Creation vs. Evolution

[photohikedive]

a quote from Sam Harris....

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

 

[lamont]

Regardless, my point stands and I'm interested in how the religious moderates on the board respond to Sam Harris' view. I, for one, am begining to be persuaded, but I've only read his first book and I just ordered his second.

As an Atheist I think I disagree with him completely.

Pragmatically I think we are unlikely to convert humanity entirely over to atheism, so religious moderation had better be made to work or else the fundamentalists are going to kill us all. And I think he hit on the reasons why religious moderation has a very good chance of winning out over fundamentalism, which is economic reasons (in entirely pragmatic terms). I don't really understand his whole logic about religious moderation being untenable since I don't think its any more untenable than religious fundamentalism, or strict atheism itself.

I'm also more of a Taoist when it comes to Good and Evil, so while the issues of Evil may cause problems for people who believe in the "God of Abraham" (whatever that means exactly), I don't really see why you can't have a moderate Christian faith with a bit more of a chilled out Tao-friendly God and take the God in the Bible in a little bit of historical context...

 

[H2Andy]

i am uncomfortable any time someone says they have to destroy someone else's belief system. why not learn to live with it?

let's make it so EVERYBODY can believe what they want and be left alone, and let's leave ideological warfare to talk-radio folks.

instead of trying to "fight" religion, let's instead strengthen our civil and human rights institutions, and strive to make sure everybody's rights are respected

 

[The Chairman]

a quote from Sam Harris....

people of faith...

In the very first sentence, we can discern Mr Harris' religious bigotry. See how close that is to "people of color"? It amazes me how glibly some will lump everyone who believes differently than they do into the same mind set, merely to justify their own belief system. It's not enough to understand why THEY believe what they do. Instead, they are bent on assigning every nefarious motive and drive to those who believe differently than themselves. It would appear that they are over compensating for something here.

 

[photohikedive]

In the very first sentence, we can discern Mr Harris' religious bigotry. See how close that is to "people of color"? It amazes me how glibly some will lump everyone who believes differently than they do into the same mind set, merely to justify their own belief system. It's not enough to understand why THEY believe what they do. Instead, they are bent on assigning every nefarious motive and drive to those who believe differently than themselves. It would appear that they are over compensating for something here.

I have always felt that "you people" were a little odd

 

[photohikedive]

trouble with religion, nationality, ethnicity, it all boils down to the sports fan mentality


our team is better than yours.

 

[The Chairman]

trouble with religion, nationality, ethnicity, it all boils down to the sports fan mentality


our team is better than yours.

While this might be true for yourself, this is not how I approach truth, religion or my understanding of God.

 

[H2Andy]

i do

i think i'm better than everybody else. the world is just too dumb to realize it

(checking watch)

any time now....

 

[Thalassamania]

Doc: I think it’s a long way from ‘people of color.” In calling him a bigot you make part of his case. One of the things that Harris is saying is that the current demand to be PC keeps us from clear and open discourse on the subject: Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive.

Harris argues that faith gets in the way of knowledge and is at the root of much of the world’s conflicts. He says that he has not faith based system, but rather a system that builds a world view from that which is demonstrable and knowable: what one would call facts: It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not. When a person has good reasons, his beliefs contribute to our growing understanding of the world. We need not distinguish between "hard" and "soft" science here, or between science and other evidence-based disciplines like history. There happen to be very good reasons to believe that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Consequently, the idea that the Egyptians actually did it lacks credibility. Every sane human being recognizes that to rely merely upon "faith" to decide specific questions of historical fact would be both idiotic and grotesque — that is, until the conversation turns to the origin of books like the bible and the Koran, to the resurrection of Jesus, to Muhammad's conversation with the angel Gabriel, or to any of the other hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance.

No matter what your religious situation, if you’ve looked at history you must concede that more people have died and that more atrocities have been promulgated in the name of a God than for any other reason. Maybe it doesn’t have to be that way; maybe there are alternatives: maybe, maybe not. Harris would argue that’s the way it has been and that’s the way it is. From the Romans and Jews at Masada, to the current nuclear face-off between India and Pakistan, religion has been the single most costly accoutrement of human civilization. We must realize that the concessions we have made to faith in our political discourse prevents us from even speaking about, much less uprooting, this single most prolific source of violence in our history. Why uproot it? Self-defense!

Lamont: I think what Harris is saying is that the moderates don't have a chance. They lack the commitment that the fundamentalists have, they lack the religiosity that the fundamentalists have and, if you believe history, "true believers" win out (if they can maintain true believer status). I'm not persuaded one way or the other ... yet.

H2Andy: Because when it all hits the fan (and if you believe Harris it already has) you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem, at that point there are no innocent bystanders. That's not a nice place to be.

 

[H2Andy]

H2Andy: Because when it all hits the fan (and if you believe Harris it already has) you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem, at that point there are no innocent bystanders. That's not a nice place to be.

thas, i've heard that sort of talk before.

it's polarizing, and it never leads to anything good. the "you're either for us or against us" is a false dichotomy employed by those pushing a particular ideology in order to justify their goals and means

the problem *is* the sort of thinking that polarizes people into us and them, with no middle ground allowed.