levite

Well, again, without wishing to get bogged down in the details of the local conflict.... Yes, I would certainly agree that much of the terrorist threat that Jews in Israel face comes from what is currently being referred to as "radical Islamism." And although I freely admit, I have only a beginner's knowledge of Islam (read the Quran, some of the haditha, talked to some imams), it seems to me that there are many possibilities in Islam. It would never occur to me to blame all Islam for terrorism, although, to be frank, it does seem like quite a number of Islamic authorities are currently exploring what I would call very counterproductive theological notions. The things that have gone into making terrorism an option which some Palestinians appear to regard as viable are many, and I don't necessarily think it will be useful to get into discussing them here. But I will speculate that it seems to me that had there been, some time ago, a combination of more progressive Islamic theology being disseminated amongst Palestinian Arabs, along with more sustained efforts by numerous parties to relieve local social ills, and the emergence of a leadership with a more diplomatically-oriented nationalist agenda, terrorism would most likely not have seemed such an attractive option.

Well, lack of education leads to secularism amongst Jews. That much I believe. Whether the same holds true in other religious communities I cannot vouch for. And while I don't believe I really have an Answer for what causes fundamentalism, here is my personal speculation. I believe that most (but not all) fundamentalists are troubled by the idea of God, Life, and Death continuing to be, in some ways, gray areas. In its purest form, the purpose of halakhah (Jewish Law) is to retain the principles of Torah in an adaptive form, so that by evolving along with the societies in which Jews live, Torah never ceases to become practically relevant to Jews. But I think some people are uncomfortable with the responsibility of constant reinterpretation, because others are sure to disagree with them, and they themselves feel unsure of themselves, psychologically. I think certain personality types crave surety: they like black and white, which is simple, and one always knows where one stands. To live in a spectrum which includes shades of gray, or even colors, is frightening to such people, because they never feel confident that they are behaving acceptably, or living up to the expectations they perceive are placed upon them by others. Although I tend to shy away from diagnostic imagery, I might almost classify the fundamentalist mindset as having characteristics of lack of self-worth and self-esteem, insecurity, and perhaps a very, very mild tendency to obsessive-compulsiveness.

I think, especially in American Christianity, all of these problems are greatly reinforced by the social pressures associated with a Christian atmosphere in which, I am told, it is seen as undesirable to question, and bad behavior to take issue with the teachings of the pastor or priest. These things create a great pressure to conform, or at least keep very quiet about one's questions, doubts, and innovations. Thus, I think many fundamentalists remain fundamentalist at least in part out of fear of rejection or stigmatization by their communities.

Again, I don't believe this to be true of all fundamentalists, but I think it may be true for many.

Sometimes I think ignorance breeds fundamentalism. This, in my personal opinion, seems to be often true for Christians in America. I have met an astonishing plethora of Christians in America who are shockingly ignorant about their own religion (if I, a Jew, can tell, it must be a shocking lack of education), and comparatively poorly educated in general. In such cases, I think the lack of self-worth and insecurity components are greatly magnified. Tolerance and flexibility are the hallmarks of pluralism. But it can be very difficult to embrace pluralism if one feels oppressed, and thus wishes to maximize one's embrace of the doctrine of exclusivity in order to feel less so.

I have noted also that a number of the fundamentalist Christians I have met come from either the impoverished or the wealthy. I have certainly met middle-class fundamentalists, but I note that in my personal experience, they seem to be in the minority. To me this seems to indicate that the poor grasp onto fundamentalism in the hope that excessive righteousness will alleviate their suffering. The wealthy, to the contrary, seem to embrace a quasi-Calvinistic outlook, in which they embrace fundamentalism in what they perceive as acknowledgement or gratefulness for the divine Grace which they believe their financial and social success to represent. But in either case, what leaps out at me is that it is the very poor whose religious and secular education is often impeded by their circumstances; while the wealthy are often preoccupied with enjoying the fruits of their material success, and since they seem to take that wealth as a sign of grace anyhow, they are unmotivated to further their religious education.

I have no proof for any of this. It is just my speculation: it seems likely to me, but I make no claims to its actual accuracy. And I am fully aware that there are some fundamentalists whose motivations are entirely different, and who are explained by none of the hypotheses I have offered.

Well, not so much with the flood story. Some of the other incidents of people dying, yes. But also, keep in mind that in Jewish commentary and exegesis, there is nothing wrong with saying "this verse is troublesome, and it bothers me, and I am not able to adequately explain it yet." Many commentators say such things at various times, and there is no perception that this is unusual or improper. Text, in Jewish tradition, is there to be wrestled with. That is why, we say, our name is Yisra'el (Israel), which literally means, "He Who struggles with God." But one of the things that many commentators point out about the Flood story, for example, is that God immediately promises never to do such a thing again, and realizes it was really a bad idea. It can be hard to reconcile with a doctrine of divine omniscience, but there is an implication in Biblical theology, as we understand it, that relating to human beings is as much a learning experience for God as relating to God is a learning experience for humans. It actually ends up being kind of complicated, but to keep it short, there is at least an awareness of the issue in Jewish theology and exegetical commentary. The way it is dealt with so far has not primarily been to interpret the stories as parables or myths, although some have done so; it is to look for deeper interpretations, and this is often successful to one degree or another.

But I do absolutely understand that, if one were to read the Written Torah in isolation, it would doubtless be quite disconcerting in places, and tremendously obscure in others.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Ourcrazymodern?

"God is happy, sabu. He plays
with us."
With no evidence to the comtrary, I believe that theism, in one form or another, will last as long as this species does, and even longer amongst others.
The only harm that comes from what I view as an absurd fantasy is that it turns us into "us" and "them" when, (yes, I'm gonna say it again),
IT'S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE!
& GO(O)D loves us, anyway.
If there were more suicide bombers there'd be less need for social workers. I hope (talk about a go(o)d word!) that social workers start focusing on society more, and that the theists eventually realize what they're trying to be, which is? Good.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

KnifeMissile

I don't understand this kind of reasoning. Almost by definition, if something has some "impact," it can be measured. So, how can anyone suggest such a thing?


I don't think your analogies are apt.

We agree that trying to explain science with religion is stupid. However, that religion exists is a reality and science is the study of reality. So, why couldn't science examine religion? You don't think sociology and neurology are sciences? What are you saying, specifically?

If it were just press, then there would be far fewer concerned atheists. It's the incessant subversion of science by fundamentalists that has caused a backlash from nonbelievers to quell religion. If religion has caused you lot to go mad and rebuke science, something that has allowed my life to be as enjoyable as it is, then your religion has got to go!

Tophat665

Well, therein lies the perversity of the human mind. A subset of humanity needs something to have faith in, and organized religion without a god is just a government without territory. Therefore, very early in the course of every organized religion I can think of (and I've put some study into this) God is defined as "Mysterious" or "Ineffable" or "Unknowable through Reason", to the effect that if it can be measured, it ain't God.

So how can anyone suggest such a thing? Job security is part of the answer.

Flip side of it is God is usually conceived of as a Cause rather than an effect. There are lots of cases where you can measure the effect, but the cause is obscure. Gravity is a great example. Masses attract. That's an effect. Why? Einstein took a stab at it and it seems to work, but until the mediation of cause and effect is observed, you can at most say that Einstein described a likely way that gravity may work.

Now, lest you mistake me for a believer, let me disabuse you. I am a shit disturber, and insisting on the existence of things beyond humanity's capacity to know is an argument that interests me. Is that God? I don't know. I don't much care. I think atheism misses the point. I do not believe that God is necessary, therefore I am unconcerned as to whether God exists in a objective sense. God Certainly and Inarguably, though, exists as an Idea. As fuzzy as Ineffability makes the idea, that may be as much of an existence as is needed to cause an effect.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

filtherton

I think the idea is that science is limited, and that humanity's ability to understand the universe is limited. Is there a phenomena that science can't observe? How could you tell?


I think he's saying that the methods by which scientists go about explaining reality don't jibe well with the methods that religious folk use to explain reality, and also perhaps that it is useless to attempt to use science to try to explain things which are by definition not verifiable by scientific means. I think he's saying that folks who try to explain away theism with science miss the point of theism.

It is silly to lash out against all religion when your problems lie with a subset of religious folk. I cringe when some of my fellow atheists, the ones who would call themselves guardians of reason, can't be bothered to see the forest because of the trees that are in the way. The fact that certain fundamentalists feel threatened by science says nothing about religion in general. If one were so inclined as to take a casual survey of the facts, one might see that there are plenty of religious folk who also balk at the subversion of science, as well as plenty of people who, for completely secular reasons, would subvert science and reason as a convenient means to an end.

KnifeMissile

Science is a method of investigation. Science doesn't observe things, we do! If there is a phenomena that you can't observe, why do you think it ever happened? Do you see the madness in this proposition? This is what it is to be religious...

I could hardly make sense of most of this paragraph but I think I understand the last sentence. Let me say that those who think that explaining "away theism with science miss the point of theism" miss the point of science!

In other words (without a forced quotation), those who wonder why anyone would investigate theism scientifically miss the point of science!

I have spoken to a good number of christians and I have gained some sympathy for their plight. I regularly attend Campus Crusade for Christ events, made easy by the fact that I live in a small town with two universities in it, one of which is rather prestigious. Life is hard and if a bunch of fairy tales helps you get through it, more power to you.

My problem with religion is when religious people start enforcing the principles of their fairy tales onto me. When they start influencing politics, en mass, on issues of what I may or may not wear, whom I may or may not marry, what I may or may not research, what we may or may not teach, etc... then fuck you and your religion! These people have political power and very few of them live with the idea that "well, they're my beliefs so I'm the only one who needs to follow them." Christians on this continent think that their religion constitutes absolute morality and, thus, must enforce this onto everyone...

I only brought up science because that's what offends me the most. In rural America, anti-science fundamentalist christians are not a fringe minority. They make up more than 50% of the population and the rest of the theists don't appear to be standing up to their religious cousins. It really looks like religion is the problem and not just a couple of wackos...

Tophat665

To my mind, that is The problem with Religion. However, I am not convinced that taking religion away, were it even possible, would solve that problems. It is the heritage of our herd ape forebearers. There are always Bluenoses and Comstocks and people who lash out against the nagging fear that somewhere, someone might be happier than they.

So to answer the original question of whether Theism is down for the count, the answer has to be no. Should it be? I couldn't care less. Whether or not it is the primate troop imperatives will remain, and they are the problem, not the justifications given for them.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

filtherton

Is there a phenomena that science can't investigate? The set of things that
are observable and amenable to scientific investigation is a subset of the
set of things that are observable- to claim otherwise is to claim that
science can achieve omniscience.

I'm not sure anyone has claimed to wonder why someone would investigate theism scientifically, so that's really beside the point.

The point that I was making is that there are many beliefs held by theists
for which examination by the scientific process is irrelevant. Science has
nothing to say about the existence of a god, but it can say things about what an existing god is not, for instance, god is obviously not a visible hobgoblin on
Pat Robertson's shoulder. Science is impotent when it comes to explaining
the things that theism (in it's most general form) attempts to explain.

Not all religious people are attempting to make you live by their beliefs. How can you expect to be taken seriously as the arbiter of reason you seem to think you are if you can't even be bothered to notice the very real distinctions between the religious people who bother you and the religious people who couldn't care less about anything you do?

I think the more reasonable explanation is that people are the problem, and
that the culture of rural america is much more complex than you seem to
think it is.

KnifeMissile

Say, what's with the formatting, filtherton? Why all the extraneous carriage returns? It looks like I'm reading a Shakespeare play without all the rhyme or poetry...

That doesn't follow. At the very least, you're assuming that there is a finite number of things to investigate and there's no reason to think that.
It's ironic that you think I tend to oversimplify...

This is what I was responding to:...followed by you saying:My comments seemed on topic in light of these statements...

But theism is an attempt to explain things arbitrarily, with no reasoning behind it. It's my contention that a fictional explanation is worse than no explanation at all.

In my experience, the things that religion attempts to explain are things that don't bear explanation...

Not all biologists think that evolution and common descent are scientific facts. There are, like, two who don't...

Yes, not all theists are attempting to make me live by their beliefs... Are you even understanding my arguments or are you desperately trying to find every pedantic way that my statements aren't strictly true and comment on those fine points? Effectively all christians on this continent are, in fact, trying to enforce their beliefs onto me. They do so whenever they elect a politician whose views and policies coincide with their christian sensibilities. In other words, they're trying to erect public policy based on their fairy tales. This is an enforcement of their beliefs onto me. Of course, this is their democratic prerogative but, of course, I will want to convince them that they're wrong. Hence, the debate continues...

You're just saying that, though. Surely there are complexities in the problem. However, very few atheists deny scientific findings while the pious assault science with superstition. People are the problem. They have replaced reality with religion!

filtherton

Where in what I said is there any assumption of a finite number of things to investigate?

There is reasoning behind theism. The fact that you don't agree with the reasoning doesn't somehow invalidate it.

Fixed it for you.

I'm just saying that for someone who seems to claim to hold reason and science in high regard, you're pretty sloppy about how you communicate. A scientist would at least acknowledge the fact that his statements weren't strictly true and attempt to refine them so that they were. All you can seem to do is complain about me pointing out how your statements aren't true.

Your problem is that your entire premise is based on arguments that aren't strictly true. Make the arguments strictly true and you lose the dramatic "every theist is trying to force me to believe in god" angle. You're left with, "Some theists are real crumb bums." Which is a statement I don't disagree with.

Okay, now you're being a tad histrionic. I'm certain if one was so inclined one could find various christian undertones in all sort of laws. Why, the recent bailout of Bear Stearns is clearly just a christ-like gesture of charity towards the poor, destitute shareholders.

Seriously, though, if you're trying to claim that christians can't govern secularly, then you should probably take a gander at the political state of the United States in the context of christian doctrine. Christ loved the poor- americans don't. Christ was a pacifist.

I'm just saying that because its true. I'm sorry you can't seem to modify your position to reflect any sort of nuance. Some pious folk don't deny scientific findings- a lot of them don't. Some do speak out against the denial of science by their fellow theists.

The problems of humanity manifest themselves in everything humanity does, including religion and the scientific establishment. The fact that you seem to think that we'd all be better off without religion seems to me to reflect a certain naivety concerning just how fucked up humans are.

Willravel

A recent poll said around 50% (I think it's 47% total, 39% men and 53% women) of Americans believe in evolution. The other 50%? Those are the pious folk who are the problem. But blaming "humanity" or "human nature" is bullshit. These people need to be held responsible for contradicting science and logic.

filtherton

They are the problem? Whose problem? How many of the folks who don't believe in evolution are actively trying to remove it from schools? How many of those people don't believe in evolution because it's contrary to their religion vs. because they don't understand it, don't care, or don't appreciate the aesthetics of it? Everyone knows 80% of all statistical figures are meaningless without context. How many people didn't believe in evolution 50 years ago? Is it possible the situation is actually improving?

And not quibble, but not believing in evolution doesn't necessarily imply a lack of logic-- two logically sound arguments can come to contradictory conclusions and logically sound arguments aren't required to resemble reality in any meaningful way.

What does holding people responsible for contradicting science and logic entail? How do you hold them responsible? Do you call the Rational Response Squad?

Do you at all appreciate the notion that there is more than one valid way to make sense of the world? So some folks don't believe in evolution. I guess I won't ask them for homework help the next time I take a biology class.

Blaming human nature may be bullshit, but it is less bullshit than blaming religion. Blaming religion ignores the fact that dysfunctional idiots exist in secular societies too. If you are of the opinion that humanity created religion, which being an atheist you probably are, then how can you possibly blame religion for religious people being messed up instead of blaming people for people being messed up?

Willravel

Das what I said!
Everyone's, including their own.
Estimates range from 20-70%, but no formal studies have been held.
The result is the same regardless of how they arrive at it. But to answer your question, I don't know.
That's actually an old joke and holds no statistical significance. It sounded like you were using seriously.
"Creationism" isn't that old, and ID is only like 2 years old, so no I don't see this as progressing towards evolution. I see it polarizing, and polarization is never a good sign.
"You're wrong, here's verifiable evidence to prove it. Stop ignoring factual evidence." Seems simple enough.
Evolution has nothing to do with making sense of the world. Making sense is the job of philosophy. Evolution is science.
Secular societies? There are places on the planet where there are no religious people at all? WHERE?! How are the housing markets there?

Baraka_Guru

Copernicus was a Roman Catholic. So was Galileo. Devoutly so.

This isn't religion vs. science.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

You do realize that you just named two prominent scientists that were attacked by the Catholic Church, right? I mean really.

filtherton

Perhaps you should buy a gun.

So you referencing this statistic in the context of a discussion about theists attempting to force their beliefs on the rest of us is relevant how?

We were discussing religion as a justification for rejecting science, so it would stand to reason that the reason that that 50% don't believe in evolution would be the point, as opposed to the fact that they don't believe in evolution.

You: "Speaking of religious people rejecting science and forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, 50% of americans are piously rejecting evolution."

Me: "How many of those people are forcing their beliefs on the rest of us?

You: "Oh, I don't know *quotes incredibly large range without source and acknowledges that he has no idea*"

Me: "Okay, how many of those people are rejecting evolution for religious reasons?"

You: "Oh, I don't know, it's not important."

Why did you bring it up again?

No seriously, estimates range from 20-70%, though presently there have been no formal studies.

Let me rephrase. Do you think america is more or less religious than it was 50 years ago? What proportion of folks believed in evolution 50 years ago (remember, according to you the reason they didn't believe in evolution is less important than the fact that they didn't believe in evolution)?

You should know that you can't use facts to dispel ideas of a god who controls facts at will.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

Well, I'd bring up Communist Russia, but you'd probably balk.

Willravel

It's more than one, and that's too many.
You act like the school thing is the only problem. It's not. It's everything from museums to churches.
I couldn't care less whether religion is bigger or smaller now. The point is that not believing in evolution is dangerous.
A god that controls facts at will that creates a universe in which facts exist that contradict his own religious teachings either is trying to test people or doesn't exist, but again that's not relevant. What is relevant is that evolution is as real as gravity, and ID is championed by dangerous people.
You could start with "Oh, you're right. Science doesn't have anything to do with meaning. That's philsoohpy. Silly me!"

Baraka_Guru

Don't jump ahead too far, now. Galileo and Copernicus still had the faith and peered into "God's Universe." Others were merely too frightened by what they saw. Do you know many Christians who believe in the Ptolemaic system?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Do you know why the Ptolemaic system died out? Ignorance was replaced by enlightenment. You know, like ID being replaced with evolution.

Baraka_Guru

Giordano Bruno was a Dominican monk. He worked to help this along, and if you look at the Age of Enlightenment, many of them were religious even though several of them questioned organized religion. This is what I mean by this not being religion vs. science. I know you didn't say that outright, willravel, but I figured I should point this out for the benefit of the thread.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

It's not as simple as a black and white religion vs. science situation, but you can see where there have been rather serious problems. I've never seen atheist fundamentalists hold up scientific progress. Religion is uniquely dogmatic and as such will always have elements that are strongly conservative.

Remember when I mentioned the 50% number? Around 40% believe in theistic evolution, which doesn't believe in abiogenesis (the origin of life). Only about 9% believe in real evolution and abiogenesis. 9% is about the amount of Americans that aren't religious or pseudo religious. I can't prove that the relationship between statistics is causal, but it sure as hell is correlative.

filtherton

I certainly won't fault you for your idealism, will.

What portion of those 50% that don't believe in evolution are trying to actively subvert science or force you to agree with them? If you don't know, then it's a red herring because you're trying to claim a correlation between not believing in evolution and exercising religious intolerance without actually having any evidence of a correlation. I mean, it seems like a plausible correlation, I guess, but a lot of things that seem plausible don't stand up to scrutiny. It's bad science to assume something is true without actually trying to prove it is. It isn't bad theology necessarily, but it is bad science.

How is it dangerous? People didn't believe in evolution for most of human history. I think that the theory of evolution is irrelevant to most people. I know that if you were to surgically remove any concept of evolution from my brain whilst leaving everything else intact absolutely nothing would change about the way I look at the world, and I believe in evolution. It's just that as far as theories that play an active role in shaping my world view go it ranks somewhere near geology-- it's trivia.

Given that many people have problems wrapping their heads around basic math, chemistry and physics it doesn't seem that out of the question that there would be a lot of people who have trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of evolution. And since knowledge of evolution doesn't really matter all that much in the day to day activities of most people, including most scientists, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people don't seem to care about it, or understand enough of it to see how much sense it makes. It certainly doesn't scare me, anymore than the fact that Bush got elected to a second term scares me. It's par for the course as far as humanity goes.

I won't disagree with this. I just don't think that it's as dramatic as you and Mr. Missile think it is. Maybe that has more to do with the fact that I live in a really liberal place where religious intolerance is generally viewed with contempt (by lots of people who also happen to be religious) and so it doesn't often have the chance to get much momentum.

I wasn't talking about meaning, I was talking about making sense of reality, something which is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry. And if you think that philosophy and science aren't closely related you should do more science. It's like pig once said, and I hope he'll forgive me if I'm misappropriating his words for evil ends: there's a reason that the highest degrees offered in most scientific fields is a doctor of philosophy. Science is philosophy.

Willravel

Some. Many more than one. Again, I don't know what specific number.
Again, some do. Why? Because they believe in bad science. Remove that incorrect belief, and you remove the danger.
Anything that actively works against scientific progress is dangerous by it's mere existence. Examples are glaring through history. There was a time when transfusions were disallowed by the fundamentalist religious. Then it was transplants. Many people still today refuse medical care for their children opting instead for prayer. And the children die. Pretending like this isn't dangerous is underestimating a threat to not just progress but safety.

This isn't about having trouble understanding evolution, though. It's about willful ignorance. Have you ever debated an ID proponent or creationist?

YEEEEEHAAAAWWW!!!! *DANCES*
Very few people live in a more liberal area than I, good sir. I'm not intolerant of religious beliefs. I could care less if you want to believe in a carpenter who could make wine from water. I have a problem, though, when subjective faith becomes ignorance that's forced on others. Scientologists can believe in thetans all they want, but when they sue people for talking about their religion, they've crossed a line.
No. Science is factual, philosophy is subjective. Philosophy can tell us if we should do something, science tells us if we can. They are quite different.

Trust me, this is the same coversation I'm having on a good dozen forums and several emails right now. Science is factual, philosophy is subjective. They can go hand in hand, but they are very different.

filtherton

Just because someone doesn't believe in evolution doesn't mean that they are actively working against scientific progress. You said yourself, you don't know which proportion of evolution deniers are working against science. Attempting to lump a general notion of religion in with people who actively work against science when you yourself admit that you have no hard data correlating religious folk with evolution deniers or people who are actively working against scientific progress is anything but rational and scientific.

Yes, the discussions aren't necessarily that far off from the ones I had in my brief stint on the forum of a certain prominent atheist. I don't debate with creationists or IDers on anything other than the definition of science. Like I said before, it is useless to debate facts with people who believe in ID or creationism because their world view is pretty air-tight. It's like trying to talk econ with a supply sider-- everything that's good with the economy is good because of supply side econ, and everything that's bad with the economy has nothing to do with supply side econ.

The only reason I debate with atheists is that I am one, and I feel that some of them poorly represent the rest of us, and do so while betraying a definite lack of the very reason and rationality they cite as their justification for nonbelief.

I don't think that you're necessarily overtly intolerant of religious beliefs, and I don't think that one should be tolerant of all religious beliefs. I think we agree on a lot of things when it comes to religion. I just think that the problems caused by religious people are symptomatic of more endemic problems with humanity. I think that there are religious fools, but I don't think that being religious automatically makes someone a fool, or delusional, or unreasonable, or illogical, or foaming at the mouth with a passion for forcing their beliefs on other people.

Maybe I'm just over reacting to lazy use of language, but when an atheist criticizes religion in general for things that aren't a general property of religion I feel the need to say something. I'm sure you can relate to the need to correct someone else's willful ignorance.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I will say this: the idea that science is the only way to explain reality is empiricism, it is a philosophical doctrine. I think what you should be saying is that morality can tell us if we should do something while science tells us if we can. Either way, the assertion that observable phenomena can be effectively explained solely through scientific means is a philosophical one, and one where you and many theists probably disagree.

sprocket

Maybe it was the way you worded this, but are you saying theistic evolution is incompatible with abiogenesis, or that the 40% who believe theistic evolution just dont agree with abiogenesis.

Its been done:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sV-a1vmZ6y8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sV-a1vmZ6y8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Willravel

I'm saying the literal translations don't agree with abiogenesis or evolution. When someone views some stories in the bible as parables or allegories, they can mean just about anything. Judging by the statistics, it seems quite a few Christians are new Earth creationists. Something like 90% said that they didn't believe in aboigenesis.
Heh, yeah I've seen that. It was a joke.