Passing Thoughts

Mark

the big flaw in your argument and indeed everyone who subscribes to the belief that Science is an absolute truth is that in fact it isn't. It is constantly discovering new things which throws what we 'KNOW' into disaray and requires us to re-examine and reclassify things all the time. Physicists had the world neatly mapped out until a young Patent clerk came along with a new set of theories and hypothesis which went on to form the new truth. This is likely to always be the case as there really is more to heaven and earth than can be explained by our small minds at this stage.

On the very seperate subject of religion it has been generally twisted by man to exert control over fellow man. If feeds off of some of the more base needs, desires and fears of the general poupulice. These needs would be there and would be exertible by these people whichever label you stick on it - religion, facisim, Nazis etc.

What a lovely world it would be if there was none of this but attacking religion is merely attacking a symptom rather than the disease and holding science up as the cure is ultimately disapointing.

I agree that science does not have "absolute" answers. If you notice I did not use the phrase in reference to science in general but rather in reference to Creationism.

If you take creationism as a hypothisis - there are a number of statements that are eminitently testable by scientific means. The easiest to prove is that the world and the universer are older than the 4.5 odd thousand years that creationism claims that they are. Therefore you either accept that science has value and therefore Creationism is wrong OR you accept creationism and ignore science. You cannot have both.

You are also right about the fact that religion is only one aspect of the thinking that leads to a small group of people (priests,dictators etc.) exerting control over the masses by restricting their ability to think for themselves...

Science however - seen as a process rather than a doctrine is capable of leading us out of this darkness in my opinion.

I still would argue that the teaching of Creationism whether symptom or disease is wrong and should be attacked..

mark

You are treating the bible like a science text book. It isn't! Its more akin to Janet and John than that. Its meant to teach by putting things into context that the people of the time could grasp rather than a book of absolute fact. Do you (or does anyone else for that matter) really believe that the entire earth was flooded and the entire species of the earth was reborn from the contents of a boat. I don't think so. In the same way as people used to be sure the world was flat people refered to in the bible were not advanced enough to deal with the notion that we didn't just show up looking like we do now. The bigger picture isn't that God (think of as an omnipresent entity with inifinite parts that can be whatever it wants to be) created the earth and man and everything in 6 lunar cycles. Its the fact that God created the universe (probably from boredom to enable the chance to experience phsical things). To attack and dismiss it wholescale rather than view it in the above context is as bad as the people burning Darwin's books and calling him a blasphemer in my opinon.

There is more than the short life and phsical existance we experience at the moment.

I for one am glad of that otherwise life would seem pretty pointless.

The point is that Creationists DO treat the bible as literal truth. Creationism seeks to teach people that evolution is wrong and that God created the earth 4.5 odd thousand years ago in six days and that there was a flood and that everything happend exactly like it says in the bible (although oddly they don't seem to follow the laws outlined in Issiah).

THIS is what I have a problem with because the only way to make people think this is true is to teach them that science and logical thought and questioning for yourself is wrong. Now your interpretation of the bible is very different - you understand the world around you (as far as I can tell) but you choose to superimpose onto that a higher being/purpose. And that is fine - wrong in my opinion - but if it works for you then that is your choice. I do not seek to say - don't (or do for that matter) believe in god. You choose that for yourself. What I am objecting to is the teaching that the bible is literal truth and the brainwashing that is required to make someone belive that.

I don't believe in god as it happens though and as far as I am concerned there is only what you call a short life and a physical existence and my life is FAR from pointless.

I might add though that your arguments are not against what I have said but rather what you perceive (wrongly) as an attack against your beliefs.

This is in my experience typical of "religious" thought processes and is the thing I have a problem with - the only way to maintain faith is to prevent yourself from thinking clearly and analytically.

Let us look for a moment at your comment that Science is not an absolute truth because people keep discovering new things and changing what we know.

Now, this is an argument used by a lot of religious people - they tend to phrase it (as you have done) in such a way as to suggest that you can't think that anything science tells you is true becuase they keep changing it and what people say today probably won't be what they say in the future. However that is not the case at all. Science is constantly refining its models thats true - but spot the key word there - refining. The models don't change radically most of the time. Paradigm shifts happen rarely - and when they do it is in areas we currently have difficutly modeling and measuring. Its true that at one point basic astronomy was shifting around - at a time when the limits of our instruments prevented us from seeing much further than the sun and moon. Nowadays our instruments can see nearly to the edges of the universe and down into the subatomic level. IF are paradigm shifts to come they are not going to be things like - "oh we got the age of the world wrong - it is only 4.5 millions years old" they are going to be at the current edges of our knowledge.

I'm curious what school you have near you that teaches the 'creationism' and that it is absolute truth.

My daughters school certainly does not.

Incidentally I don't see your comments as an attack on my beliefs - I'm actually not very religous don't go to church and certainly don't think of GOD as an old guy with a white beard - dolling out judgment.

I do from close personal experience believ that when you die that is not the end of it. In part through my wife seeing a couple of psychic/spiritualists who have told her stuff that we new but that they couldn't have founf out through 'earthly' means. I also have a good friend who is somewhat psychic and can feel and sometimes see spirits.

Is it this more than anything in a book that leads me to believe we aren't just born, live, die end of story.

Would this account as some sort of verifiable scientific evidence to support my argument and dismiss yours ?

If you follow the link in my log entry you will see that I was talking about a school in Gateshead. They are not teaching Creationism as an absolute truth - but as I have pointed out Creationsim and Science are mutually exclusive - either one is true or the other is. You can't have both.

As for your personal beliefs they are a matter for yourself. Your friends anecdotal experiences do not constitute proof of any sort though. There is a very strong emotional need in people to belive in a "bigger picture" and this leads people to interperet things in very curious ways. If you wished to go down the difficult route of proving that these anectoctal experiences are valid scientifically then I suggest you visit the site of James Randi to see how to go about doing something like that. I say "difficult route" because no one has yet managed to prove anything like it.

My problem is primarily with organised religious thinking and not peoples own personal spiritual beliefs. Spiritual beliefs are about far more than the truth - instead they are the mechanisms with which we deal with the more traumatic events in the world around ourselves. The question you have to ask about your own beliefs is not "are they true" but "do they bring fulfillment to my life" if the answer to this is "yes" then that surely is enough. On the other hand the teaching of religious doctrine clearly brings suffering and oppresion and this must be fought against at all costs.

How do you explain someone with no knowledge of you being able to tell you things which they have no way of knowing ? Really good guessing.

And with regards my friend there is nothing anecdotal about it.

When my wife was about 4 weeks pregnant the friend did her tarot cards and told here she was pregnant and would have a boy - she did and my wife and I were the only 2 people who knew at the time - incidentally at 4 weeks there is no physical evidence - another really good guess ???

Is this patented Mark - I don't like your argument as it interferes with what I believe so I'll ditch those parts and focus back on my argument ?????

There are many ways that people can tell you things without "knowing" them - guessing is one another is that we give out considerably more information than we think we are doing.

The person who told your wife she was pregnant could easily have picked up your wifes situation. I know from my own recent experience that despite not telling anyone close friends guessed - its an emotional time and its a secret you don't really want to keep. There might be no physical evidence but to someone who is paying attention there is plenty of other evidence - unless you and your wife where completely unaffected by the news (which I am sure was not the case - I know how I felt at the time)

As for guessing the sex - its a fifty fifty choice. I hereby predict that if you have another child it will also be a boy. There you go - let us know if I'm right I might be psychic and not realize it.

I am more than happy to discuss this BTW - my point is that people do not think clearly and rationaly about these issues.

Nah

Bollocks Mate

bury that head in the sand and your world can stay the same

I take it that whilst you disagree you have no argument to make....