as many theologians believe*.

*plant and animals have mortal souls and only humans have immortal souls.

That is f*cking hilarious. Theres nothing more that I can add.

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

How can you be so sure there's nothing more to life? That's too reductionist for my liking.

How about things that reproduce/replicate themselves. Is that more accessible?

And the only immortal soul is good rhythm 'n' blues music.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

How can you be so sure there's nothing more to life? That's too reductionist for my liking.

I suppose due to the fact its evident. While it has nothing to do with what I believe it can't be argued that its not a simple fact. I don't think its reductionist life is incredible.

Húrin

You're all missing the point! The letter is not about being a priest and agreeing with science. The letter is about the importance of biodiversity and the tragedy that is mass extinction.

God values all life on this earth. He did not create it solely for human use.

God in Job 39 wrote:

1 "Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?

2 Do you count the months till they bear?
Do you know the time they give birth?

3 They crouch down and bring forth their young;
their labor pains are ended.

4 Their young thrive and grow strong in the wilds;
they leave and do not return.

5 "Who let the wild donkey go free?
Who untied his ropes?

6 I gave him the wasteland as his home,
the salt flats as his habitat.

Jesus in Matthew 6 wrote:

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.

Listen to the Christ. Don't all the creatures of the earth praise God in their being? Humans alone deviate. It is a severe error to isolate ourselves from our fellow creatures, and an evil to eradicate them.

The crationism vs evolution debate is not important. What is important is that Christians escape the arrogant (and intrinsically atheistic) modernist prison that convinces us of the omnipotence of man, and our ability and right to subject creation to any and every whim.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

You're all missing the point! The letter is not about being a priest and agreeing with science. The letter is about the importance of biodiversity and the tragedy that is mass extinction.

Yes, that's what the letter is about, and it's based upon a solid appreciation of science from, amongst others, the hand of no less a guy than EO Wilson, who's one of the best in the game. Given the off-handed, or even chilly, reception that science typically receives from religious people, I think McDonagh's letter is quite remarkable.

Húrin wrote: »

What is important is that Christians escape the arrogant (and intrinsically atheistic) modernist prison that convinces us of the omnipotence of man, and our ability and right to subject creation to any and every whim.

Atheists do not assert the omnipotence of man and I can't imagine why you would think that anybody could be so vain as to do so.

The biggest players in the omni* game are the religious who, in asserting the perfect and all-encompassing powers of their chosen deity or deities, are declaring themselves competent to recognize and judge omnipotence.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is an entirely different approach to conservative biblical Churches most of whom seem to be Scientifically illiterate or terrified to understand evolution.

Churches are not scientific institutes and do not exist for the purpose of teaching science. However, conservative biblical churches, in my experience, contain plenty of people who are scientifically literate (my own congregation contains 15 medical doctors, all of whom seem fairly scientifically literate, and a number of engineers and people who work in IT). I don't know of any member of my church who would be even slightly fearful, let alone terrified, of understanding evolution.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Churches are not scientific institutes and do not exist for the purpose of teaching science. However, conservative biblical churches, in my experience, contain plenty of people who are scientifically literate (my own congregation contains 15 medical doctors, all of whom seem fairly scientifically literate, and a number of engineers and people who work in IT). I don't know of any member of my church who would be even slightly fearful, let alone terrified, of understanding evolution.

Well your stance, which is closer to "it's simply doesn't matter", is quite far away from McDonagh's. Would the people who you describe as scientifically minded in your church be closer to yourself or McDonagh?

What are their opinions w.r.t. the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Edward O. Wilson?
Do they think either carries any importance or just "don't really matter"?

RealEstateKing

That's one of my main concerns with evolution. I find it very difficult to conceive how a cell could somehow randomly come together.

Its not random. You need to read further about evolution if that's what you think.

kelly1

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Its not random. You need to read further about evolution if that's what you think.

Hey Johnny-come-lately, this has already been dealth with! Did you not see posts #12 and 13?

In fact I said in my first post that mutation is random, not evolution.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

That may be so. But man is still top of the pile and I can't see any other mammal ready to knock us off our perch. It's not planet of the apes any more is it? We're not fighting for our lives in the jungle.

The measure of success in evolution is not complexity, nor culture, nor intelligence. It is numbers and survival only. The ultimate measure is "fitness to its environment". With regard to sheer numbers we are not in the lead. With regard to fitness, we are no more evolved than any other stable (ie non-declining) species. The best candidate for a winner amongst the animals would probably be one of the insect species. Overall it would most likely be one of the more successful bacteria.

The easiest analogy I could make is that all species have travelled the same distance along different paths.

Biro

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Life is a complex arrangement of molecules.

Surely it's more than that? From a molecular point of view, is there a difference between a man on his death bed, and a man 1 second after death?

RealEstateKing

Surely it's more than that? From a molecular point of view, is there a difference between a man on his death bed, and a man 1 second after death?

Yes.

There is no longer oxygen being brought in, to fill the blood that goes throughout the body and keeps it alive.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

That's one of my main concerns with evolution. I find it very difficult to conceive how a cell could somehow randomly come together. Even very "simple" cells are quite complex aren't they? BTW, I never studied biology, as if this wasn't obvious!

Evolution does not require for abiogenesis to have occured any more than it requires the big bang. When we consider Evolution, we are looking at the modification of pre-existing genomes. Our understanding has now lead us to believe that all currently oberseved life has a common single genetic ancestor but how that ancestor came into being is not part of the theory. Abiogenesis requires much more work for it to become a working single hypothesis (there are several likely candidates) and eventually a theory in it's own right. It is likely that Abiogenesis will need to invoke Darwinian evolution to explain events upt until the formation of the first cell that survived, but Evolution does not need to invoke a putative Theory of Abiogenesis to explain what it was designed to explain- the origin of species.

It's possible that we'll have a grand theory of life if we can get abiogenesis working to our satisfaction.

I've put forward a speculative method for how abiogensis could have occured in the creationism thread- it's just meant as an example of how life could come from lifelessness, there are actually quite a number of possible paths. I'll see if I can find it.

AtomicHorror

Biro wrote: »

Surely it's more than that? From a molecular point of view, is there a difference between a man on his death bed, and a man 1 second after death?

One second later... most of his cells are still technically alive and his blood has some oxygen in it. I consider death to be the cessation of potential for conscious brain activity.

Tim Robbins

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evolution does not require for abiogenesis to have occured any more than it requires the big bang. When we consider Evolution, we are looking at the modification of pre-existing genomes. Our understanding has now lead us to believe that all currently oberseved life has a common single genetic ancestor but how that ancestor came into being is not part of the theory. Abiogenesis requires much more work for it to become a working single hypothesis (there are several likely candidates) and eventually a theory in it's own right. It is likely that Abiogenesis will need to invoke Darwinian evolution to explain events upt until the formation of the first cell that survived, but Evolution does not need to invoke a putative Theory of Abiogenesis to explain what it was designed to explain- the origin of species.

It's possible that we'll have a grand theory of life if we can get abiogenesis working to our satisfaction.

I've put forward a speculative method for how abiogensis could have occured in the creationism thread- it's just meant as an example of how life could come from lifelessness, there are actually quite a number of possible paths. I'll see if I can find it.

Some interesting comments but some of them belong to creationist / evolution thread. This thread is about how some Christians, in this example a Priest from the RC Church, are embracing science and can contribute in an intelligent manner to scientific debate on matters that are universal and relevant.

AtomicHorror

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some interesting comments but some of them belong to creationist / evolution thread. This thread is about how some Christians, in this example a Priest from the RC Church, are embracing science and can contribute in an intelligent manner to scientific debate on matters that are universal and relevant.

I was responding specifically to one of those Christians. I certainly have no intention of derailing your thread.

Biro

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Yes.

There is no longer oxygen being brought in, to fill the blood that goes throughout the body and keeps it alive.

There's more again - you can do that artificially.

Biro

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One second later... most of his cells are still technically alive and his blood has some oxygen in it. I consider death to be the cessation of potential for conscious brain activity.

Which is a fair take on it, but does the molecular structure of the brain change when it ceases being conscious? My point being that life is more than just complex molecular assembleys.

AtomicHorror

Biro wrote: »

Which is a fair take on it, but does the molecular structure of the brain change when it ceases being conscious? My point being that life is more than just complex molecular assembleys.

There is a difference but it is a molecular difference. The brain is deoxygenated and the neurons are starting to die as a result. If you're looking for a scientific measure of the soul- it's not the place of science to assume such a thing exists.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's what the letter is about, and it's based upon a solid appreciation of science from, amongst others, the hand of no less a guy than EO Wilson, who's one of the best in the game.

Given the off-handed, or even chilly, reception that science typically receives from religious people, I think McDonagh's letter is quite remarkable.

I don't think you have much experience of religious people, or writers then. The church I go to has plenty of doctors and other scientific professionals. In my life I have only met a tiny number of young Earth creationists among hundreds of religious people.

Atheists do not assert the omnipotence of man and I can't imagine why you would think that anybody could be so vain as to do so.

The biggest players in the omni* game are the religious who, in asserting the perfect and all-encompassing powers of their chosen deity or deities, are declaring themselves competent to recognize and judge omnipotence.

Sorry I did not mean to claim that atheists assert it. But Enlightenment philosophy and its bold Modernist successor, both confidently championed reason as being the tool with which man could subjugate the inconvenient aspects of the non-human world. This elevated man to the status previously occupied by God. Enlightenment thinkers usually considered God to eb remote and disengaged from the world; modernists tended to embrace atheism outright.

The product of these worldviews is the industry-led ecological crisis we are already in, as Father McDonagh has highlighted.

Christian views of nature do not state that the world is divine, but that nature is important to God as his possession. It is beyond our rights to exploit it.

RealEstateKing

The product of these worldviews is the industry-led ecological crisis we are already in, as Father McDonagh has highlighted.

The product of these 'worldviews' has been:

(a) Democracy.
(b) Medicine that actually works, enabling people to live to 70 plus instead of 30 plus.
(c) Legal systems that are relatively fair.
(d) Countless advances in technology, including the one that makes this conversation possible.

And many, many, more.

The people that are actively campaigning to get us to do something about Global Warming are almost entirely products of the Enlightenment and science, being as they are mostly scientists. The small handful who are trying to get us to go the other way are often fundamentalist Christians who are expecting the Good Lord to return any minute now, and so see it as irrelevant: viz President George Bush and his rejection of Kyoto.

RealEstateKing

The product of these worldviews is the industry-led ecological crisis we are already in, as Father McDonagh has highlighted.

The product of these 'worldviews' has been:

(a) Democracy.
(b) Medicine that actually works, enabling people to live to 70 plus instead of 30 plus.
(c) Legal systems that are relatively fair.
(d) Countless advances in technology, including the one that makes this conversation possible.

And many, many, more.

The people that are actively campaigning to get us to do something about Global Warming are almost entirely products of the Enlightenment and science, being as they are mostly scientists. The small handful who are trying to get us to go the other way are often fundamentalist Christians who are expecting the Good Lord to return any minute now, and so see it as irrelevant: viz President George Bush and his rejection of Kyoto.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think you have much experience of religious people, or writers then. The church I go to has plenty of doctors and other scientific professionals. In my life I have only met a tiny number of young Earth creationists among hundreds of religious people.

I think Robindch is looking at the big picture here and not little anecdotes as you appear to be doing. 50% or so of Americans don't believe evolution.
The reason for this is that religious dogma has unfortunately got in the way of scientific learning and understanding. Science is a good way of finding agreement and common ground between theists and atheists. This is why, I think it's refreshing to see religious leaders show scientific understanding and acumen.

The RC Church appear to have acknowledged their mistakes in this regard, and now seem to accept science fully. For me this is reassuring. They are entitled to their own theological hypothesis about what happens outside space time, but inside it to reject scientific understanding is really like refusing to move on intellectually from 15th century Christendom. Ironically it seems it is the minority Christian Churches (i.e. creationists and ultra conservative biblical literalists) who can't do this. They are not only refusing to move on from 15th century intellectual thinking, they are going right back to before the birth of Christ and to the bronze age and are leaving their intellectual thinking there.

This is very worrying. We live in a world of complicated problems. Global warming, infectious diseases, genetic diseases and endless conflicts made even more complicated by technical advances in weaponry. But we are all inter-connected now, by communications, the internet and our shared knowledge.

We can progress our world, but it will require the best minds doing the best work and for all of us to face truths and reality. This means an acceptance of science as the best (but not perfect) mechanism we have for analysing the material world. If people want religion or faith or souls fine. But science must be established as the primary source for the material world. Otherwise our deluded thinking will do nothing to progress any of the complicated problems I mentioned.

PDN

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The product of these 'worldviews' has been:

(a) Democracy.
(b) Medicine that actually works, enabling people to live to 70 plus instead of 30 plus.
(c) Legal systems that are relatively fair.
(d) Countless advances in technology, including the one that makes this conversation possible.

And many, many, more.

The people that are actively campaigning to get us to do something about Global Warming are almost entirely products of the Enlightenment and science, being as they are mostly scientists. The small handful who are trying to get us to go the other way are often fundamentalist Christians who are expecting the Good Lord to return any minute now, and so see it as irrelevant: viz President George Bush and his rejection of Kyoto.

Bush would never have had anything to do with Kyoto if Bill Clinton had pushed it through. However, Clinton refused to pass it to the Senate for ratification - so it's hardly all Bush's fault.

Bush's opposition to Kyoto is clearly based on his ties with the oil industry - nothing to do with his or anybody else's religious beliefs.

One of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution and global warming is China (just passed the US in terms of emissions this year). Their government is officially atheist. The fact is that selfishness is behind global warming - and both religious people and atheists are capable of selfishness.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Bush would never have had anything to do with Kyoto if Bill Clinton had pushed it through. However, Clinton refused to pass it to the Senate for ratification - so it's hardly all Bush's fault.

Bush's opposition to Kyoto is clearly based on his ties with the oil industry - nothing to do with his or anybody else's religious beliefs.

One of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution and global warming is China (just passed the US in terms of emissions this year). Their government is officially atheist. The fact is that selfishness is behind global warming - and both religious people and atheists are capable of selfishness.

qft

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well your stance, which is closer to "it's simply doesn't matter", is quite far away from McDonagh's. Would the people who you describe as scientifically minded in your church be closer to yourself or McDonagh?

What are their opinions w.r.t. the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Edward O. Wilson?
Do they think either carries any importance or just "don't really matter"?

I haven't a clue what their opinions are on those subjects. I'm much more interested in helping them to have good marriages, to answer their questions and concerns about raising children in what they see as an increasingly violent culture, helping them to find fulfillment in their chosen careers, to give them opportunities to help others in the developing world etc.

My job is not to lecture people about science, the Lisbon Treaty, or on whether dogs make better pets than cats. I am not qualified to offer advice on those subjects nor do others expect such instruction from me.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I haven't a clue what their opinions are on those subjects. I'm much more interested in helping them to have good marriages, to answer their questions and concerns about raising children in what they see as an increasingly violent culture, helping them to find fulfillment in their chosen careers, to give them opportunities to help others in the developing world etc.

You are claiming you have Scientifically literate people in your Church but when pressed you resort to the proverbial "it's doesn't really matter" spiel. It's ridiculous because the subjects I was referring to greatly effect the entire planet, including those in the developing world.

It seems to me you use convenient distractions to quieten the elephant in the room.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think you have much experience of religious people, or writers then. The church I go to has plenty of doctors and other scientific professionals. In my life I have only met a tiny number of young Earth creationists among hundreds of religious people.

I've no doubt you have, but how of these are old earth creationists, how many theistic creationists (and so on)? I'd imagine that these groups together make up a sizable portion of these religious people.

But the issue isn't creationism anyway -- heavens, there are enough threads going about that! -- but rather that McDonagh is making a clear statement of concern about the world, based on clear evidence about the world. This is something that religious people, particularly religious leaders, rarely do and like I hinted at up above, McDonagh's to be praised for doing it.

Húrin wrote: »

But Enlightenment philosophy and its bold Modernist successor, both confidently championed reason as being the tool with which man could subjugate the inconvenient aspects of the non-human world. This elevated man to the status previously occupied by God.

That's a rather alarmist, not to say inaccurate, interpretation of the Enlightenment!

What happened was rather closer to the shift in perspective that happens when one realizes (for example) that the weather is not an aspect of god, to be foreseen through the movement of tea-leaves or appeased by blood sacrifice, but a semi-predictable and comprehensible natural phenomenon. This isn't "elevating man to the status previously occupied by god", but removing the idea of god, and the supine "god just does it that way" explanation, from where neither should have been to start with.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You are claiming you have Scientifically literate people in your Church but when pressed you resort to the proverbial "it's doesn't really matter" spiel. It's ridiculous because the subjects I was referring to greatly effect the entire planet, including those in the developing world.

It seems to me you use convenient distractions to quieten the elephant in the room.

Stop being an ass, Tim.

There are certainly scientifically literate people in my church. That doesn't mean that I should be aware of their views on various subjects.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

But Enlightenment philosophy and its bold Modernist successor, both confidently championed reason as being the tool with which man could subjugate the inconvenient aspects of the non-human world.

Which is why you didn't die in childhood and why you probably won't die until well into old age. And why you are typing at a computer right now, probably in a safe building surrounded by clean air and water.

Húrin wrote: »

This elevated man to the status previously occupied by God.

Well to be fair God was pretty terrible at subjugating the non-human world. So I would say we have far surpassed any status God held. God hasn't even invented antibiotics yet :pac:

Húrin wrote: »

Christian views of nature do not state that the world is divine, but that nature is important to God as his possession. It is beyond our rights to exploit it.

Well firstly lots of Christians don't believe that, they believe that God gave man dominion over Earth, and as such its ours to do with as we wish.

Secondly are there any atheists in particularly you are thinking about that thing "exploiting" the world is a good idea?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Churches are not scientific institutes and do not exist for the purpose of teaching science. However, conservative biblical churches, in my experience, contain plenty of people who are scientifically literate (my own congregation contains 15 medical doctors, all of whom seem fairly scientifically literate, and a number of engineers and people who work in IT). I don't know of any member of my church who would be even slightly fearful, let alone terrified, of understanding evolution.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you are pushing any scientific or anti-scientific agenda. Some do seem to feel that it is important that you be scientifically aware, or in some way scientifically guiding of your congregation but I agree with your assessment that it is not your obligation to have anything to do with this. "Spiritual guidance" however that may be defined, has great value to many and is enough of an obligation in itself. The big issues are important, but so is day to day life. People who struggle in the small world of their own lives are hardly going to care much for climate change. Faith can free some people in that sense.

I'm very much scientifically aware but aside from internet forums I am not at all a vocal advocate or an activist for scientific issues. I don't have the time really. Perhaps that is hypocritical of me. Perhaps we all have some responsibility in that regard- to be aware and to have opinions- but this is simply not practical for most people.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

That's one of my main concerns with evolution. I find it very difficult to conceive how a cell could somehow randomly come together. Even very "simple" cells are quite complex aren't they? BTW, I never studied biology, as if this wasn't obvious!

Well the first problem may be trying to view how a cell can come together randomly :pac:

Cells didn't come together randomly, the evolved just like everything else. How this happened on Earth is unknown because there is so little evidence still left in the fossils from 3.5 billion years ago. But computer simulations have suggested a number of different ways that could happen.

Really for all the amazing complexity of life you find on Earth you simply need a single self-replicating molecule. Such molecules have been created in labs by simulating the suspected conditions of early Earth.

Once you have a self-replicating molecule (not this is far far similar to a cell, or DNA or any of the modern components of life), evolution can do its thing. And in a couple of billion years, the right conditions and you get complex life.

Both computer simulations and experience have seen these self-replicating molecules do some very interesting things, such as attach other molecules to themselves to perform simple functions, such as protection (an early precursor to a cell).