Belief Not Central to Religiosity?

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
...especially the religion of evolutionism :asian:

No, this is just faulty thinking, trying to reconcile belief with scientific fact. For the record, science can neither prove nor disprove God, and religion shouldn't even attempt to reconcile itself with science-though this is a little more possible on an individual basis. As for evolution, it's not a religion, and it's not "just a theory." It's practically the law. The law of evolution, not unlike "the law of gravity." Get it?
 

grumpywolfman

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
561
Reaction score
13
No, this is just faulty thinking, trying to reconcile belief with scientific fact. For the record, science can neither prove nor disprove God, and religion shouldn't even attempt to reconcile itself with science-though this is a little more possible on an individual basis. As for evolution, it's not a religion, and it's not "just a theory." It's practically the law. The law of evolution, not unlike "the law of gravity." Get it?

Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core.


Offended? Ironic, perhaps we came form the same clan?


ugg
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core.


Offended? Ironic, perhaps we came form the same clan?


ugg

Not offended. Amused, perhaps-given my well known religiosity-you'd be stunned at the non-intellectual propositions I accept the literal validity of: a kind and beneficent Creator, who knows and loves us all. The inherent goodness of man. Evil as a force of nature.

In any case, the scientific proof of evolution abounds-both "micro" and "macro", which are really, after all, entirely the same damn thing, and have no place in this particular discussion about religion.
 

grumpywolfman

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
561
Reaction score
13
Not offended. Amused, perhaps-given my well known religiosity-you'd be stunned at the non-intellectual propositions I accept the literal validity of: a kind and beneficent Creator, who knows and loves us all. The inherent goodness of man. Evil as a force of nature.

In any case, the scientific proof of evolution abounds-both "micro" and "macro", which are really, after all, entirely the same damn thing, and have no place in this particular discussion about religion.

Well... I'm glad I made you smile, perhaps you're just more evolved than I am :idunno: because I was starting to look around the cave for my club.

Would it be ok with you, if we move this discussion into private? I would like to be able to go into an in depth discussion/exchange of this topic without the gang mentality that comes along when any one group's views are publicly questioned. It would allow us the comfort of addressing specific subjects one at a time without interference, and the luxury of replying back only when the time is convenient to do so.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Would it be ok with you, if we move this discussion into private? I would like to be able to go into an in depth discussion/exchange of this topic without the gang mentality that comes along when an one group's views are publicly questioned. It would allow us the comfort of addressing specific subjects one at a time without interference, and at the luxury of replying back only when the time is convenient to do so.

No, it would not be ok with me. Frankly, as much as I enjoy such discussions, I see no reason to enter into one via PM with you-my online time is a lot more limited these days, and precious to me.

I have heard and refuted all the same lame arguments before-it is, frankly, fruitless, especially since your "belief" is, as far as I'm concerned, your business. The entire argument stems from those on both sides of an imaginary divide-that between "science" and "religion"-confusing fact with truth, and conflating things like theory, belief, and ideas.
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core.


Offended? Ironic, perhaps we came form the same clan?


ugg

Actually scientific method does not require that you accept it. It is premised on being tested. Scientific method works because when a theory is correct, it works, over and over again. When the premise/hypothesis does not work or when a theory does not work in some circumstance, it demands explanation and revision. Or, in the case of a hypothesis, it can simply be abandoned. Few human belief systems are quite so accommodating in my experience. Most demand extreme contortions of logic (illogic) to have the observations fit the belief rather than revising the belief to fit the observation.
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
I don't see how you can make a case that belief in evolution is religion-like. Is belief in a particular theory of gravitation a religion? Of heat conduction? Heliocentricity?

As per the central theme of this thread. Religious belief (or behavior in the absence of belief) can exist in isolation from systems of scientific thought and the scientific method. There is no requirement that one's religious tenets hold to any external guidelines. All that is required is that one accepts them. I suppose if one can accept any manner of religious beliefs that may stand in conflict with scientific evidence (pick any religious belief system) and function with a foot in both realms; then one has achieved a certain yin/yang type of enlightenment. You don't need to believe in science for gravity to work. You don't need to believe in God to behave in a divine manner.
 

grumpywolfman

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
561
Reaction score
13
Scientific method works because when a theory is correct, it works, over and over again.

This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).
 

aedrasteia

Purple Belt
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
384
Reaction score
133
Hmm... and the liberal-minded have 'evolved' beyond this character flaw? There are enough responses just on this website alone to suggest different data results.
/QUOTE]

Absolutely not - that is a human response; all humans. All of us. And it isn't a 'character flaw' for anyone.
Sarcasm doesn't help this conversation so I try not to use it, if that was not clear previously.

with respect.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
Would somebody please provide me an example of macro-evolution?

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Do you want plants, insects, fish or lizards? All of these have actually occurred or been induced in modern times. However:

The modern horse, is the macroevolutionary product of the palaeothere, or hyracotherium. Modern birds are macro-evolutionary descendants of those feathered dinosaurs. The fossil record is full of transitional fossils that demonstrate macroevolution, including that of primates, from primitive to modern man.


Biology isn't even my field-of course, I recognize that none of these examples are acceptable to you, but that's because the anti-evolution camp has redefined "macro-evolution" to suit their purposes. The simple fact is that micro and macro evolution are the same processes taking place over differing scales of time. Period.
.
 

elder999

El Oso de Dios!
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
1,416
Location
Where the hills have eyes.,and it's HOT!
This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).

Actually, (and this is my field) it's absolutely true of Carbon dating. Carbon dating has to be calibrated-it's impacted by environmental factors-the more we have come to understand those factors, the more accurate it has become.

And what of the New Mexico whiptail lizard?
 

grumpywolfman

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
561
Reaction score
13
Sukerkin and others

Religion, historically, has not been about 'belief'. It is about one's practice.

Karen Armstrong (a former woman religious) is my great teacher here:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/b...ut_belief__karen_armstrong_s_the_case_for_god

Belief, as in an intellectual and cognitive acceptance of a set of propositions, is one consequence of the 'modern' age, beginning in the late 1500s and continuing today. it is the great gift of the supremacy of curiosity, inquiry, analysis and concern with evidence.

Sadly, and almost invisibly, fundamentalist believers (in Christianity as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (fundamentalists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core.


The Ascent of Intellectual Orthodoxy

For most of Western history, religion has been primarily a matter of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. In fact, no doctrine made any sense without participation in the community of faith and in its rituals. No doubt, there were certain thoughts or “beliefs” that mattered and were of extreme importance; however, unlike today, these convictions were never understood as either the core or the purpose of the religious life.


In fact, for most of Western history “belief” has meant nothing like what it means today. Today, when someone asks me if I believe in God, for example, they are asking if I assent to the proposed verity or the factual existence of God—and usually it is in reference to a very specific understanding of that God. Similarly, if I'm asked if I have “faith in Christ”, the question is whether I agree with the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was divine, died on a cross, and was raised from the dead, or some form of that story. In both cases, questions of “belief” and questions of “faith” require answers of thought.


Yet, as surprising as it may seem, these understandings are relatively recent. “Faith” has its etymological roots in the Greek pistis, “trust; commitment; loyalty; engagement.” Jerome translated pistis into the Latin fides (“loyalty”) and credo (which was from cor do, “I give my heart”). The translators of the first King James Bible translated credo into the English “belief,” which came from the Middle English bileven (“to prize; to value; to hold dear”).

Faith in God, therefore, was a trust in and loyal commitment to God. Belief in Christ was an engaged commitment to the call and ministry of Jesus; it was a commitment to do the gospel, to be a follower of Christ.

In neither case were “belief” or “faith” a matter of intellectual assent.


Nevertheless, by the dawn of the 18th century, as knowledge became a rational, theoretically driven venture “the word ‘belief’ started to be used to describe an intellectual assent to a hypothetical—and often dubious—proposition.”

Religion would not be the same.
“Until well into the modern period,” Armstrong contends, “Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible literally, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation.” Myths were symbolic, often therapeutic, teaching stories and were never understood literally or historically. But that all changed with the advent of modernity.

more... what are your practices? To what do you give your heart? Each day?

with respect,

For those who did not know, I modified the original statement made by aedrasteia, and had forgotten to provide a reference to her name. The purpose was to illustrate to elder999 how a condescending statement like this may feel if another person's religion were injected in place of Christianity (in this case evolutionism). She privately requested credit for a reference to her intellectual property; therefore, I wanted to make it clear where the following modifications to her statement came from:

"Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core."


My sincere apologies for forgetting to include a reference to the original source provided by this poster.
 

grumpywolfman

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
561
Reaction score
13
Actually, (and this is my field) it's absolutely true of Carbon dating. Carbon dating has to be calibrated-it's impacted by environmental factors-the more we have come to understand those factors, the more accurate it has become.

And what of the New Mexico whiptail lizard?


Cool we're talking ... I'll have to get back to you though. Is it ok to PM you in a couple of days about this (I'm going to be off for a while)?

Thanks
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,564
Reaction score
438
Location
Terre Haute, IN
This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).

The whale evolutionary tree is impressive--the fossil line is surprisingly well-known. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales
 

DennisBreene

3rd Black Belt
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
956
Reaction score
19
Location
Illinois
This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).

I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree about this area of discourse my friend. I can accept the science and I can accept that your beliefs are along a different path. At the end of the day, we still manage to inhabit the same planet and lead successful lives. I think that speaks well for the adaptability of man. Our beliefs only define a fraction of the totality of who we are.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
22,179
Reaction score
2,359
Location
Northern VA
Folks -- a reminder that, while there are times to take a discussion to PMs or email (it's involving personal information or business, for example), it's generally discouraged and is a violation of the rules here to seek outside contact about general discussions. Nobody's required to reply to a post in a given time frame; you can take seconds or months... Heck, we even see some posts resurrected from years ago on a regular basis. Nobody's required to respond to a given post at all...

Religion is a hot & touchy topic. Faith even more so. Let's play nice with each other and keep the discussions friendly and courteous, OK?
 

Grenadier

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
10,826
Reaction score
616
Instead of engaging me in private discussion, I suppose he might take the coward's way and give me a rep. deduction for offending his religious views Arni :wink2:

If you feel that someone has abused the reputation system, then please contact the Martialtalk.com forum staff, either one of the moderators, or admins. Complaining about rep here is not the proper protocol.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator
 
Top