The Magical Mystery of Life = Creationism

[Dirty Name]

As Rick pointed out, are you willing to include true comparative religion studies in public schools? The basics of all the world's major religions: Islam, Judaisim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Jainism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity?

I would be willing to tolerate the five major religions of the world being taught in school: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. In fact, I think we SHOULD be teaching this stuff, as it has a lot to do with social and geopolitical forces in the world. To ignore it and treat it as inferior to inadequate science is pretty stupid.

As for those other religions, I don't think they are significant enough in our present day to require teaching in high school.

[Dirty Name]

Intelligent design is hypothesis...

So is the big bang theory. But we teach that in school, don't we?

Why does this simple idea escape you?

Why do you insist on your cutting little insults? Perhaps because your argument is so weak.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name As for those other religions, I don't think they are significant enough in our present day to require teaching in high school.

They are all important. It is not as if religions spring from the ground whole from nothing. They are created from myths past. It is important for people to know the antecedents and how they relate to one another. Besides people will find that all the religions address the same issues over and over again in pretty much the same ways. That there has not been all that much new in human behavior, hopes and fears in the last 15,000 years.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

What other field of scientific research has gotten to a point where it says, "This is what we think the facts are, although there's no evidence, we can never observe it, never test it and never prove it." That's not science, it's blind faith.

I find it amusing that you believe SO STRONGLY in science's ability to explain virtually everything, while at the same time, you cling to the idea that science could never, ever explain intelligent design, creationism, etc.

What is it that makes YOU the champion of scientific limits, while at the same time a champion of scientific capabilities? Do you not see the conflict?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name I find it amusing that you believe SO STRONGLY in science's ability to explain virtually everything, while at the same time, you cling to the idea that science could never, ever explain intelligent design, creationism, etc. What is it that makes YOU the champion of scientific limits, while at the same time a champion of scientific capabilities? Do you not see the conflict?

I agree that one should not project beyond what is reasonable, however science has been the most successful human endeavor to explain reality in the history of mankind. The pace of discovery is just breathtaking. Only seventy years ago we didn't even know about galaxies, now we are mapping the Universe out to 12 billion light years. Fifty years ago we had no idea how traits were passed on, now we are constructing simple life forms from scratch. One hundred and twenty years ago we had no idea how atoms were put together and how light interacted with them and now we are making quantum dots to track molecular reactions inside cells (that is so very cool). We are in the process of sequencing the genome of the planet, I can only imagine what fantastic insights will result from that. In short, the progress of all natural investigations has been astounding. As compared to the previous era dominated by religious superstitions (AKA the dark ages) there is just no comparison. And no reason to give religious ideas any credence at all. And every reason to expect even more astounding discoveries and insights from good'ol all natural science. To all you magical thinkers out there, a good ogaaa booga to you and a mumbo jumbo thrown in for good measure! May the farce be with you!

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: sonart My own variation of Pascal's 'Best Bet' is that since there were rational explanations to everything we didn't know but now do, the best bet is that there are rational explanations to what we don't yet know.

You have proven yet again that you aren't exactly using logic. Pascal's Wager argues that no matter what, the payoff vs. the risk in the question of God's existence always dictates that you should err on the side of caution. In your "Best Bet" variation, what is the risk vs. reward?

If you are right, what do you gain when you die? Nothing
If I am right, what do I gain when I die? Eternal life in paradise.

If I am wrong, what do I lose when I die? Nothing
If you are wrong, what do you lose when you die? You get to burn in Hell for eternity.


So now lets weigh the risk/reward paradigm:

Belief in God = No risk, high reward
No Belief in God = High risk, no reward

Not even the craziest bettors, the high-risk Wall Street investors, or even the most unsafe adrenaline junkies would take flying leap like that.

Now, I don't believe for a moment that Pascal's Wager is a very good tool for converting people to Christianity or anything like that. But I do believe it's one of those things that, if you are wrong about God, it's going to really drive you nuts thinking how STUPID you were to take that bet.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name So is the big bang theory. But we teach that in school, don't we?

No, the Big Bang theory is a theory, not a hypothesis. That is why they call it the Big Bang theory. Got that?

It was a hypothesis until it was found to fit with observable phenomenon. Once "proven" empirically, it became a theory. Still with me?

There are three major sets of evidence for the theory. First: Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Second: The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe would have been extremely hot at the Big Bang. We should be able to see residual radiation from this heat. In 1978 Dr Arno A. Penzias and Dr Robert W. Wilson, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey, USA, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Science for their discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation is consistant with the predictions made by the theory.

Third: The abundance of light elements, suc as hydrogen and helium are consistent with the elemets predicted by the theory.

So, the Big bang is a theory because it is supported by empirical evidence exactly like the theories of evolution and yes, gravity.

Big Bang Theory

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name You have proven yet again that you aren't exactly using logic. Pascal's Wager argues that no matter what, the payoff vs. the risk in the question of God's existence always dictates that you should err on the side of caution. In your "Best Bet" variation, what is the risk vs. reward? If you are right, what do you gain when you die? Nothing If I am wrong, what do I lose when I die? Nothing If you are wrong, what do you lose when you die? You get to burn in Hell for eternity. If I am right, what do I gain when I die? Eternal life in paradise. So now lets weigh the risk/reward paradigm: Belief in God = No risk, high reward No Belief in God = High risk, no reward Now, I don't believe for a moment that Pascal's Wager is a very good tool for converting people to Christianity or anything like that. But I do believe it's one of those things that, if you are wrong about God, it's going to really drive you nuts thinking how STUPID you were to take that bet.

Overly simplistic analysis of the risk reward. If the religion ties up your time and takes your money and causes other of the religious to impose their belief on you. And it causes stupid unscientific ideas to displace much better ideas to the detrement of our investigations of reality and there is no evidence at all to support any of the religious claims of the afterlife. In fact their claims and tactics look exactly like a con. And such dishonest behavior is held up by the religious as "moral". Well there is a great deal to loose if you choose "god".

Starboy

[Jack]

If I carry around a good sized rock and insist everyone acknowledge my rock as god or I'll immediately beat you to death with it, all I've shown is that a threat of violence or personal harm can make people do things they might not otherwise and that may not even make any sense.
All you've shown is that religion survives better through the fear associated with it than any benefit it might offer.

[Dirty Name]

No, the Big Bang theory is a theory, not a hypothesis. That is why they call it the Big Bang theory. Got that? It was a hypothesis until it was found to fit with observable phenomenon. Once "proven" empirically, it became a theory. Still with me?

Please keep in mind that the Creation "Hypothesis" also fits with observable phenomena. And it was written one heck of a long time before anyone every conjured up the "Big Bang Theory."

[Dirty Name]

Overly simplistic analysis of the risk reward. If the religion ties up your time and takes your money and causes other of the religious to impose their belief on you.

Wrong. Your's is an oversimplistic analysis of religion. My life is fundamentally no different from yours. To say that "religion ties up your time" is to completely ignore the rewards that I get from investing that time - I form strong relationships with other people, I have an excellent social network that has helped me land a job, my kids have a great babysitter, my church gave me $400 last Christmas during my job transition, and I get a strong sense of fulfillment from attending church, contributing money for charitable works, etc.

As for others imposing their beliefs on me? HA! I am free to consider the same evidence that you are. I am not required to attend church. I choose to believe. I choose to attend. I choose contribute money, and for all that, I get the rewards I mentioned PLUS the added satisfaction and comfort of knowing I am on the safe, high reward, low risk side of Pascal's Wager.

Now, what were you saying about oversimplification?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name As for others imposing their beliefs on me? HA! I am free to consider the same evidence that you are. I am not required to attend church. I choose to believe. I choose to attend. I choose contribute money, and for all that, I get the rewards I mentioned PLUS the added satisfaction and comfort of knowing I am on the safe, high reward, low risk side of Pascal's Wager. Now, what were you saying about oversimplification?

Not if they do it through force of law and the government. Which they are trying to do as we post. Frankly I could care less about what you believe as long as adherents would just learn to keep it to themselves.

I would also add that it is very interesting that Pascal's wager is just a kind of insurance. Now when I get insurance it is to cover the threat of terrible events such as dissasters, accidents, injury or death. What threat is there that anyone can show exists for Pascal's insurance policy. Scaring the shit out of people so that they would even consider it as a reasonable option is not something that society should be condoning let alone holding up as a source of morals. It is part of our current moral decay.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Belief in God = No risk, high reward No Belief in God = High risk, no reward Now, I don't believe for a moment that Pascal's Wager is a very good tool for converting people to Christianity or anything like that. But I do believe it's one of those things that, if you are wrong about God, it's going to really drive you nuts thinking how STUPID you were to take that bet.

So now you are calling anyone who won't take your sucker's bet stupid?

Pascal's Wager is a sucker bet. Pretty obviously so. The irony is that Blaise Pascal is thought to be the father of probablity, yet completely ignores probability in his famous wager.

The fallacy of the wager is the assumption that there is only one possible god. The assumption is that the existence of god is unproveable. If so, one cannot know which of an infinite number of possible gods indeed exists. The chances of picking the wrong god are infinitely large.

A better strategy is to stay intellectually honest, admit to not having any evidence to believe a particular doctrine and hope for the best. This could be preferable to ardently worshipping a false god based on fear. The first choice is at worst an honest mistake. The second is calculated fraud. If indeed there is a god, one might imagine the first choice would be forgiven before the second.

[Dirty Name]

They are all important. It is not as if religions spring from the ground whole from nothing.

If you are suggesting that we treat all religion the way we treat Greek Mythology, then I would oppose that. I am saying that I believe it is critical that we teach kids the basics of each of the current major religions in the world and how they impact geopolitical forces.

Those other religions are simply not significant enough in geopolitical terms to warrant attention in high school.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name I would be willing to tolerate the five major religions of the world being taught in school: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

The real issue is not whether we should teach comparative religion but rather whether we should teach religion in science class. We shouldn't.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name If you are suggesting that we treat all religion the way we treat Greek Mythology, then I would oppose that. I am saying that I believe it is critical that we teach kids the basics of each of the current major religions in the world and how they impact geopolitical forces. Those other religions are simply not significant enough in geopolitical terms to warrant attention in high school.

What other way is there. They can't all be right.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

There need be no conflict between religion and science, except for those zealots or luddites who feel the need to attack science in the name of God. It seems that very little has changed since the time of Galileo Galilei. The Inquistion is at large in the land.

I don't see this inquisition you are talking about. And this thread was not intending to "attack" your precious science, nor are Intelligent Design promoters attacking "science" unless you consider the inclusion of it in school curriculum an attack.

I suppose that possible, since I consider the exclusion of it an attack on humanity.

[Dirty Name]

It is part of our current moral decay.

That's rich. What do you base your morals on, to come to this conclusion?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name That's rich. What do you base your morals on, to come to this conclusion?

Honesty. Supernaturalist are not honest. They can't be. We just don't explain our world that way anymore.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

What other way is there. They can't all be right.

We treat Greek Mythology in school as an amusing collection of stories that have no relevance in today's modern world.

Regardless of the veracity of the world's current largest religions, they are quite important and relevant in geopolitical terms. To teach them as though they are just an amusing collection of stories akin to Greek Mythology would be a pretty callous way of instructing children on the importance of Islam.

There is a significant number of people for whom these religions shape their thoughts, actions, decisions, etc. and to treat one fifth or so of the world's population as though they are just a bunch of dupes would be a mistake, in my opinion.