We know how quickly derision can become abuse and even violence. Mormons and Muslims are the little guys in the great playground that is Australia - to ridicule their beliefs risks isolating them even further. What differentiates the systems deemed worthy of respectful critique, and those worthy of ridicule?
One response might be to develop anti-vilification legislation such as they have in Victoria. Indeed, I am not sure how FitzSimons' writings don't contravene that legislation regularly. But the response of law is almost always a mistake. It is too lumpen. You cannot force people to treat one another with respect. Neither should we compromise free speech. It is important in a free and open society, and a peaceful one, that religious ideas are free to be expressed, debated, and validly critiqued.
And if someone wants to ridicule my faith, then I do not want them sued or thrown in jail. In this era where everybody is bleating about being offended, it is time somebody said, "I can take it". What we could see, however, is that there is a difference between valid criticism and disrespect. And, I would argue, some belief systems have earned the right to be treated with respect. That's not to say they are to be treated with kid gloves; only, that in responding to them, it is a civic virtue in a pluralist society to show that it is possible to disagree respectfully.
The question then becomes, what differentiates the systems deemed worthy of respectful critique, and those worthy of ridicule? As the Yale scholar Miroslav Volf points out in his new book Flourishing: Why We Need Religion in a Globalised World, religions and ideologies don't deserve automatic respect in the way that people do. When beliefs are contemptible, they deserve our contempt.
Tolerating everything is not virtuous, it is simply gutless. But the great religions of the world are different. The claim that they are simply poisonous is intellectually feeble and historically unsustainable, however much rhetoric is deployed to make it. These massive systems of belief have made sense of life for millions of people over the centuries, and are expanding.
While we can rightly say that religions have been complicit in great evils, it would also be true to say that religions have been the source of great advances. The great religions of the world also offer systematic explanations of human existence at a level of great intellectual sophistication. Mormonism - which is very much a junior player amongst the world religions - nevertheless has its scholars, and its sophisticated proponents, and many of its adherents contribute admirably to their societies in the name of justice and truth.
It is not above critique - and I certainly think it is false - but I would argue it has earned a degree of respect. What we need then - particularly from public figures - is not ridicule, but the practice of respectful engagement. That means that religious people should model dignified responses to genuine critique, too, of course, and not seek to hide behind the law.
But it also means that we should call foul on some of the cleverdickery that passes for commentary on religious views. First posted April 05, Well that's easy to answer. The etiquette is displayed by Drum commentors every day. If you like a person or agree with them, then no, people may not ridicule them. If you dislike a person or disagree with them, then yes, they may be ridiculed. In fact no amount of ridicule, insult or even dismissal or dehumanising is too much. Hi Sea Monster, Can't say I agree.
I watch the Drum, and listen to Alan Jones. When it comes to ridicule, the Drum is no match. I think your bias may be coming through here. Sorry my comment lacked precision. I meant commentors in the on-line comments section of opinion pieces. I don't watch the The Drum.
I read on-line opinion pieces. What if you've never heard of a person - like I've never heard of this footballer - and you think it's fine to ridicule them if what they're saying is ridiculous? I neither like nor dislike him, or at least I didn't feelings either way until I heard via this article that he was making a plea for special treatment based on wilful self-delusion. This is now the only thing I know about him, and I don't hold his position in high regard at all. I think I have good reason to question his capacity for sound judgement if he's prepared to organise his life around some make-believe dreamt up or so years ago by some American con-artist or schizophrenic.
I agree this episode has made me more likely to be sceptical of anything this man of seemingly poor reasoning ability says about anything at all in the future, and less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt, except in terms of football, on which I'm in little doubt he is an expert. Is that the same thing as not agreeing with something he says just because I don't like him? I think we all judge people on their past behaviour, don't we? Geee is that so GM? Maybe you can answer this question since the mod won't allow me to ask SeaM: Was Charlie Hebdo right or wrong?
What about 'the etiquette' which was displayed by the commenters in the western media before and after that particular incident! The Drum is just a tiny drop in the ocean of Mainstream Media. Maybe CH was wrong. But at least it was consistent. And that's the point I'm making. It goes after the Catholic Church far more often than it went after Islamists and conservative clerics. It goes after Front National more often than it went after Islamists.
It goes after political Judaism or Zionism if you prefer at least as often as it goes after Islamism. I am not convinced it is wrong on any of those counts though. It critics often have a tabloid level understanding of the issues. They're not familiar with the cultural context of French political satire. They don't realize CH is vigorously socialist and anti-racist.
They don't realize the target of the Muhammad satire was conservative clerics, not Muslims. They showed what stupid people who follow fundamental trains of thought are capable of. It isn't just Muslims though, any group that thinks violence is OK as long as their Holy book says it is are truly and deeply flawed. Weak minded fools who follow those with all of the answers, the Hopoate's of the world who can't ask even the simplest of questions to refute religion. Does Hopoate wear his magic undies? It's not just "the drum" or even the abc. It's facebook and the smh and the guardian website and elsewhere too.
Anywhere the leftards appear, there is this constant, virulent and personally-targeted spew of invective. Indeed, Sea Monster, exactly as demonstrated by Michael Jensen, don't you think? He is the one who says that Aztec religion deserves contempt, where Mormonism is wrong but might be tolerated if some people involved do something nice, yet his religion deserves respect regardless of the fact its fundamental basis of belief in absurdities differs not a whit from those he criticises.
If you want to criticise people for biassed views radiating from their own false beliefs, start with the article in question before pre-emptively attacking others who have yet to write. Otherwise, people might think you are expressing a biassed view radiating from I think these words display a rather limited understanding of some of the more deeply "philosophical" for want of a better word components of the world's religions.
What any one individual or group of individuals believe, does not necessarily characterize the essence or kernel of the religion A religion based on human sacrifice, on an industrial scale, differs "not a whit" from any of the Old World religions. Why don't you volunteer to join? Are you suggesting the ABC does not like Tony Abbott and they disagree with his political colours, hence their open and unrelenting hate coverage? Whereas, the vile, disgusting likes of Bob Ellis are paraded on this place as "principled, spirited, worthy".
From whom should we develop our opinions of Tony Abbott? Bob Ellis has been vilified many times on these pages by people like you - I've read it. But it's generally not the decent thing to include such pieces in someone's eulogy. And they did it in such a forthright manner whereby he would not be entitled to receive the Prime Ministers entitlements, for life. You also like to vilify through the use of generalisations, remember the Catholic priest and hungry dog "joke" that you posted that the moderator let through? Or put another way - if you criticise Islam you are a racist.
If you criticise any sect of Christianity you are witty and intelligent. There is a difference between criticising a religion and the members of it. Muslims and Christians are people entitled to being treated with dignity. Islam and Christianity are ancient fairy-tales that deserve to be derided as bad ideas. Let's talk about another Fairy Tale?
Darwin's account of the origins of human morality is at once elegant, ingenious, and woefully inadequate. It also is a fairy tale. Darwinism, does not explain morality but, rather, explains it away. We learn from Darwin not how there could be objective moral facts but how we could have come to believe, perhaps erroneously, that there are. Further, the naturalist, who does not believe that there is such a personal being as God, is in principle committed to Darwinism, including a Darwinian account of the basic contours of human moral psychology.
And so the naturalist is saddled with a view that explains morality away. Whatever reason we have for believing in moral facts is also a reason for thinking naturalism is false. The heist or fairy tale as you say - is in a better position to affirm the objectivity of morality. Both the evolutionary naturalist and the theist may be found saying that certain of our moral beliefs are by-products of the human constitution - our programming.
Whether such beliefs are warranted would seem to depend on who or what is responsible for the program. And this calls for some account of the metaphysical underpinnings of those beliefs and the mechanisms responsible for them. Are those mechanisms truth aimed? The sort of account available to the evolutionary naturalist ends in moral skepticism. The theist has a more promising story to tell. There is an extremely popular religion, probably the only one that the ABC is prepared to protect from criticism so this comment is likely to be deep sixed by the moderator praetorian guard , that claims its prophet split the moon and rode to heaven on a winged horse.
What happened to all the winged horses? They seemed to have become extinct. I blame global warming. When a religion makes such claims, isn't it open to mockery in the same way Mormons are in the stage show The Book of Mormon? I am looking forward to the sequel, The Book of Islam. No doubt we can all laugh our heads off at that one. Mormons are pretty good sports about criticism and poking fun.
The South Park creators even said they would e. I'm sick of persons like yourself who tar Islam with the one brush. But to clarify my response to Christianity. Christianity for the most part is positive in its message. However it is the Tea Party Right Wing Conservative Evangelical Christians who exhibit the most narrow minded and power hungry control freaks who cherry pick the Bible and always come out with a lot of colour and noise about Jesus Christ when in fact I have yet to see these Evangelical Christians actually and in a practical sense support the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Eg "It is easier for a Camel to pass through and Eye of a Needle than it is for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven'" The fact that Christ supported and went into bat for the Poor, the Dispossessed, the Disabled, the Psychiatric, the Marginalised and the OUTCASTS of society simply reinforces his beliefs in the evils of materialism and wealth at the expense of greater society. Yes Christ did have a couple of wealthy supporters but in real terms they probably did number more than a handful at best. The corruption of the Christian religion by people like Weber and his espousal of the "Protestant work ethic" that has been forever exploited by the wealthier classes and the ridiculousness of the link between Wealth being a virtue of being a Conservative Evangelistic Christian and the outright "Absolvement " of the Sin of Greed as a natural recourse in Evangelical Christianity is crazy if you expect real followers of Christ to accept such sophistry.
I think I understand now. If a religion says and does nice things, it is true. If a religion says and does bad things, it is false. I will clarify Igor. For me to believe that Jesus did any of those things I would need to see some Lj, only up until they stop cutting the heads off unbelievers. Christianity stopped burning heretics ages ago so it's safe to tell them what you think of them. I guess we have another century or so before we shake off the insanity that is religion.
Call me back in You will only achieve everlasting life unless you are a bad person in which case you will go to hell, and you will miss out on some virgins that await you if you do not obey my any number of different deities , who have decided that you are right or wrong, your faith shall be protected by that deities teachings. Wobetide anyone who has a different thought process that does not believe in any particular religious teaching.
Believe in our teachings otherwise you will be persecuted as a non believer. Ahh the depths that religious groups go to to protect their money making enterprises. Gosh is that the time already? Humans don't appear to be getting any smarter. We don't need terrorists of any persuasion to destroy the fabric of society; greed, want and selfishness are doing it already. There are plenty of christians in other places still at it. In Russia they throw homosexuals off high buildings - many places in Africa too. They still burn witches in parts of Africa too. Try being openly atheist in southern states of America and see how you get on.
Christianity didn't volunteer any of its more moderate attitudes and behaviours - they were all imposed by the legislature. It is secularity that moderates religion - religion is not self-moderating. So, it is secularity that will have to moderate islam too - there are no signs it will come from within. Australia is a good enough pace to start, but we need to have the guts to do it properly. Let's have a critique of the prophet on TV, let's examine the claims that he spoke to god thru an angel, let's see these claims ridiculed and parodied in sitcoms and in novels like christianity has been.
But let's also remember that The Life of Brian was banned in parts of Australia for being blasphemous as recently as the s before we get too self-righteously finger-pointy. I try to restrict the ridicule to those whose posts are intended to antagonise others. If some people dislike me or disagree with me, they may ridicule me. See if I care. I ridicule greedy and selfish psychopaths who have no empathy for people suffering in war zones as a result of western imperial action.
What's wrong with this? Okay I'll try and put it this way. Sociopathic traits exist in us all. That's why normal people participated in the Holocaust or the dispossession of aborigines and Sami and so on. My concern with double standards is a concern ultimately with this inner psychopath. We all have this latent prejudice which let's us dehumanize and dismiss people we don't like, disagree with or generally find inconvenient. And then employ a protective psychology to convince ourselves it's justified when we do it. I'm not arguing against ridicule.
I just want people to own their behavior. I want them to realise they're on spectrum or even slippery slope of dismissive and dehumanising behaviors. Also I want them to play fair. If you're going to celebrate the ridicule your side dishes out, stand up and take the returned blow. Don't cry off that you're a special person and don't deserve this treatment.
I have no knowledge of Hopoate, except he is a sportsman. The Mormon church, on the other hand, I know to be as bad as scientology. I also know that religion is the greatest source of evil around today. It is a corruption, and should not be tolerated. I assume you're making a slight but I'd encourage you to put your knowledge to the test and go to your local mormon congregation to see how evil it really is Sea, The trick is to ridicule the ideology Which is surprisingly easy Particularly with any of the Abrahamic faiths as the underlying mythology is just so darn ridiculous.
At least the scientologists and Jedi have a mythology that at least involves believable things like Alien civilisations. How consistent are you? Do you also feel comfortable criticizing indigenous beliefs and culture - like their legends, their sacred lands, customs and taboos?? Yes I do feel comfortable. However that said I don't suscribe to any laws that prevent them from practicing their religion and traditions in peace. I'm more than happy to criticise all belief systems, ideologies and cultures.
After all we are all human and no one is better than anyone else. Ridicule should never be tolerated. Sure, debate the Ideology, but that requires some understanding of its basis and constituents. Respect for others beliefs, whatever they are, should always be paramount, never ridicule. You have no proof.
It's just another fairy tale. The people who promote stupid ideas bring themselves little glory and open themselves to derision, of course, but it is their words and their behaviour that create their reputations, after all. Take Dr Jensen, for example - a militant christian with a vicious sideline in homophobia and misogyny - who can dismiss mormonism as "false" on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, yet claim that his variety of baseless delusion is The Truth. How can one not take into account this man's known views when assessing what he writes? Hypocrisy must be called out.
Jensen's argument is simply that when silly ideas have millions of followers then we should respect those ideas, particularly if some people take them so seriously that they can be described as 'sophisticated'. On this basis we should respect the death penalty and corporal punishment like amputations for theft because it is a system of law that millions believe in and practice, and is supported by many academic muslims who could easily pass Jensen's test of sophistication.
Similarly, FGM, forced marriages, abstinence in lieu of sex education, death for adultery and so on. It is right that Hopoate's Mormonism is ridiculed - it is a ridiculous idea that deserves nothing more than ridicule. He should be sacked for refusing to work on a Sunday when his chosen profession requires it. Religion should no longer be an excuse for behaviour that is unacceptable in any other circumstance: Homophobia, sexism, food prohibitions, working days - stupidity has nowhere to hide any more, neither behind an old book of nonsense like the bible or a new book of nonsense like the Book of Mormon.
I don't respect the theory of evolution at all. Your "respect" of the theory of evolution via natural selection is not required. The facts speak for themselves. This is a fundamental mistake that believers often make - mistaking their belief systems with scientific theory. In no way are they equivalent. If you are equating religion with a scientific theory, then you have just demonstrated that you do not understand what a theory is. It is not just some idea or random thought.
But if you want to deny millions of pieces of evidence, go right ahead. Nobody is going to lock you up, behead you or burn you at the stake. If your religion wishes to express an opinion in the public sphere - and it often does- then it must accept that people will respond with support or criticism and on occasion ridicule. If your religion attempts to impose its beliefes on others - and it does, far too regularly - then it must expect push back. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, no matter how ridiculous those beliefs may be. But the moment you attempt to impose your beliefs on others, or deny rights to a minority based on your beliefs here's looking at marriage for same-sex couples then you open yourself to criticism and ridicule.
When your organisation flouts the law, and hides perpetrators of themost heinous acts against children within its ranks, then your demand for respect is hollow. In the main, especially of late, religions have done nothing to earn respect.
This means you are free to worship in ur church without hindrance. No citizen today would argue with that. However, this does not mean you are free to leave that place of worship and start foisting your beleifs upon other citizens in the public sphere. If by foist you mean "force", you are correct. If by foist you mean express or live in accordance with, you are wrong. Nature abhors a vacuum, and ideologies motivate people, so they are inevitable in the public sphere.
By saying "no religion here" you are saying "secularism is superior as an ideology" so are committing the same error. Also, I think you misunderstand Jefferson and others - they meant not that religion should be excluded, but that the State should not favour one over another. The only way to ensure that none are 'favoured' is by excluding all. Jensen asserts that all religions are false except his, but that everybody deserves respect.
What does that mean? Secularism isn't an ideology, it's the absence of one. It is an ideology like smorgasbord is a cuisine. It simply means removing unsubstantiated nonsense from the decision making. No the Government will not have a state religion or control a religion. You are talking about and incorrect view of privacy which comes from signs in pubs.
Everybody has a voice in the public square and no one is to be silenced. Faith is private, Religion is public. Religion comes from the Latin 'to bind'. The most obvious form of Religion is when a faith community comes together to worship and instruct their children in their Faith. Freedom of Religion means the freedom for a faith community to assemble and share their Faith.
Secularism is where no belief system is favoured above any others, they all have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Well it's not freedom of religion unless they are able to do as their religion prescribes - and tell others about it if specified? Certainly religion shouldn't get involved in the political sphere in my opinion , but people should be free to express their beliefs.
Same-sex marriage is a great example of this. The person in the audience to whom Pyne responded to asked if those with "traditional views" would not be discriminated against if same sex marriage came in? But Pyne, along with all the other panelists responded with discrimination from what? None of the proposed same sex marriage legislation prevents opposite sex marriage! This is what is really remarkable about those who are against same sex marriage. They actually think it is their right from stopping others who have a different view.
Having a religion does not translate to forcing it on others. Sorry you are completely wrong. Everyone has the opportunity to speak on whether the traditional definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexuals. Is homosexual marriage a right? People of "faith" whether in the "divine" or in "humanity" non-divine will always seek to "impose" their beliefs because they believe that those cherished beliefs that are of ultimate value and give life it's ultimate meaning.
Why on earth do you think there is a "Drum" and why so many regulars contribute their same old view of the world here so often What should be obvious even to the least intelligent of Drum regulars, is that whilst human beings live, there will always be different beliefs and all believer secular or religious will seek to impose those beliefs. What Michaels raises is the ridiculously obvious - if the competition of beliefs and ideas for the mind and soul of humanity is reality until "kingdom come", then is it better to compete in a civilised manner or in a completely uncivilised manner?
I think we all know what we would like - a bit of intellectual banter over Sunday roast would be great but we all know that that is never the case. The competition of ideas is literally a life and death where defeat is never final and victory is never complete. Maybe the best way to achieve world peace is to have no beliefs or ideas at all I agree with Fitz, all religions are up for ridicule. But that does not mean that anyone with a religious conviction should not be able to honour their beliefs any way they see fit to do so, provided, of course that it is not done in a way to offend or to impede others from going about their legitimate business.
If Hopo wants to not play on Sunday then so be it. The club either works with him or makes other arrangements. I read the Fitzsimons article and it did not seem to me to be anti Mormon or anti any other religion, and it did not disparage Hopoate in any way at all. I think the author of this piece has read too much into what was neve meant to be of much seriousness anyway.
Bad Astronomy
If somebody tells me I'm going to burn for eternity, I'm liable to take offence. That doesn't change just because they call their opinion a 'religion'. You raise an important contemporary point, Mr Zing. In years past the bible thumpers would show up unannounced or get on TV and tell the atheists they were doomed to an eternity in hell because they did not believe.
Atheists used to say, "Oh well, whatever you say. Have a nice day". They were the "old atheists". Roll forward 20 years and thanks to the likes of Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, et all, the assertion that atheists will burn in hell is no longer allowed to stand unchallenged. The idea is ridiculed for both its superstitious groundings, and the fact that the idea itself is completely devoid of any morality.
Now that we refuse to take this rubbish lying down we are called the "new atheists" and are attacked for not showing respect to those who wish other eternal pain and suffering while at the same time claiming the moral high ground. Just laugh quietly and tell them if they are right they might see you in the very place they least expect.
Zing, you should be far more concerned of those wishing to consign you to the flames in the here and now than in the afterlife. You should be far more offended of real threats than mythological ones. Doesn't this go back to the concept of who or what gives an offence and who or what takes it? There's plenty a comment made on this site by all of us that causes offence, and would you believe that there are even some designed to cause it? The fantastic ones, the impossible ones and the magical ones should be the least of our concern.
Everyone is 'threatened' with some kind of damnation, especially believers of something else. It's an occupational hazard of being human. The same can be said of the barrow you push as well Rob. As far as earning repsect, you want respect that isn't earned - based solely on your value as a human being, and that's OK. Religions some of them anyway earn respect through the vast amounts of health care, social services, and education they provide - here and worldwide. Our society could not function without them as the Govt could not afford to replace the services they contribute.
Being comprised of people, they have also done very bad things as well. All those services were delivered by people Joel, not the churches, they just get the credit for it. And in Australia, some of the worst corproate behaviour towards employees I have seen has been from these religious hospitals. Actually worse than the big commercial private hospital operators.
Those hospitals you praise are charities in name only, they are highly profitable, rent seeking, greed factories in my experience. That way, with secular control of all this money maybe condoms could be distributed to people in AIDS ravaged communities, and abortions provided for women with 15 children and no money. Christian charity is an oxymoron. It's a bit like people expressing views then complaining when others criticise them. It's not censorship to tell someone their statements are offensive. Dr Mike says "Sure, I agree the religion is false, " as apposed to all the other "real" religions, personally I don't care who or what anyone gets their moral guidance from so long as they are good at heart.
And how do you judge what is "good at heart"? Why aren't you too adopting the same moral high ground in dismissing what you consider is not "good at heart"? It's clear to me as it should be to anyone that harming children is immoral and harming children permanently is extremely immoral. I'd be happy to explain that to a few of the clergy. Am adopting the high moral ground? I don't think so.
I'm just being moral. Yep the mroal high ground is pretty crowded with all the secularists and atheists vying for position. Yeah, Jock, the irony was so deafening, I had to take a deep breath. His religion is the real thing not like those other false pretenders. I read it twice and there seems to be a whiff of my god is bigger than your god, based on how many people believe in it. Am I still in the 21st Century? Even the most ardent believer is an atheist to all the other tens of thousands of gods that humans have invented over the course of history.
They'd be heretics mike, not atheists. I find it quite interesting and illuminating that religious hierarchies tend to hate each other a lot less than they hate atheists. Better that a pleb be subservient to some other myth, than subservient to no myth at all - it might give the other plebs ideas. Still in the 21st Century? Yep where it's best not to mention Religion or Politics!
Play it Safe Cheesecake how's the weather down there? DW, I have to agree. This competitive spirit between Gods has led to an awful lot of beheadings and explosions lately. There's no competition between those gods; they're the same god anyway YHWH. The "competition", such as it is, is due to a group of megalomaniacal psychopaths that have used religion to convince idiots to engage in a war against western society.
It's fairly easy to argue that Mormonism is false because we know so much about who invented it. Similarly the worship of Yahweh can be traced back to a pantheon of gods that weren't so different from the Greek or Norse mythologies. Sauce for the goose You missed the point I fear. Nowhere is he saying showing respect means you can't disagree with a belief. I too believe the Mormon faith to be false, but I respect the right of people to believe it is the truth, just as I respect the right of people to put their belief in the non-existence of a god. We can disagree with respect, despite many of the posts here demonstrating individual inability to do so with civility How is this 'arrogance' any different from atheists' condemnation of all other beliefs as false?
And, whatever religion a person believes in, that person considers all other religions false. It's not just the bad ol' Christians that have such opinions. The difference, Piperx, is that the author is declaiming other religions as false but would hold up his own as true, despite the lack of any evidence to back up the claim. Atheists, on the other hand, treat all religions the same as works of fiction. The Loch Ness monster is false because there is no evidence it is real. That's how we know an assertion is false: So, therefore the assertion that there is a God is false.
It is a logical impossibility that all religions are true, given they are so contradictory. So which one is true and what is the evidence of its truth? Since humans have spent most time in ignorance it is natural that the concept of God and hence religion and creation are more deeply imprinted upon our minds. Not to pardon creationists, but these people have a fear of the unknown that stops them from accepting reality. They would rather attribute everything to God than go out and investigate. They are miserable in their fear — and as they say — misery seeks company.
These people only want to increase their numbers because of their fear and insecurity. I wish and hope that creationists are defeated by science. Excellent example of antiscientific thinking that is to be faced in this public debate. And what social group causes the ocean tides, earthquakes, volcanos, weather, thunder, radiative energy, plate techtonics, etc.? True, but is a virus really inanimate? It may not crawl across the street on its own, but it is self-replicating.
Seems pretty animated to me. Viruses are a fairly primitive life form, but they are life, as compared to an inanimate object such as rock. Hey, I WANT there to be something beyond our physical realm, some carrying on of our individuality after death. If anything, the idea that this might be all there is lets me appreciate life even more; it is something to be cherished. In addition to the Discovery Institute there are, of course, numerous other groups pushing the creationist agenda. They tend to pop out of the wood work in every corner of the globe.
These people are YECs. I attended a lecture given by their spokes man, Ken Ham. As Sun Tsu said, know your enemy. Though charismatic, the guy is an apologist nut. You will find quickly that most of them truly think they are doing the right thing and protecting us who are obviously to weak to run our own lives from the dangers of immorality. Another such speaker at the same lecture used a novel approach that I had not seen before.
He also attacked the statement made some years ago that human eye is poorly engineered, at that the designer should have been fired for incompetence. The kicker was that the speaker was reading his notes through wire framed glasses. If you were a YEC, it certainly would. For the Young Person: Babies are brought by Storks For the Adult Person: Adult people cause babies through censored acts. For the Young Society: God created the world. For the Mature Society: Best guess, though, Billions and Billions of years ago, a really big and quick expansion occurred from something very tiny, very hot, and very massive and became something much larger, cooler, and still massive and within that grew the stars and planets and amino acids and mitochondria or was it Metaclorians and RNA and eventually some of these were able to replicate and thus was life.
I believe nearly all the New Testament can be interpretted as allegory, I subject that the Old Testament is also. Thus a fable for a young society. By the way, there seem to be a bunch of posts that no longer list, I see responses to a certain raving luna… individual but none of his originals. By the way, to further illustrate my feelings… Today, after a brief rainstorm, I witnessed an incredibly beautiful full rainbow in the evening sky, which a few minutes later became a double rainbow.
Not just the hint of a second rainbow on one side of the first, but a full double rainbow. Luckily for me, I even had my camera along with me, though it took four shots just to fit the whole huge thing! It was astounding, but no less so just because I knew scientifically what was causing the effect sunlight from behind my vantage point refracting through zillions of rain droplets in front of a backdrop of clouds. In fact, knowing what caused the rainbow, knowing that the conditions had to be just right, and knowing that I had to be in just the right place at the right time to see it, enhanced the beauty.
Another example is aurora in my case, aurora borealis. Knowing what they are lets me appreciate them more. In short, there can be beauty in science. Somehow, this site seems fitting — http: Starring for the evolution side are some scientists and a member of the Australian Skeptics. Starring for the creationists are four members of Answers in Genesis.
Even at 55, I still hike the woodlands, marshes, swamps, meadows, and beaches of New England admiring the amazing varieties of the evolved adaptations of biological species all around. You want to see evolutionary adaptations in action: Or, the year that comet Hale-Bopp was so observable and so marvelous a sight. Or, a meteor shower. There is something wrong with humanity.
Carl Jung called it a blight. There is a degeneration occurring in the individual intellects of human beings all over the world. The extremists are NOT the fringe any longer. Three years ago, a coworker was so patently wrong on one topic I was able to quickly show him several web pages that refuted his ideas. He looked at the page, and I swear I could almost see his mind desperately trying to preserve his original POV.
It was like some sort of bizarre ideological dyslexia. It was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. This was an educated man with science and engineering advanced degrees from a prestigious university. Depends on the context. Biblical literalists do not accept that the creation story might be a symbolic myth, but insist it is an accurate depiction of real events.
Some go so far as to state that when Jesus teaches in parables, those parables actually occurred at some time. And so do heterosexuals practicing unprotected sex with multiple partners, and the patrons of prostitutes. But the key here is that people do not cause the disease, any more than they cause tuberculosis, or the flu. You get the flu from other people, too. Such as when a tree limb blows in the wind, the wind is an animate object? Wow, I never knew the wind was alive. However, the global nature of the www makes their presence and influence in the US extremely visible.
My reaction was simply to say that he was talking absolute bull in a tone of voice that suggested, without question, that a debate was not on the cards. If that claim is ignored then it is a slap in the face of other believers who feel the literal interpretation is different. The Scofield Study Bible on my shelf claims to interpret genesis literally, and the conclusions are almost diametrically opposed to YEC. Or are you anti-religion afterall?
As an Evolutionary Biologist, I have spent the last 5 years fighting the anti-science ignorance that persists through every avenue of life one looks at. When one comes to realize the benefits that proper scientific reasoning can provide, some may come away with a different point of view. Patience is not our greatest virtue, but I believe with enough persistence, we can end this unscientific stranglehold that our current administration, along with countless other institutions have instilled in the general population.
The truth is anti-scientists are extremely threatened by proper reasoning and the scientific method. Few fundamental changes have occured in a quick and sweeping fashion. It took over years for Americans to begin to consider everyone equal, to grant women suffrage, allow African Americans the same freedom as everyone else, and a host of other things. We must be diligent and patient; ready to provide our tools, methods, and POVs to those who are ignorant and need guidance. My personal theory on the backwards trend in science is the threat from Nuclear Annhilation that hung over our heads for a half century.
Everyone was in awe at the capability we posessed with the simple tools of science. However, with the nuclear threat growing, hyped coverage of how our brilliance in science would eventually prove our undoing, and countless other recent shifts, science has garnered an aura of negativity. People fear what they cannot understand — especially true with science. We must be in the center stage reminding the public on the benefits of stem cell research, the greater understanding of our physical world, the positive inmpact on humanity through vaccinations, the improvements of our living standards and quality of life, etc.
Phil, you are not alone in this multifaceted fight. Our cognitive space is separate from the real which has many interesting side effects. The mind filters all input. Artists pratice drawing nudes to overcome this. To learn to recreate the visual input rather than draw what the mind knows is there. Thats why its hard. The only religion I can think of that has a 10 percent tithing would be the Mormons. Mormons are very strong in science and many other studies, so leave them out of it. Also, Mormons do not have a payed clergy.
As a Mormon I too am appalled at the ability of some people to completely deny what science has found. Thanks for the enlightenment. Being aware of other interpretations is of interest to some extent. I value reality and truth.
- TV Review: ‘Let’s Get Physical’ on Pop?
- Guetteurs des saisons (French Edition).
- Comments (485)!
- Desert Island Discs: 75 defining moments from 75 years of castaways.
I find religions, at best, to be more interested in describing the world the way they wish it were rather than how it is. The mythologies of religion can be intriguing for story value and for exemplars of moral lessons, teaching tools, etc. I find religions in the organized sense versus the personal belief sense to be more concerned with control — control of individuals, control of societies, control of power and wealth. I try to practice tolerance — you can believe whatever you want to believe. But if you try to push that belief on me or hold it up as superior, be prepared for me to point out the flaws I see.
HawaiiArmenian is right… with persistence, we will win this fight. Case in point, the national debate on embryonic stem cell research. But cooler heads prevailed, scientists, medical researchers, and patient advocacy groups all organized together to educate the public about the science behind embryonic stem cell research.
Even the House of Representatives passed legislation on this…. And, like the issue of stem cells, we will, over the long term, have a similar effect — that is, science will win. Keep fighting the good fight! Not a single person that jumped on me for saying homosexuals etc. It requires affirmative action by people to cause them to do things. I freely admit I made that comment to rile up the bleeding heart liberals just for the sport of it.
After reading that I usually go from front to back reading everything else. I gots a question for ya. Evoluntionary biologists might rightly feel threatened but no one else should. As we were approaching the Intel facility a beautiful, full double rainbow appeared arching directly over the road in front of us. Irishman, no offense intended. Some people do appear to be anti-religion, and want to squash ID or YEC or other ideas about creationism specifically because they dislike religions or christianity specifically.
However, I think we might agree that state-sponsored creation evangelizing is a bad idea. While the YECs are currently perverting science, religions did not always do so. Yet as a collection of histories that may be true and that teach a moral lesson, I think the Bible still has value.
Perhaps Science can more accurately answer the question of how, yet perhaps religion may be better suited to answering, or at least pondering, the question of why. I think there is a problem in organized religion, specifically christianity but possibly others, called Legalism. This is relevant because I think it is this mindset that sets YECs off on an adversarial campaign to squash sciences that deny even a small, doctrinally unimportant, aspect of their theology.
The YECs see science not only as a set of incorrect data, but the Scientific Method as an interpretive filter in opposition to their own. However, there are some people who do think that the big bang and evolution are true, and yet think it was all a product of the mind of God without needing to twist data through ID or whatnot.
These people could be your allies in debating against bad science and bad theology. Your patents have an author and an inventor—YOU. You exist though I will probably never meet you personally. They are only proof of our existence only. I have mentioned some books within this blog. Compare the two thousand years of Christianity with the four hundred years of Science—which one has been the most beneficial to all of us?
Time and again scientists have retorted that if you make this argument, it says less about nature than the poverty of your imagination. What, do I have to quote whole paragraphs to quote you in context? Another Phobos, James Hanley, and I each specifically addressed your comment about inanimate objects not being causes with regards to HIV. Like I said, human action is not the cause of AIDS, any more than it is the cause of tuberculosis or the flu. It is the cause of the spread of disease.
The distinction is not trivial. Evolution is a cummulative process. It builds in small and sometimes not-so-small steps. It may take prior existing items and change them to use in new ways. Good design practices that humans discovered through trial and effort may, in fact, be included in evolutionary steps, also through trial and error. What the ID proponents fail to answer is if the Designer was so perfect, then what about the numerous examples of bad design. Such as the human eye, where the optic nerve grows on the inside of the eyeball and then through the wall, causing a blind spot.
Why are sheep eyes better than human eyes? And clearly the universe was designed to be that way. For instance, common belief is that the cure for AIDS is unprotected sex with virgin. DaveScot, no one on this board seems to be advocating the position that the actions of people are not without consequences, and not contributing to the spread of HIV and AIDS. You, however, seem to be promoting the premise that AIDS is the fault of three groups you dislike. You seem to be trying to blame some parties, but not others — like promiscuous teenagers and 20 and 30 yr olds who cruise bars regularly.
Like married men who run around with other women — prostitutes or not. Or prostitutes and IV drug users, for that matter. One of the best examples I know of to show how evolution operates, and to indicate that there is no intelligent designer is the problem we have with vitamin C. Most animals synthesize their own vitamin C. It is well known that human beings need vitamin C to prevent scurvy. It seems to be less known that many primates have the same problem. Why would a designer remove a fully functioning biological process necessary for the development of the being? Did mankind make a mistake and we are all being punished?
It seems to be clear that about 60 million years ago a mutation occured in primates which eliminated the ability for those primates to synthesize vitamin C. The primates which survived, and there may be many which were wiped out, ate a good deal of fruit and received the necessary vitamin C in their diet. Thus those primates survived. Different primate lines evolved from these primates giving rise to a group of species, mankind among them, which cannot synthesize their own vitamin C.
Our genes provide evidence that evolution has occured. This is one of many, many pieces of evidence. But you may not be convinced because you seem to imply that you believe that causes are only due to intelligence. The prism effect of the rainbow would be present regardless of if anyone was there to witness it. What caused the rainbow? There is a rational, tested, scientific explaination for your rainbow.
There are also plenty of non-scientific explainations for your rainbow. This plurality of causes is not equal. The rational, tested, scientific explaination for your rainbow does not require any intelligence for it to occur. It is caused by a combination of physical phenonema all very well understood. In this case, a promise to not flood the earth again. In this explaination, there is a guiding intelligence causing the rainbow. The hurdle that many people fail to overcome is that intelligence is not necessary to cause change.
Certainly more and more of the population of the world are never exposed to non-intelligent causes aside from the weather. This makes it easy to claim that intelligence is necessary for every change. The theory of evolution by natural selection says differently. Species will evolve to an amazing level of complexity, but will also exhibit flaws which any guiding intelligence would have removed. No surprise; both groups have their funding and ideology in common. Why care about a Dominionist attack on the Episcopal Church?
We could use your help, folks! And we have long accepted the theory of evolution as scientifically well-established, leaving further discoveries in biology to the biologists whose job it is to make them. That might be a further reason for this Dominionist attack. For your amusment I have an alternative definition for ID. But then again, I suspect they would pick it up and believe it in short order, even though I mean it as a joke.
As a Christian I am concerned about the direction ID and literal creationism is taking. Note that I do believe in the existence of God. Yet, I am also a firm supporter of science and scientific evidence.
I am one of those who think that science and religion are compatible, at least to a degree. From my often unique perspective, I believe that it is generally irrelevant whether one believes in a literal Genesis creation or not I view the Christian responsibility as that in sharing the Gospel and convincing others of the truth of Jesus Christ, and the message of salvation. I feel the same way about Christianity and politics. However, I wonder if D.
And this is all due to random chance and fluctuation — just like the supposed cause of actual biological evolution. Any explanation that leaves out part of the equation in order to be easily disprovable is just a straw man argument. Although this is the first time I have read your website I was hunting up websites for herbals.. I ran the gambit of emotions from outright laughter to fuming anger.
I am a Pagan and have been most of my life. What I choose to believe in is my choice and no one elses, as it should be. I believe in science as well for without it the many conviences such as say.. Religion does NOT belong in our schools. Its a good read and gives a whole different outlook on religion. Yes its pure fantasy, but I think it hints at a belief as well. For myself, I appluad anyone who stands up to any orginization trying to take away my freedom to believe as I wish to believe. The bible states in the next to last paragraph I believe that nothing may be taken or added to the book or suffer the concequenes.
In every language or so Im told there are words non-translateable. If this is so, then I do believe they and you know who you are are up a certain creek without a paddle so to speak. And by the way… Please feel free to correct me if I have the last two things wrong. That was from Revelation The Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible are a collection of books and were compiled from a larger library after a great deal of discussion, examination of tradition and critical review of the books. There is plenty of evidence for evolution and none for that the bible should have been written by ohter beings than humans.
But the trend is there. I guess, though, that both sides could make sure that they are making informed comments about the debate, and be able to cite appropriate documents if necessary. By the way, try having a similar debate with, say for example, Christians regarding other religions in the world. They can be just as dismissive of and ignorant about those other religions as they are about evolution. None of us know what really happened as none of us were there. I choose to belive in one thing or another based on gathering all the facts present.
Blindly following one ideology or another is sad. I have a friend who is an athiest and he challenged me one day to ask why do I belive in God. So I ask this, what is there to lose. You seem to be confused with the difference between the claims of the Bible and the claims of the religious groups. For example, does a young earther think that everything beyond ish light years away is actually a sticker on the inside of a really big balloon? Where does the expansion come from? Is the Divine Deceiver still blowing up the balloon?
Many of us were brought up Christian, went to Sunday School against our will of course , and eventually came to realize the strength and logic of science. However, I know enough to realize how contradictory the parables and stories can be when taken literally. Guess what — evolutionistic ways of thinking and some others , are the only ones at odds with the Christian view of an intelligent creation. Sorry about the generalisation in the previous post — I just had to say something quick. I have to agree with HawaiiArmenian. I was brought up Roman Catholic and therefore had a great of bible study pressed upon me.
I have grown up since then and I am no longer either Catholic or Christian. I would say that it is actually my knowledge of the bible and its teachings that makes it impossible for me to believe in Christianity. The Catholic Church never held a literalist approach to the Genesis. Science in general and evolution in special are utterly irrelevant to Catholic Theology. Any claims otherwise is plain bad science and bad theology. Bad Astronomer, everyone wants to fit the universe on the preconceived notions. Both sides on this debate, at least. Allow me to elaborate on this: The real debate is not between creationists versus science, but creationists versus materialists.
Creationists are fighting back with more bad science. Alas, any philosophical materialistic claims are necessarily philosophical and unscientific.
It has not evolved beyond cosmetic updates. Once, there was a materialistic approach was of a stand-still universe without origin. In comparison, males have been left relatively untouched. Moreover, there is a predictable and tragic consequence to the development of neoteny as an emblem of adult female attractiveness. Consider it this way. Obvious enough, so far. Consider the bizarre dilemma, then. In order to attract quality mates — protector types — women began taking on the external features of the objects of the protective impulse — children. This was rewarded, presumably, with reproductive success.
But it also meant that men began associating with sexual desirability the very outward traits which are most directly associated with childhood! The calamitous sickness of sex with pre-pubescents is one of the nastier features of our species. It is denounced by the majority, yet persists at low levels in all cultures, posing a dilemma for those contemplating a better tomorrow for our descendants.
But now we might suggest one possible explanation of the origin of this dysfunction. It may derive, at least in part, as an aberrant offshoot from the two-way cycle of runaway sexual selection just described. If ever there was proof that evolution is not planned, this is it. An undergraduate could have predicted the tragic consequences.
It seems my site has posted the wrong part of my blog as a trackback on this discussion. The excert for the track back above should have read. Which would normally be laughed at and forgotten, only their claims are disturbingly taking hold in the US. At least with the Bible, I read it, analyzed it, disagreed with it, and used something called critical reasoning you should try it sometime to disassociate myself from those beliefs and conjectures.
A theory is part of the scientific process, and in order to fully understand a concept, and conceptualize it, there must be logical progression. Darwin, along with Wallace, were just starting on the road to a comprehensive evolutionary theory. Since then, much has been observed and tested, meticulously analyzed, through scientific channels and reasoning. Unlike the belief in God, which is impossible to directly or indirectly prove, evolution is testable, and observable. What possible tools do you expect us to have to accept religious belief? There can never be an equitable debate with Creationists, and most religious folk in general, because Faith, and Reasoning are two vastly different concepts.
There is a theory put forth, that our quantum mind creates the universe that we observe. Without humans wondering and thinking of the universe itself, there would be nothingness this theory kind of blurrs the line between what you call Materialism and Creationism. Now, Materialism is not a concept to be taken negatively. The physicaly processes of the universe can account for every observable thing. Do back HawaiiArmenian up a little bit. Wikipedia has a better way of saying it than I. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.
In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur.
Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory. For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.
But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that.
DEPARTMENTS
A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.
In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses see scientific method , which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories such as the theory of gravity are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data.
A law is a general statement based on observations. Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place. For a good Christian, good critical reasoning should be a way of life, otherwise how would we be able to accurately present our faith?
Also, I take issue with your statement that evolution is testable or observable. Welcome to the war, Phil. Now that Planet X is all but dead, and the Lunar Hoax people have been reduced to a handful of raving loons who discredit themselves with every word they say, now is the time to take on the biggest woo-woos around…IDists and Creationists. Nor have you given us any indication that you could argue theology.
Creationists obviously read the stuff- whether or not they understand it is another issue entirely. On an astronomy forum?
Is Hopoate's Mormon faith fair game for ridicule?
Christian morals are liberal. Were you thinking the teachings of the Bible were all hellfire and wrath? How does this invalidate a scientific theory? That would be a setback in more ways then one. That is… nothing is ever proven. I apologize if I seem a little up-front about my taking serious offense to how you appear to have completely ignored the thoughtful and clearly-written responses by Patrick and HawaiiArmenian.
Gentleman, this is a debate about beliefs, not science. To accept evolution as a valid scientific theory requires little faith. To claim it somehow validates a specific philosophical worldview is, indeed, a matter of faith. Now, for a more cultural-oriented approach, both Evolution and Genesis not creationism are creation myths, every culture has those. Not myth in the sense of being false, but an explanatory story that answers the question about where we came from.
If evolution is a theory, so is creationism. Yes, they are very thoughtful responses — at removing God from the equation. If someone else wishes to, feel free. I agree with you. The ID proponents, creationists, and Teach the Controversy peddlers are. The culture oriented approach. We have two competing myths and stories here. These are important questions. These are very different stories and hard to compare directly. They use different standards for truth, support, etc. What can we compare them against? Which story helps humankind understand and interpret its environment and allows it to make predictions going forward?
What are the consequences of the different stories? Our needs as people change over time and inquiry and thought should change accordingly. In order to call something true, it has to stand up to verification and practice. Which of these stories as survived tests of verification and practice? Which myth has allowed humankind to move forward and better cope with its environment and understand the world around it?
Is Hopoate's Mormon faith fair game for ridicule? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
It makes predictions, we understand the world better than we ever have, human knowledge is growing faster that we can catalog it, and we have made amazing leaps in technology. But again, there are no absolutes here. The explanations science gives us make the most sense right now. These explanations are not claiming to understand everything, they freely admit to not explaining everything.
Does that invalidate the whole process? Perhaps you missed what this whole topic is about. And could you please explain how evolution is a matter of faith? What are we putting faith in? Plomley was succeeded, after much discussion of whether the show could or should go on without him, by Michael Parkinson. Parkinson had appeared himself in February , and had been disappointed by the experience. Parkinson planned to ask more searching questions and to let them spin out of the music, which he and the castaway would listen to in real time.
He only did the show for a little over two years. Amis had been on 25 years earlier, but that recording is missing. Naturally, Amis chooses Scotch whisky as his luxury. His son Martin had his own sojourn on the island a decade later. In July Parkinson interviewed the comedian Kenneth Williams , who, like Amis, had been cast away by Plomley a generation earlier. The interview is missing, but the later one is a delight, with Williams offering an unstoppable torrent of recollections in his usual range of voices.
It is a consummate performance, with choices that demonstrate the depth of his musical knowledge. He was dead a year later, probably at his own hand. She had herself been a castaway in November Her luxury item was an ironing board. She was to do the job for 18 years. It is a terrific interview , a world away from the gentle Plomley.
To reinforce the point, he chooses her singing in English. Dame Edna insisted on taking her bridesmaid Madge Allsop as her luxury. So I allowed it. In October , Lawley interviewed Germaine Greer. The only people who find them difficult to love are men. A month later — this had been a tremendously strong start by Lawley — the castaway was Stephen Fry , the first of two appearances so far. His luxury was a suicide pill. In February Lawley interviewed Enoch Powell. Lawley asks her what she felt when she met Hitler. He was so interesting, fascinating. It was another remarkable interview in which Byatt talks both about her troubled relationship with her sister, Margaret Drabble , and about the death in a road accident of her year-old son.
Most days I think about him. The 50th anniversary guest on 26 January was the prime minister, John Major. He chose a full-scale model of the Oval cricket ground as his luxury item. Think about something jolly. I could get run over by a truck tomorrow. So could you, Sue. In March Lawley interviewed shadow chancellor Gordon Brown. Lawley, who never shied away from the difficult questions, asked the then unmarried Brown whether he was gay. He did not storm out of the studio. On 24 November , Lawley also interviewed Tony Blair , leader of the opposition and soon to be prime minister.
La Bardot has never been on the programme. The following week — presumably there was no connection with the solar-powered vibrator — the castaway was George Clooney. He burnished his cultural credentials by choosing War and Peace as his book, but spoiled the effect by saying the huge number of pages would make it useful as toilet paper.
As when Parkinson left, there was no formal leave-taking. Presenters were dispensable was the subliminal message. The show had to go on. Fade to By the Sleepy Lagoon.