Re: latin
Dark, on the issue of religion verses science I understand the Church of England is far more relaxed on the issue than are American churches. I know that when Charles Darwin introduced the Theory of Evolution the Church of England openly accepted it, and therefore there was no major dispute between religion and science to speak of. However, over here in America the situation is far less relaxed, and often times religion and science are in open warfare with each other.
One reason in the American south there are biblical literalists, the fundamentalist churches, that take everything in the bible literally. Meaning if Genesis chapter one says the earth was created in six days they take that absolutely literally and therefore according to them things like the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are impossible and in direct opposition to the bible. As a result these fundamentalists we call creationists are often trying to get the Department of Education to remove all mention of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory removed from science textbooks, and of course want them to teach the biblical story of creation in schools
In fact, there was a case not long ago, I believe it was last year, where .a number of churches in Texas got together and put pressure on the Texas School Board to drop Evolution and the Big Bang Theory from science textbooks, and the FFRF had to step in and fight it in court because teaching creationism would violate the Constitutional separation between church and state. Sad to say cases like that are quite common here in the USA, and it is becoming a big problem.
Obviously, it puts someone like myself in a position to choose one side or the other, and to follow where the evidence leads. In my opinion teaching school age children that the universe was created in six literal days and that the universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old is as objectionable as teaching the children the world is flat or the earth is the center of the u niverse. It is safe to say that science has put us far beyond such ignorant non-sense and the evidence speaks for itself that the universe is 13.5 billion years old and the earth is a good 4.5 billion years old. We know Evolution is a fact thanks to fossil records, recent discoveries in genetic research, and laboratory experiments that proves the Theory of Evolution beyond a doubt. As a result someone like myself who is a college educated individual can't calmly stand by while religious fundamentalists push their ignorance off on other people.
That said, I believe the problem is much more basic than that. Its not just about fundamentalists are more pushy here in the States and they are constantly battling the government over issues like weather or not to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, weather or not prayer should be allowed in school, or over various objectionable scientific subjects such as Evolution and the Big Bang. For me the problem between s cience and religion comes down to good critical thinking skills. The way a skeptical person of science and a religious person of faith come to believe truth are very different.
The scientific methodology starts from a position of doubt and skepticism. Therefore he or she examines the evidence and follows where it leads. As the late great astronomer Carl Sagan use to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Therefore the entire concept of faith goes against the more skeptical approach to truth used by the scientific methodology.
Religion on the other hand is based almost exclusively on faith. Very few religious people actually go out looking for empirical evidence to support what they believe, and base their opinions solely on what their holy book says or what they have been told by their parents or minister. As a result they are free to believe some extremely extraordinary claims such as virgin births, people being raised from the dead, the p arting of the Red Sea, and hundreds of other miracles for which there is no credible evidence to believe they ever happened. Therefore I feel that such people who believe in that stuff is a bit gullible.
What I am trying to say is that religion as an institution generally discourages critical thinking, and instead teaches followers to trust their religious leaders, their holy books, and to think it is okay to believe something is true when all empirical evidence and ordinary common sense says otherwise. Such thinking is very naive and often leads to the worst kind of gullibility. What's worse in places like the USA such people tend to try and push their gullible and uneducated opinions on others which is wrong.
Critical thinking is so important, especially now, because science can teach us a lot about things that were not known when most of the worlds religious books were written. Blindly following a religion based on ancient books, closing one's eyes to truth, is a recipe for social disaster. It is easy to label Islamic terrorism like the 9/11 attacks as religious extremism or the Christian fundamentalists who want to have Evolution banned in public schools as extremists, but we overlook the fact that it is because critical thinking is not encouraged as a core value that leads to exactly those sorts of antisocial behaviors. Had those people been taught critical thinking skills, to use logic and reason, I am pretty sure things like that would not happen.
I should point out that it just isn't religious people who could use some critical thinking. There seems to be a large percentage of the American public that is extremely gullible when it comes to psychics, UFOs, Big Foot, the Lock Ness Monster, ghosts, and a whole bunch of other subjects that lack any scientific credibility. I can remember there fore a while there use to be commercials on TV for 1-900 numbers where someone could call this or that psychic hotline to have their future told regarding romance, work, etc. I often wondered who would be idiotic or gullible enough to pay a dollar a minute to talk to a supposed psychic, but apparently there were plenty of people that gullible. Besides that for a while there was a show called Crossing Over with John Edwards who supposedly put people in contact with their deceased relatives. There are several syndicated programs on aliens and UFOs like UFO Files, Ancient Aliens, etc which is a big thing right now.
The point I am getting at is it doesn't hurt to have a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to the subject of God, psychics, UFOs, and any other controversial subject you can name. As Sagan said the more extraordinary and unbelievable the claim the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to prove it. We can't just believe something because so and so said so or some ancient book says so. We need some empirical testable proof that supports or disproves that belief. When a certain thi ng is in doubt without evidence to prove it to be true or false the best position is one of admitting we don't know the answer with any certainty. The worst thing to do in my opinion is to assert something is true without any supporting evidence for that point of view. Critical thinking requires weighing the evidence and going with the most rational conclusion based on the available evidence at the time.
Of course, there is a problem and that is personal experience. You said above you believe in a god because of your personal experiences. That is not unusual. I know a lot of Christians have told me the evidence doesn't matter because they have had this or that personal experience that confirms their belief such as feeling a presents in the room while praying, describe a feeling of peace, feeling warm all over, and claim certain prayers were answered. That is much harder for a skeptical person like myself to quantify because it is not testable. Sure, I can come up wit h reasonable scientific hypotheses to explain all of those things, but there isn't anyway to prove those hypotheses as there isn't any empirical evidence supporting them one way or another. At most all I can do is form a reasonable hypothesis based on what evidence I do have available to me at the time.
All I can say for sure is when I was younger I had some religious experiences myself. I use to feel a tingling warm feeling when praying, once and a while believed there was a presents in the room with me, and certain prayers seemed to have been answered. However, in hindsight I am not so certain any of that was proof or evidence of a god or godlike being. The so-called presents and warm feeling while praying could have been products of my own imagination. As for the answered prayers I suspect they were confirmation bias at work. I believed a prayer had been answered when something had happened I had prayed for, but completely ignored every time a prayer hadn't b een answered. Usually I'd use the old excuse this or that wasn't in God's will and therefore could excuse away the hundreds of things I had prayed for with no answer. So I would consider my personal experiences very weak evidence when arguing for the existence of God. Especially, when there are so many things in the bible that can be proven to be false which supports an agnostic point of view.
For example, let's take the story of Noah and the Ark. For one thing there is no evidence of a world wide flood anywhere in the past 1,000,000 years, no mass extinction as a result of said flood, and geneticists can't find any markers in animal DNA to prove that narrows down to two of each kind. Moreover fossil evidence proves pretty conclusively that some species of animals such as kangaroos have always lived on the Australian continent and have not been found anywhere else in the world. Therefore it is highly improbable to say when Noah finally reached dr y land he opened the Ark and the kangaroos just happily hopped their way all the way from central Asia to Australia. That clearly did not happen, and it is pretty clear if one examines the evidence that the Noah story is a myth probably based on some flood or other that was exclusive to central Asia and not the entire world.
For me being a skeptic to begin with I feel there is more than enough reason to doubt the bible as the word of God. There are too many stories like the story of Noah that can be easily explained away or proven to be false to put much faith in them as being accurate or historically significant. When it comes down to it the historicity of Jesus ever being a real person is pretty doubtful. The evidence just isn't there to prove that he existed, but even if there was a historical Jesus there isn't any proof that he had a virgin birth, that he was crucified and rose from the dead in three days, that he healed a bunch of people, etc. All of that is jus t hear say, and it is purely a matter of faith. Since I am not going to take the bible on faith knowing its various inaccuracies I have every reason to doubt there was ever a Jesus and its claims of God are equally not trust worthy. I'm left with the agnostic viewpoint being the only rational point of view possible.
There are, of course, other religious points of view that I think are more credible from a scientific point of view. There are the pantheistic religions like Daoism and Taoism which see the universe as all being one with God, and God is a natural energy or force that is in every living thing. The Force from Star Wars is a pantheistic concept, and was based on middle eastern pantheistic beliefs. I personally find that view of God more believable and more acceptable than the vengeful tyrant from the bible who punishes people for real and imagined sins for which there is very little evidence to begin with.
URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=174062#p174062
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com http://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
