View Full Version : A very intriguing article
weezer 316
06-Jul-11, 16:51
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml
Thanks for the link Weezer, an interesting article that opens more questions than there are answers. I had the feeling that someplace in there that their may be a merging of belief and science but entrenched views on both sides clouds the middle ground, which is a pity. Just skim read it but I will go back to read it more carefully, an open mind on both sides of the debate appears to be needed.
oldchemist
06-Jul-11, 19:07
The expression "creation science" says it all. Religion is a belief with no factual basis, science is based upon observation and facts.
science is based upon observation and facts.
Not with some of the Scientist's on here it's not!!!
C3......:roll:;)
weezer 316
07-Jul-11, 11:47
kells,
I dont think you fully understand the scientific method. Views arent "entrenched". Ill argue the point for point x forcefully but will gladly change my tune if there is evidence to support it.
This doesn't happen with religion. Ever.
The link utterly destroys the these creation scientists, if you can call them that. The sad thing is I dont think many apologists will understand the article, hence the reason they believe what they do.
kells,
I dont think you fully understand the scientific method. Views arent "entrenched". Ill argue the point for point x forcefully but will gladly change my tune if there is evidence to support it.
This doesn't happen with religion. Ever.
The link utterly destroys the these creation scientists, if you can call them that. The sad thing is I dont think many apologists will understand the article, hence the reason they believe what they do.
I don’t fully understand the scientific method but have enjoyed many debates with a doctor of science and found that although we came from different academic backgrounds we often arrived at the same answers. I think it is the person not the thought process that can becomes entrenched and a closed mind cannot learn anything new.
I agree with you about religious beliefs not being open to change but then religion is based on blind faith that does not require evidence and that is it‘s greatest strength. It is when these believes become corrupted that they are used as an excuse for so many evil actions. It is not the religion that is at fault but the interpretation of how it should be applied both by the individual and by those in positions of power.
The evolution theory does have flaws in it, that I do not think is disputed but it does provide a rational explanations for most of the development of earth as we know it. What is has not yet done is give evidence of the existence or non existence of a supreme creator or anything about the spiritual dimension of humans.
weezer 316
07-Jul-11, 15:05
Well can you, or anyone for that matter, explain why you would even think there is a supreme creator?!?! Why on earth invoke something like that?
I have probably said this before, but I am baffled how anyone could believe religion in this day an age, especially in the west with democracies and access to such levels of information. I can only conclude anyone that does just wilfully ignores evidence to the contrary or doesnt understand it.
Not sure where the flaws in Evolution are? Can you enlighten me? I assume you are talking about the cambrian explosion?
Well can you, or anyone for that matter, explain why you would even think there is a supreme creator?!?! Why on earth invoke something like that?
I have probably said this before, but I am baffled how anyone could believe religion in this day an age, especially in the west with democracies and access to such levels of information. I can only conclude anyone that does just wilfully ignores evidence to the contrary or doesnt understand it.
Not sure where the flaws in Evolution are? Can you enlighten me? I assume you are talking about the cambrian explosion?
I can give you two reasons for me seeing a supreme being as a strong possibility, as a belief it has been an inherent part of human nature since earliest records. the records being artefacts depicting a goddess. Not only did they exist but they have persisted and in most known cultures.
I have lived long enough to feel an many occasions that there is a spiritual dimension to life and but would say that is down to my own interpretation but ..... does that make it any less real for me? You will notice here that I do not mention religion, but keeping an open mind, when religion is not twisted or abused it gives a good structure on how to live a happy and worthwhile life.
Not everything in life is about facts and info, there are many areas of life that are more emotionally based and yet just as essential to living a full and happy life.
You are correct that I am talking about the cambran explosion where there are many different thoughts but not enough facts to give a firm conclusion which of course science demands. I do not think that this detracts from the wider theory of evolution which makes more sense to me than any bible story but always I ask the question, when and how did time first start?
weezer 316
07-Jul-11, 19:14
Some reasoned points I suppose. But let me ask you, wht does the fact that something has been believed for eons have to do with truth? Thast not evidence of anything is it?? We believed the earth was flat since the year 1 and yet it wasnt true.
Secondly, I think that when you dont know somethign, like the exact mechanism for life to form, then its ok to say so, and investigate until you do. Not to just make it up!
Some reasoned points I suppose. But let me ask you, wht does the fact that something has been believed for eons have to do with truth? Thast not evidence of anything is it?? We believed the earth was flat since the year 1 and yet it wasnt true.
Secondly, I think that when you dont know somethign, like the exact mechanism for life to form, then its ok to say so, and investigate until you do. Not to just make it up!
The fact that the concept of god has been present from the earliest times poses for me the question as to why? was it simply that they were aware of a spiritualiy that has been lost. It may just have been fear or some other simple explanation but the concept of god is not a simple concept and not likely to have such a simple explanation.
When people tell stories that turn into myths then there will always be those who turn the myths into their truths but if that works for them that is ok by me. We all have to find our own way in what we believe or not believe and sometimes it is only through life expearience we find our own truths.
secrets in symmetry
08-Jul-11, 00:56
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtmlThanks for bringing that to everyone's attention weezy.
Did you read the two papers Matt Walker's BBC blog is reporting on? Walker doesn't tell us that Phil Senter's second paper was (at least in part) written to correct some of the dodgy conclusions of his first one - and it doesn't say that Senter was corrected by none other than a Creation Scientist. :lol:
To cut a long story short, Senter used the creation scientists' "classic multidimensional scaling" (CMDS) technique to project a huge correlation matrix in dinosaur-species space onto the interior of a cube in some unspecified three dimensional space. Based on what he saw as a bifurcation in certain correlations in the resulting scatter plot, Senter claimed he had discovered evidence for dinosaur speciation. I thought his argument was silly because the conclusion depends on the angle at which you view the scatter plot. A prominent Creation Scientist (whose name I have forgotten) pointed out that CMDS is just a visualisation technique, and that Senter was making claims based on a technique that even a Creation Scientist wouldn't use for that purpose! Senter must have felt a bit of a prat after being admonished for that!
The second paper is a bit more quantitative, and I suspect the actual analysis is a good bit more sophisticated than the presented results suggest. I'm not convinced that Senter knows what "anti-correlated" means, but I think his analysis is probably ok.
Matt Walker says
Dr Senter’s research, which is more sophisticated than I can represent here, and this blog, pass no comment on any individual’s belief.
The last claim may be literally true, but the conclusion of the second paper takes the piss out of Creation Scientists without much restraint. I learned quite a lot about Creation Science from Senter's papers, and I think his approach will destroy Creation Science - eventually.
weezer 316
08-Jul-11, 08:47
Thanks for bringing that to everyone's attention weezy.
Did you read the two papers Matt Walker's BBC blog is reporting on? Walker doesn't tell us that Phil Senter's second paper was (at least in part) written to correct some of the dodgy conclusions of his first one - and it doesn't say that Senter was corrected by none other than a Creation Scientist. :lol:
To cut a long story short, Senter used the creation scientists' "classic multidimensional scaling" (CMDS) technique to project a huge correlation matrix in dinosaur-species space onto the interior of a cube in some unspecified three dimensional space. Based on what he saw as a bifurcation in certain correlations in the resulting scatter plot, Senter claimed he had discovered evidence for dinosaur speciation. I thought his argument was silly because the conclusion depends on the angle at which you view the scatter plot. A prominent Creation Scientist (whose name I have forgotten) pointed out that CMDS is just a visualisation technique, and that Senter was making claims based on a technique that even a Creation Scientist wouldn't use for that purpose! Senter must have felt a bit of a prat after being admonished for that!
The second paper is a bit more quantitative, and I suspect the actual analysis is a good bit more sophisticated than the presented results suggest. I'm not convinced that Senter knows what "anti-correlated" means, but I think his analysis is probably ok.
Matt Walker says
Dr Senter’s research, which is more sophisticated than I can represent here, and this blog, pass no comment on any individual’s belief.
The last claim may be literally true, but the conclusion of the second paper takes the piss out of Creation Scientists without much restraint. I learned quite a lot about Creation Science from Senter's papers, and I think his approach will destroy Creation Science - eventually.
I think you are overlooking the over riding point, namely that these idiots, and they are idiots, arrive at a conclusion, stunningly based on biblical tales which have no foundation at all, and then search for evidence to support it. Thats not science. Its not even common sense.
I think you are overlooking the over riding point, namely that these idiots, and they are idiots, arrive at a conclusion, stunningly based on biblical tales which have no foundation at all, and then search for evidence to support it. Thats not science. Its not even common sense.
Old chemist summed it up perfectly but it was still interesting to see how people with strong convictions try and manipulate science to do the impossible.
oldmarine
08-Jul-11, 11:31
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml
Looks like Christian belief has vanished from Caithness area. Evolution founder is buried in a British church gravesite but not Evolution. It appears that Christian belief is being replaced with Islamic Muslim belief.
weezer 316
08-Jul-11, 11:39
Looks like Christian belief has vanished from Caithness area. Evolution founder is buried in a British church gravesite but not Evolution. It appears that Christian belief is being replaced with Islamic Muslim belief.
I think you will find, at least here thankfully, it is being, or indeed has been replaced, by evidence based reality. This belongs to the dark ages where we didtn understand the world.
oldmarine
08-Jul-11, 11:50
I think you will find, at least here thankfully, it is being, or indeed has been replaced, by evidence based reality. This belongs to the dark ages where we didtn understand the world.
And so what do you do with those who profess Christianity? What will you do with the Islamic Muslims as they move into your country?
weezer 316
08-Jul-11, 12:38
Defend them of course. But defend the muslims as well. Its not a land grab. They are entitled to believe what they wish.
IN the end though the sheer lunacy of religion will be overcome by reason. Then we can say we are civilised.
Looks like Christian belief has vanished from Caithness area. Evolution founder is buried in a British church gravesite but not Evolution. It appears that Christian belief is being replaced with Islamic Muslim belief.
I find Caithness strong on the practice of christian beliefs. It is not just a sunday thing here but evidence of it shows in the daily interaction of the local people and it also rubs off on those who move here. Example is the best method of teaching and Caithness is strong in that.
Shabbychic
08-Jul-11, 13:23
I find Caithness strong on the practice of christian beliefs. It is not just a sunday thing here but evidence of it shows in the daily interaction of the local people and it also rubs off on those who move here. Example is the best method of teaching and Caithness is strong in that.
What part of Caithness do you live in?
I just hope that some who are thinking of moving here don't read that post. You make it sound like the Bible-Belt, Scotland.
Example is the best method of teaching and Caithness is strong in that.
What's that then? I understand the accelerated learning model is the best way to learn. That has nothing to do with religion.
weezer 316
08-Jul-11, 13:43
What part of Caithness do you live in?
I just hope that some who are thinking of moving here don't read that post. You make it sound like the Bible-Belt, Scotland.
Lol!
I know 4 active church goers. 3 of them spend their day criticising everyone and everything and the 4th goes becuase his wife does. I think they 3 are desperate for some confidence and some social acceptance so they go to church. I live in Thurso. So I am not sure where these christains are tbh
What part of Caithness do you live in?
I just hope that some who are thinking of moving here don't read that post. You make it sound like the Bible-Belt, Scotland.
I did not mention churches but christian beliefs.....I do not think that Christian values have vanished from Caithness but what has that got to do with any bible belt or people moving here?
What's that then? I understand the accelerated learning model is the best way to learn. That has nothing to do with religion.
I did not mention religion, I spoke about values, did you not learn that example not words is the best way to teach.
Lol!
I know 4 active church goers. 3 of them spend their day criticising everyone and everything and the 4th goes becuase his wife does. I think they 3 are desperate for some confidence and some social acceptance so they go to church. I live in Thurso. So I am not sure where these christains are tbh
I know many that go to church and many that do not, but what has that to do with the values people practice in there everyday life. I find the people of Caithness to be honest, caring and friendly, they have manners here that have been lost in other places and I think they are the biggest asset that caithness has.
weezer 316
08-Jul-11, 16:03
I think you will find the values people live by have very little, and in my case, nothing to do with religion! How do you account for my lack of murders/rapes/lies/deceit every day and my total absence of christian or any other religious belief?
Shabbychic
08-Jul-11, 16:11
I think you will find the values people live by have very little, and in my case, nothing to do with religion! How do you account for my lack of murders/rapes/lies/deceit every day and my total absence of christian or any other religious belief?
Aha....but we only have your word for that. Your name could be Dexter Weezer Morgan for all we know. ;)
Ah, the old "Christian values".
What are they, and how do they differ from any other mainstream religion?
Or those of Atheists or Agnostics come to think of it?
Shabbychic
08-Jul-11, 16:16
I did not mention churches but christian beliefs.....I do not think that Christian values have vanished from Caithness but what has that got to do with any bible belt or people moving here?
I didn't mention churches either, and christian and bible usually do go together.
I totally agree that we have a friendly, caring and helpful society in general up here, but I put that down to human values, not christian ones.
weezer 316
08-Jul-11, 16:30
I didn't mention churches either, and christian and bible usually do go together.
I totally agree that we have a friendly, caring and helpful society in general up here, but I put that down to human values, not christian ones.
I could indeed be utterly evil and spend my free time torturing people in my basement!
I agree, religious values are utterly nonsense. Your values and morals have nothing to do with religion. Infact they are corrupted by it
I think you will find the values people live by have very little, and in my case, nothing to do with religion! How do you account for my lack of murders/rapes/lies/deceit every day and my total absence of christian or any other religious belief?
I received my initial values in life from my parents who were Christian if they had been Muslim or any other religion then nodoubt I would have received those values. Of course as an adult I have gone on to form my own values and although I may say they are not christian values I life in what is mainly a christian culture so that has been my main influence. What has influenced your choice in values as they are not something you pick out of the air?
I received my initial values in life from my parents who were Christian if they had been Muslim or any other religion then nodoubt I would have received those values.
And how are they different?
I didn't mention churches either, and christian and bible usually do go together.
I totally agree that we have a friendly, caring and helpful society in general up here, but I put that down to human values, not christian ones.
So you assume that christian values and the bible go together and jump to the conclusion that christian values and the bible belt are the same thing..... your choice but not mine.
Pleased that you agree in general with me about the people in Caithness but how do you define human values and where do they come from?
And how are they different?
Mainly cultural I feel but perhaps you have more knowledge and would like to enlighten me
Mainly cultural I feel but perhaps you have more knowledge and would like to enlighten me
No, I doubt it.
I just wonder what you think the difference in Christian and Muslim values are?
You said you would have different values if your parent followed Islam, I wonder how would they differ?
No, I doubt it.
I just wonder what you think the difference in Christian and Muslim values are?
You said you would have different values if your parent followed Islam, I wonder how would they differ?
I dont wonder what the differences are, having taken part in a discussion a number of years ago with a group from many different cultures and beliefs we found little difference other than cultural and the methods of carrying out religious conventions.
If you are that interested in details, go google, I am not about to write an essay on comparitive relion for you. lol
secrets in symmetry
08-Jul-11, 23:40
I think you are overlooking the over riding point, namely that these idiots, and they are idiots, arrive at a conclusion, stunningly based on biblical tales which have no foundation at all, and then search for evidence to support it. Thats not science. Its not even common sense.In principle, you're absolutely correct, Creation researchers are idiots for the reasons you state.
The amazing thing is that Todd Wood (the Creationist whose name I couldn't remember last night) really does use the scientific method to try to prove his particular brand of arbitrary lunacy. I read the paper in which he criticises Senter's first paper, and (in my opinion) it's actually better than either of Senter's papers. He is more logical, he writes better than Senter does, he explains things better, and he doesn't put the 1,1 element of his matrices in the top RH corner like Senter does!!
Now, if you've taken all that on board, go and look at his blog, and you'll see he really is a raving Bible bashing lunatic.
These Creationists are clever - they are not to be underestimated, although baraminology is surely so naive that we shouldn't really take it seriously.
I don't suppose any of this forum's pseudo scientists have bothered reading any of the papers mentioned in Matt Walker's article. They just believe what they want, as Rheghead says.
In principle, you're absolutely correct, Creation researchers are idiots for the reasons you state.
The amazing thing is that Todd Wood (the Creationist whose name I couldn't remember last night) really does use the scientific method to try to prove his particular brand of arbitrary lunacy. I read the paper in which he criticises Senter's first paper, and (in my opinion) it's actually better than either of Senter's papers. He is more logical, he writes better than Senter does, he explains things better, and he doesn't put the 1,1 element of his matrices in the top RH corner like Senter does!!
Now, if you've taken all that on board, go and look at his blog, and you'll see he really is a raving Bible bashing lunatic.
These Creationists are clever - they are not to be underestimated, although baraminology is surely so naive that we shouldn't really take it seriously.
I don't suppose any of this forum's pseudo scientists have bothered reading any of the papers mentioned in Matt Walker's article. They just believe what they want, as Rheghead says.
thanks for this explanation of the papers. I have read them a number of times and could not make sense of them. There is no logical train of thought to follow for someone who is not a scientist which I certainly am not. It does make me wonder why they find it necessary to write these papers and publish them as being factual, or is this just one more example of internet 'experts' which are taken as fact without any other evidence to back up their claims.
Shabbychic
09-Jul-11, 01:45
So you assume that christian values and the bible go together and jump to the conclusion that christian values and the bible belt are the same thing..... your choice but not mine.
Pleased that you agree in general with me about the people in Caithness but how do you define human values and where do they come from?
Well in my humble opinion, the bible and christianity go together. I always thought that the bible was supposed to teach one christian values and christian living. I could be wrong of course.
With regards to human values, I believe they come from a universal human morality. Some people have this and some don't, but there is more to it than having to be taught them in the name of religion. In my view, if one must be taught what is right and wrong, there is something seriously wrong. What happened, for example, before the birth of christianity? Did every one just run about stealing and murdering because they had not been taught christian values? A simple check at a basic level, is to step back and say to yourself, "would I like this to be done to me?" If the answer is no, then it is wrong.
I don't for one minute have a problem with people following a religion, as long as they don't try and force it onto others. Where I do have a problem however, is when it is automatically assumed by some, that only religion can teach what is right and wrong, and make better humans.
Regarding this article, my problem is that these Creationists are arguing back and forth about how many dinosaurs fitted onto Noah's Ark. Do they honestly believe that dinosaurs were running about at the same time as Noah and his team; whether you believe he actually existed or not? How can anyone take them seriously if this is the type of rubbish they are studying? They actually believe that rock formations did not take millions of years, but days or weeks.
Has anyone ever heard of a Dr Dominique Tassot, president of the Centre des Études et de Prospective sur la Science (CEP)? He heads this centre of a 700-strong Catholic organisation linked to scientists contesting evolution. 700 people whose sole existance is to disprove evolution. You should read some of the stuff they come up with. All they do is dispute all theories put forward by Evolutionists, but they never actually put forward anything at all, let alone "Hard Evidence", to prove their case.
Creationists main aim is to get attention. I wont give them any more. Leave that to the scientists amongst us.
I understand anyones need to understand the world around them and thats not a trait exclusive to scientists or the scientific mind. Mere mortals have similar leanings too. Mans nature is a fundamnetal issue with eveyone and particularly women :lol:. Look deep enough and go back far enough and dont allow our prejudices to influence our findings and anyone will find an answer to any questions they ask themselves. In the case of a God proof is internal but because of mans fundamental nature why should his inner world be ignored and ridiculed by those who look out for answers and especially when you consider they too have a secretive inner world and as the org will play testement to, who could begin to understand someone elses inner world when we all have enough difficulties with our own? Why is it that by looking inwards we can heal our souls but by looking out souls no longer exist? :confused
The source of religion dates back to mans earliest conscious thoughts. Like man himself religion has evolved over the centuries. Religion didnt just happen with the earliest biblical scriptures. At that stage it took another turn in its evolutionary progress. The earliest hordes of pre-humans were not restricted by scientific examination in the same way as we are today. Their beliefs were in line with their thoughts and their deeds were not restricted by common or scientific laws. I'm grateful to them for the choices their misunderstanding of the world gives me. They were scientists of the mind. Ignore your own delusions if you must but dont encourage others to do the same.
Creationists main aim is to get attention. I wont give them any more. Leave that to the scientists amongst us.
I understand anyones need to understand the world around them and thats not a trait exclusive to scientists or the scientific mind. Mere mortals have similar leanings too. Mans nature is a fundamnetal issue with eveyone and particularly women :lol:. Look deep enough and go back far enough and dont allow our prejudices to influence our findings and anyone will find an answer to any questions they ask themselves. In the case of a God proof is internal but because of mans fundamental nature why should his inner world be ignored and ridiculed by those who look out for answers and especially when you consider they too have a secretive inner world and as the org will play testement to, who could begin to understand someone elses inner world when we all have enough difficulties with our own? Why is it that by looking inwards we can heal our souls but by looking out souls no longer exist? :confused
The source of religion dates back to mans earliest conscious thoughts. Like man himself religion has evolved over the centuries. Religion didnt just happen with the earliest biblical scriptures. At that stage it took another turn in its evolutionary progress. The earliest hordes of pre-humans were not restricted by scientific examination in the same way as we are today. Their beliefs were in line with their thoughts and their deeds were not restricted by common or scientific laws. I'm grateful to them for the choices their misunderstanding of the world gives me. They were scientists of the mind. Ignore your own delusions if you must but dont encourage others to do the same.
Good advice about the Creationists they only gave me a sore head. You know from previous posts where I am coming from, it is a similar road to yourself that I travel and like you looking inward does not create the need to prove anything.
Well in my humble opinion, the bible and christianity go together. I always thought that the bible was supposed to teach one christian values and christian living. I could be wrong of course.
With regards to human values, I believe they come from a universal human morality. Some people have this and some don't, but there is more to it than having to be taught them in the name of religion. In my view, if one must be taught what is right and wrong, there is something seriously wrong. What happened, for example, before the birth of christianity? Did every one just run about stealing and murdering because they had not been taught christian values? A simple check at a basic level, is to step back and say to yourself, "would I like this to be done to me?" If the answer is no, then it is wrong.
I don't for one minute have a problem with people following a religion, as long as they don't try and force it onto others. Where I do have a problem however, is when it is automatically assumed by some, that only religion can teach what is right and wrong, and make better humans.
Regarding this article, my problem is that these Creationists are arguing back and forth about how many dinosaurs fitted onto Noah's Ark. Do they honestly believe that dinosaurs were running about at the same time as Noah and his team; whether you believe he actually existed or not? How can anyone take them seriously if this is the type of rubbish they are studying? They actually believe that rock formations did not take millions of years, but days or weeks.
Has anyone ever heard of a Dr Dominique Tassot, president of the Centre des Études et de Prospective sur la Science (CEP)? He heads this centre of a 700-strong Catholic organisation linked to scientists contesting evolution. 700 people whose sole existance is to disprove evolution. You should read some of the stuff they come up with. All they do is dispute all theories put forward by Evolutionists, but they never actually put forward anything at all, let alone "Hard Evidence", to prove their case.
A universal human morality...... never heard of it but I must be one of the people who do not have it, is it a lottery you win at birth or something. You must let all the parents know that they have no need ot teach their children right from wrong as it is just luck whether they get the universal morality thing. Yip 'do unto others as you would have them to do unto you,' works well and has for a long time but what a pity so few bother to follow it.
Morals and religion probably evolved together along with the evolution of human consciousness. I suspect that from that came a kind of universal morality although each culture will fine tune its morality to suit whatever religion they have adopted to fulfill their deeper needs. Incest for example. Early anthropologists dicovered the structure of individual tribes was built so as incest was avoided and it may have been one of the earliest human taboos. No one knows for sure about the origins of morality and religion but I encourage specualtion from the more scientific contributors to this thread. Who knows? Believers and unbelievers alike may find common ground! Surely that's good science and could enhance the faith of the faithless? :eek:
A universal human morality......
I wouldn't be so dimissive of that. If you look at the morals and ethics of different races around the world they are remarkably similar.
For example those of the Aborigines, Native Americans and Europeans, people who had had no contact since prehistoric times and no common shared religion.
I remember watching a programme on TV a while ago where an anthropologist showed the similarities between our community morals and those of a group of apes. There were remarkable similarities. Their expert opinion was that these morals have come about from evolution, as much as an instinct as a bird "learning" to fly.
As Gleeber points out, incest is bad for survival of the species and so has evolved into a taboo. Many things that we class as morals, share, help those in need, tend to the sick etc, are good for "the tribe", it is only natural that these behaviours should have evolved too. Read Charles Darwin.
Although Religion may well try to maintain good morals, or perhaps excert control on people by threatening punishment for not acting morally, I think it would be foolish to assume that religion, or any one religion in general, is the source of these morals.
Morals and religion probably evolved together along with the evolution of human consciousness. I suspect that from that came a kind of universal morality although each culture will fine tune its morality to suit whatever religion they have adopted to fulfill their deeper needs. Incest for example. Early anthropologists dicovered the structure of individual tribes was built so as incest was avoided and it may have been one of the earliest human taboos. No one knows for sure about the origins of morality and religion but I encourage specualtion from the more scientific contributors to this thread. Who knows? Believers and unbelievers alike may find common ground! Surely that's good science and could enhance the faith of the faithless? :eek:
This is a viewpoint that I can appreciate and understand, it fits in with much of the work I have done and read about previously. It makes sense that morals and religion evolved as they were passed from one generation to the next and my own experience in life should have shown me this. The obvious is often the easiest to overlook.
Shabbychic
09-Jul-11, 12:22
A universal human morality...... never heard of it but I must be one of the people who do not have it, is it a lottery you win at birth or something. You must let all the parents know that they have no need ot teach their children right from wrong as it is just luck whether they get the universal morality thing. Yip 'do unto others as you would have them to do unto you,' works well and has for a long time but what a pity so few bother to follow it.
Just because you have not heard of a universal morality does not mean it doesn't exist. I suppose it could be seen in a simplistic form, as a lottery at birth, as some have it and some don't.
I think you will also find that good parenting does not necessarily always produce good, upright members of society. Humans are not robots that can all be fed the same data and therefore all turn out exactly the same. You can get good people from bad parents and bad from good parents, just as all children from the same family, with the same parenting and environment, don't all turn out the same.
I am not saying that parents shouldn't teach their children right from wrong, and as others have indicated, children should be taught how to live within the society they are born into. This includes taboos, but these are not always morals as such, they are more of an evolutionary necessity in the advancement of further human progress, and for many, this can be achieved without religion.
I wouldn't be so dimissive of that. If you look at the morals and ethics of different races around the world they are remarkably similar.
For example those of the Aborigines, Native Americans and Europeans, people who had had no contact since prehistoric times and no common shared religion.
I remember watching a programme on TV a while ago where an anthropologist showed the similarities between our community morals and those of a group of apes. There were remarkable similarities. Their expert opinion was that these morals have come about from evolution, as much as an instinct as a bird "learning" to fly.
As Gleeber points out, incest is bad for survival of the species and so has evolved into a taboo. Many things that we class as morals, share, help those in need, tend to the sick etc, are good for "the tribe", it is only natural that these behaviours should have evolved too. Read Charles Darwin.
Although Religion may well try to maintain good morals, or perhaps excert control on people by threatening punishment for not acting morally, I think it would be foolish to assume that religion, or any one religion in general, is the source of these morals.
After reading Gleeber's post I do agree with you that I was too quick to dismiss the concept of universal morality. It also gives me an explanation of how perhaps religions came into being so early on in evolution and how both evolved. That is something I will look at further and should make for some interesting research. I will read Darwin as soon as I am able to read, which should be soon, but to date I have been unable to find an audio book which is a pity.
I will read Darwin as soon as I am able to read, which should be soon, but to date I have been unable to find an audio book which is a pity.
You can get it here for under £15:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1400158648/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310213065&sr=1-4
Enjoy ;)
Just because you have not heard of a universal morality does not mean it doesn't exist. I suppose it could be seen in a simplistic form, as a lottery at birth, as some have it and some don't.
I think you will also find that good parenting does not necessarily always produce good, upright members of society. Humans are not robots that can all be fed the same data and therefore all turn out exactly the same. You can get good people from bad parents and bad from good parents, just as all children from the same family, with the same parenting and environment, don't all turn out the same.
I am not saying that parents shouldn't teach their children right from wrong, and as others have indicated, children should be taught how to live within the society they are born into. This includes taboos, but these are not always morals as such, they are more of an evolutionary necessity in the advancement of further human progress, and for many, this can be achieved without religion.
I have now learned about universal morality and happy to accept that it also has evolved though time. I think the issue of nature versus nurture is an interesting but separate issue and with eight grandchildren I would love to say that there is a simple answer to that one.
I would never say that people cannot lead a good and happy life without religion, just as those who base their lives on religious values are not fools or idiots. For me it is not what you believe or think but what you do that is more important and that is where I have found the people of caithness are a great example of how to live.
.
Shabbychic
09-Jul-11, 13:26
I have now learned about universal morality and happy to accept that it also has evolved though time. I think the issue of nature versus nurture is an interesting but separate issue and with eight grandchildren I would love to say that there is a simple answer to that one.
I would never say that people cannot lead a good and happy life without religion, just as those who base their lives on religious values are not fools or idiots. For me it is not what you believe or think but what you do that is more important and that is where I have found the people of caithness are a great example of how to live.
I agree completely.
You can get it here for under £15:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1400158648/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310213065&sr=1-4
Enjoy ;)
Many thanks, now ordered and looking forward to listening to it.
Many thanks, now ordered and looking forward to listening to it.
You're welcome.
On a serious note though, what do you consider to be "religious values".
I don't think you're alone, I believe many would agree with you, I just don't understand what they are.
I think good morals and ethics, although perhaps hijacked by organised religion, have origins elsewhere.
You're welcome.
On a serious note though, what do you consider to be "religious values".
I don't think you're alone, I believe many would agree with you, I just don't understand what they are.
I think good morals and ethics, although perhaps hijacked by organised religion, have origins elsewhere.
I would say that my parents who were Christian in the best sense of the word brought me up on the basis of the ten commandments. That I think gave me respect for myself and others and a firm foundation of right and wrong.. This I gave to my children but unlike my parents I believed in giving my children the right as they grew up to make their own choices. Personally I do not like the term religious values but prefer belief system as it more inclusive and shows respect to others. Over the years my own beliefs have evolved and I hope will continue to do so. Where I once would have said prayer was a waste of time I now regard it as being a positive action just as I have found that my belief in God is life enhancing. This does not make me better or worse than anyone else, it just how I have chosen to be comfortable and happy in my own skin and with the circumstances of my life.
Well can you, or anyone for that matter, explain why you would even think there is a supreme creator?!?! Why on earth invoke something like that?
I can speculate.
If your an evolutionist then When you consider the evolution of human consciousness and the birth of religion and morals it must have passed through various stages over thousands of years. We can see where we come from just by watching how apes behave. That was us a million years ago. No morals, no God and no tax. Once our consciousness started to form we started to use tools. Then after a while they must have looked around them and started to think about where they came from. A blast of thunder and a few lightening bolts would soon have made them realise that there were powers afoot stronger than they could ever raise so sometime around then Gods must have been born. Very basic idea but a powerful tool to supplement their evolving minds. They would have had to toe the line to please the Gods otherwise the Gods would send plagues or floods or famines and if the Gods did that anyway, even though they spent their lives trying to please them, they would know that they hadnt done enough to please them so they would have done more. It was a matter of life and death keeping the Gods happy. Eventually it was obvious there could only be one God. The rest is history.
I once knew a good Christian mannie who had high hopes for the church of Scotland minister in the next parish. One of these days he'll be converted by one of his own sermons he used to say excitedly. :lol: That's what religion does but Gods different. He was around long before religion. I dont think anyone could argue that God doesnt exist. He's everywhere. Even Weezer canna stop talking about him.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven."
"......Charles Darwin wrote a book called "Monkey, Monkey, Monkey, Monkey, YOU!!".......caused a big uproar......the monkey kingdom was furious." #izzard
;)
Thankfully the monkeys haven't caught up with the evolutionary processes the human race have enjoyed and taken advantage of over thousands of years, neither have some of the humans. :roll:
Better Out Than In
13-Jul-11, 16:40
Ancient peoples devised religions as a way to explain the unexplained. Unfortunately this created a system that could be used by the few to control and manipulate the many.
On occassions I have similar feelings about many organised religions. Although many members of religious groups carry out wonderful work to help others; so balances out those that do bad things for their religion.
I have no problem generally with people believing in what ever they want as long as it is not harmful and not a mandatory condition that I have to believe in the same thing.
Getting slightly back on original topic - a senior member of the Catholic Church issued a statement a year or so ago, after so many planets were being discovered, basically saying that there is no reason to suspect that life exists on other worlds but if it turns out that it does, then God put it there. Nothing like hedging your bets.
I am not religious (obviously) but I do wonder: Who started the big bang, what was there before? I can see how organic material could be created by chance but how did it learn to think?
weezer 316
13-Jul-11, 16:55
Ancient peoples devised religions as a way to explain the unexplained. Unfortunately this created a system that could be used by the few to control and manipulate the many.
On occassions I have similar feelings about many organised religions. Although many members of religious groups carry out wonderful work to help others; so balances out those that do bad things for their religion.
I have no problem generally with people believing in what ever they want as long as it is not harmful and not a mandatory condition that I have to believe in the same thing.
Getting slightly back on original topic - a senior member of the Catholic Church issued a statement a year or so ago, after so many planets were being discovered, basically saying that there is no reason to suspect that life exists on other worlds but if it turns out that it does, then God put it there. Nothing like hedging your bets.
I am not religious (obviously) but I do wonder: Who started the big bang, what was there before? I can see how organic material could be created by chance but how did it learn to think?
I dont have a problem with people believing what they want either, you usually find this is something religions have an issue with, hence the reason the bible is littered with violence and death to believers of other religion.
As to what came before the big bang.....well we dont know. Alot of work needs to be done. It wouldnt be done of course if the answer "god did it" was accepted. Religion is a byword for ignorance. Its basically a "Dont bother trying to understand what we dont already". Thats one of my main probelms with religion that is actively encourages you to be ignorant and ignore stuff which contradicts their holy scripture, regardless of the fact its supported by mountains of evidence.
I am yet to hear a convincing argument, or even an unconvincing one, as to why this is desirable and how it benefits anyone.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.