... seem to be noticing this: Without God, Gall Is Permitted. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)
The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody. It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza--let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein. But to pass over this deeper faith--the kind that engaged the great minds of Western history--is to diminish the loss of faith too. The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness.
Indeed.
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteThis article hits on the serious problem I touch on as we have discussed Dawkins and his army of supporters:
Belief, in their eyes, is not just misguided but contemptible, the product of provincial minds, the mark of people who need to be told how to think and how to vote--both of which, the new atheists assure us, they do in lockstep with the pope and Jerry Falwell.
For them, belief in God is beyond childish, it is unsuitable for children. Today's atheists are particularly disgusted by the religious training of young people--which Dr. Dawkins calls "a form of child abuse." He even floats the idea that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs.
Applying this, we get what has happened in Tibet as the Chinese government took over to re-socialize. We already know that this philosophy leads to monks being massacred, poets and journalists being imprisoned, their families kept from being able to thrive, and a continuous almost paranoid surveillance of the occupied society for "errors" in their thinking cropping up.
The Dalai Lama is in exile from Tibet as we discuss Dawkins because of this irrational and destructive pattern of thinking applied to government.
Yours,
Rus
With the exception of Cardinal Newman and Reinhold Niebuhr - both theologians - all of the people quoted in that excerpt lived and died prior to the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species. Albert Einstein did not "believe in and worship a supernatural controlling power or powers, especially a personal God" which is what the dictionary says you do when you've got religion. What beliefs those men and many others throughout history had about God was their opinion. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support those opinions.
ReplyDeleteTheology is interesting from an anthropological perspective. So many religions have existed and continue to exist, all of them culturally fascinating. There is no question that it is a common human desire to believe in the idea of God or Gods, but this doesn't make it true.
What I found in most of my conversations with theological buffs was that their knowledge of science - the basic workings of physics, chemistry or biology - was very limited, but I also found that their knowledge of scripture was very limited too, or at least, when pressed for clarification on certain passages in the Bible, they invariably resort to claiming that very few people actually understand the Bible, the suggestion being that you cannot criticize the idea of God without a deep appreciation of theology, a subject that cannot stand up to reasonable inquiry. Take the idea of the trinity, for example. As Thomas Jefferson said:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
If you honestly believe in a supernatural creator and supreme being composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ("one God in three parts or three Gods in one"?), why complain when people consider that belief delusional? Why not instead try to support it in ways we can all understand?
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteThe article here points to a very dangerous result of applying Dawkins-type irrationality. I find that many people who try to argue from Dawkins point of view have limited knowledge of both the findings of science, and their implications as applied to evolutionary theory. You've shown this tendencey, for instance, in your insistance that evolutionary theory can be proven, something real and serious scientists would never purport. And I am not sure such Dawkins extremists understand the human travesty that can come from applying their political theories. Look at Tibet. The debate has change to what happens if Dawkins extremists get their way.
Yours,
Rus
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteJanuary 5th from news I read daily for my column, articles I got to after my last post to you, a sample of what's happening in our real world:
Here is an article about a priest, Mikhael Kouts, originally from the Ukraine, who as a child was oppressed--call it abuse if you want to be like Dawkins--by those who would not allow religious expression (evidently, he does not have your personality type):
Despite communism, this pastor studied religion
Here is another appalling case of a writer who is trying to write:
Tibetan Writer Woeser to Contribute Programs for Radio Free Asia
No excuse. No rationalizations. These people have to be free in this world.
Yours,
Rus
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteYour statement, "...why complain when people consider that belief delusional? Why not instead try to support it in ways we can all understand?"...is explained from a biblical viewpoint in the verses...
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God 1 Corinthians 1:18, or "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.
If you would ever like clarification on particular passages of scripture I would be glad to obligue. I have studied the Bible for 30 years.
Bonnie, in my opinion, the cross is a symbol of torture and death and represents one of the nastier ways human beings are willing to hurt each other. It's right up there with stoning and burning people alive at the stake so I hope you can understand why the "message of the cross" does not appeal. The idea that God the Father stood by and watched while his son was crucified is equally abhorrent. What kind of father does not intervene while his son is tortured and murdered though that son has done nothing wrong? We are speaking about an all-powerful superbeing, not the baker on the corner who may be powerless to help his son. How is the example of murder a useful moral instruction for anyone, particularly children?
ReplyDeleteHi Rus,
ReplyDeleteWe've agreed in previous conversations that what is happening in Tibet is a disgrace, that people should be allowed to freely express their opinions and religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous other people may consider those beliefs to be. I, for example, firmly believe in your right to express your views in this or any other forum, even though as you know I disagree with you in many fundamental ways.
I've said many times before that I don't want to ban religion and I think it is plain from what Dawkins, Harris and Dennett have said that they don't either. What most 'modern atheists' object to about religion seems to be that they don't want beliefs in supernatural powers taught to children as truth or as a substitute for science since science is expected to produce evidence to support its claims while religion is not, and this seems fair enough.
I agree there is a less patient tone among many atheists towards people claiming religious belief, but it is a waste of time to complain about other people's bad manners when the important thing is to address the points they raise. You, for example, are often quite insulting by insinuating that people like me would burn other people at the stake for expressing views we don't agree with, and I continue to tackle your points without taking offense.
On evolution, as mentioned before, new flu vaccines have to be developed every year because the flu virus evolves. New kinds of antibiotics are always in development because bacteria become resistant through the process of evolution. Evolution is proven. How it occurs is still open to debate but that it occurs is not.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteYou entered this thread insulting those who have disagreed with you. I simply gave you a dose of your own medicine. What difference does it make to anything you would say to those you should assume to have arguments and information you do not, that most others you have engaged are inferior to you? You said, in your closing paragraph:
What I found in most of my conversations with theological buffs was that their knowledge of science - the basic workings of physics, chemistry or biology - was very limited, but I also found that their knowledge of scripture was very limited too, or at least, when pressed for clarification on certain passages in the Bible, they invariably resort to claiming that very few people actually understand the Bible, the suggestion being that you cannot criticize the idea of God without a deep appreciation of theology, a subject that cannot stand up to reasonable inquiry.
I simply pointed out that this is what I found with you. And now, you have chosen to misuse the concept of proving a theory after it has been explained to you in some of those previous conversations you speak of.
On evolution, as mentioned before, new flu vaccines have to be developed every year because the flu virus evolves. New kinds of antibiotics are always in development because bacteria become resistant through the process of evolution. Evolution is proven.
As you know, that is not what is meant by proving a theory. Your last statement does not follow what preceded it as a proof of the theory of evolution. It only proves that the verb "to evolve" can be applied to certain phenomena. That says nothing about the origin of the species, for instance, just that we can apply the evolutionary model to the way such virus spreads. I would go a step further to say that using the model may help in stopping such a virus. Evolutionary theory has applications. But, it has never been proven.
When we say a theory would be proven, this is what we are talking about: Theories as models. As I have pointed out to you before, here is a quote from there:
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it.
Different from Dawkins, Hawking is a real scientist.
Also, Dawkins frowns on raising children within a religious tradition, as that could be a form of child abuse. Maybe you differ from Dawkins here? Because there is a whole bunch of people who want to stop child abuse using political channels.
First of all I do NOT believe myself to be superior. We are not discussing people, we are discussing ideas. It is fair to argue the validity of one idea over another. We are not arguing the validity of one person over another - Dawkins versus Hawking - or at least that is not my intention.
ReplyDeletePeople may be personally insulting, but I rarely allow that to stop me from discussing anything with them because I refuse to be offended. I discuss ideas freely. You find that my opinions insult your ideas. For example, you were furious with me for pointing out that you may not understand evolution too well after you'd compared it to a game of chance which it most certainly is not, instead of simply correcting the impression your own words created.
If you put forward ideas that I disagree with I will tell you honestly what I think and you are free to tell me what you think without resorting to personal abuse because you don't like what it is I have to say. If you or Frank or Sam Schulman or other people of faith consider the points atheists are making to be so shallow, it should be easy to refute them.
As for the child abuse thing, well, I tell my little ones all about Santa. The difference is that when they are old enough to ask insightful questions about his existence or non-existence I tell them the truth. I do not on fear of their immortal soul ask them to swallow fairy stories into their adult years. Fantasy, magic and imagination are wonderful things particularly in children who you can persuade to swallow just about anything. Asking questions and thinking for yourself is a part of growing up. It is up to us as individuals to determine what is right and what is wrong and to behave accordingly. We don't always have our parents to guide us and that big invisible being in the sky and an ancient book of myths are not a substitute for our own judgment. The Bible is very interesting, but it is not the word of a god; just the words of people.
I think everyone should be free to have their church and attend it as much as they like, advertise services if they wish, discuss their beliefs openly on forums, community centers, street corners, wherever they like, but I think they should not expect schools to treat their particular beliefs as the equal of science, nor should they expect their commandments or their logos to be displayed in government or public offices and buildings and I think it reasonable to expect businesses to have similar policies.
On evolution, bacteria are living organisms, just like you and me and we have watched them mutate and evolve. This is the evidence of our own eyes and not some vague theological theory which sounds good but has no evidence to support it. I take evolution as proven for the practical reasons I have given. Perhaps you could explain your reasons for believing that there is an unknowable force holding the sun in the sky.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDelete"...the cross is a symbol of torture and death and represents one of the nastier ways human beings are willing to hurt each other." You are absolutely correct. It is a symbol that man has chosen to pervert, just like he has perverted most of what God gave us.
God the Father stood by...and actually turned his back on His Son because there was a price that had to be paid for all OUR sins, and Jesus chose to pay that price.
Romans 3:23 tells that, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" and Romans 6:23a says, "For the wages of sin are death...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"
If you ever read the Bible you know that in the Old Testament people had to make constant sacrifices for their sins...and that only worked until the next sin came along.
When Jesus...the "perfect" man died on the cross, he paid that penalty, once and for all...for ALL of us!
Think of how He feels today when people turn their backs on the tremendous sacrifice He made for them and call Him a myth!
You look at his death as the end, while we as Christians look at it as the beginning. Remember He arose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, where He is right now watching out for us!
Many of the world place valuable significance to the time we spend here on earth. In the grand scheme of God's timing, our years here, whether 1 or a 100, are but a mere pittance in the realm of our eternal time.
There is another Bible verse that tells us, "But beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day." 2 Peter 3:8.
Whether you believe or not, you will still have an eternity after you leave this carbon plain. You, with the free will that God gave to all of us, get to choose how you will spend that eternity!
Choose wisely!
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteIn that thread, I ctl-F to find the word "chance" and cannot find what you are talking about when you say I compared evolutionary theory to a game of chance.
I find you using the word "chance" an awful lot, and at one point starting your argument that I perceive evolution as a game of chance.
Specifically quote what I said to get you going like this.
By the way, you use the word "chance" often, in the sens of probabilities. This type of thinking needs to be backed up usually by statistics.
I brought in the argument there that science holds God at zero, so then cannot come back and say that there is no God.
In other words
God + 1 + 1 = God + 2
Better:
1 + 1 = 2
But, the math cannot then prove that God does not exist.
Unicorn + 1 + 1 = Unicorn + 2
However:
Noel + 1 + 1 = Noel + 2
Neither God, Unicorns, nor Noels have been either proven nor disproven. We must hold the Noel factor to zero, and get to the more usable:
1 + 1 = 2
But, if you would show me where you got the idea that I thought of evolution as a game of chance, I will clear this matter up for you. Quote specifically. I'm thinking you probably missed what I meant, which may mean that you missed the point. But maybe I came up with an analogy not understanding that someone could read it the wrong way.
If you put forward ideas that I disagree with I will tell you honestly what I think and you are free to tell me what you think without resorting to personal abuse because you don't like what it is I have to say.
You agree, then, to stop your insults, for instance how you led into this thread completely off the subject just to say that those who argue with you aren't informed like you.
On evolution, bacteria are living organisms, just like you and me and we have watched them mutate and evolve. This is the evidence of our own eyes and not some vague theological theory which sounds good but has no evidence to support it.
The bacteria info you give is common knowledge, information that most everyone knows. It proves nothing.
I take evolution as proven for the practical reasons I have given.
You mean, in what you just said? No, it is not proven, even if you take it to be so. You have faith supported by evidence you display.
Even in the face of experts saying that it cannot be proven you hold it to be proven. Interesting. I will not take your belief system away from you. But you have no argument that evolutionary theory has been proven.
Perhaps you could explain your reasons for believing that there is an unknowable force holding the sun in the sky.
Huh?
There is a force you choose to ignore until someone proves it to you, which will never happen. I am not here to convert you. Again, I entered the discussion, in the thread you linked to, to inform you that, even though you think evolutionary theory has been proven, it has not. I did not enter this discussion to convert you to any form of spirutality. So I won't.
Perhaps, though, you can prove you have a consciousness of subjective experience, and are not just a droid or zombie?
Yours,
Rus
Rus, that you considered evolution to be a game of chance is referred to in that thread, four times I think, and you'll find them if you read through it.
ReplyDeleteThe quote you so eloquently say "Huh?" to refers to the time I asked you to explain your reasons for believing there is some mystical connection holding the sun in the sky not because I want to be converted but because at that time you said:
I won't prove [there's a mystical connection holding the sun in the sky], and I never said that this came from my imagination. But the Pope and I know the truth of it.
You demand that I support my point of view with evidence while being unwilling to support your point of view with evidence. This is hypocrisy. What is this great secret both you and the Pope share - why not let the rest of us in on it?
On your suggestion that I'm barmy for taking scientific evidence as proof, when my wife becomes pregnant and her belly grows and I see this with my very own eyes and nine months later, we have another lovely little baby in the house, I suppose it's just a theory that I got her pregnant since me mammy told me that all babies come from under cabbage leaves and that the evidence I hold in my arms must therefore be a mere figment of my secular imagination and 'proves nothing'.
Bonnie, Jesus didn't exactly have much of a choice, being crucified, did he? It's not like he walked up to the local centurion office and said "Hey guys, I'm here to turn myself in and like, die for everybody's sins, you know what I'm saying? How about you crucify me? You won't get into trouble or nothing, my dad's totally cool with it, says it's a-okay." They tracked him down and arrested him.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think Jesus feels much of anything now considering he's been dead for two thousand years. His nerves have disintegrated, his heart no longer beats, he doesn't breathe or see anything anymore. He may have been a good man, we don't really know since he wrote not a single line of his own to leave behind him. Greeks who lived hundreds of years before were good enough to take the time to write down the knowledge they had discovered. Great scientists like Pythagoras, Euclid and Archimedes whose ideas we have been privileged to test and build on because we know exactly what they said, thought and did - not the bits and pieces other people said they said years after they were dead. They made sure their knowledge was preserved for the tangible benefit of us all and I have great respect for these men.
Even the Russian charlatan who claims to be the new Jesus in Siberia has written several books and his followers who live with him on his commune all have stacks of them to refer to when they have questions. (Frank, I know you'll love this one!).
Thomas Paine (a deist, not an atheist) had this to say about the idea of God turning his back on his own son and accepting payment for our sins in return for his sacrificial death:
"If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge."
He felt the Christian story of redemption was a perversion of the concept of moral justice. I am curious to know why you believe Christianity with its theory of redemption is the true religion among all of the religions that have existed and continue to exist.
Regarding what happens after we die, really die, not just clinically die and then come back, the truth is that none of us know.
Noel,
ReplyDeleteI have given you a glimpe of my reasoning for believing in God, and in Jesus' redemptive work on the cross. You choose not to accept that.
The key words are, "You choose."
I know in my heart of hearts that I am right. You know in your heart of hearts that you are right.
When I die, if I find out that you were right, then I've lost nothing. I've enjoyed a wonderful life basking in the arms of my Savior.
If when you die, you find out that I am right, then you have the rest of eternity to lament that choice.
I hope that you win at betting a lot because your afterlife depends on it!
God bless you.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
Rus, that you considered evolution to be a game of chance is referred to in that thread, four times I think, and you'll find them if you read through it.
Quote, please. I am wondering what you are referring to.
You also wrote:
The quote you so eloquently say "Huh?" to refers to the time I asked you to explain your reasons for believing there is some mystical connection holding the sun in the sky not because I want to be converted but because at that time you said:
I won't prove [there's a mystical connection holding the sun in the sky], and I never said that this came from my imagination. But the Pope and I know the truth of it.
It's not really a mystical connection, if I said that. "Being", "force", "personality" all work fairly well. But yes that is a true statement. I also have no intention of proving it to you. Although I might discuss it further than this with other mystics or someone who is comfortable with it.
As to what prompted your quoting the above, you had said this in this thread:
Perhaps you could explain your reasons for believing that there is an unknowable force holding the sun in the sky.
That was what I said Huh to. I never said anything about an unknowable force. Spiritual aspects of our lives are quite knowable. That is why this is what I said:
Huh?
There is a force you choose to ignore until someone proves it to you, which will never happen.
To be clearer, though, I believe you want physical evidence, which you confuse with proof. I don't know of any, as this is given "mystically" and I use quotes because if we had a more acute mystic than I am, he or she would experience this at all times as physically as anything else. But I cannot imagine that "great mystic" then telling us how we can take out a telescope or other equipment, and look at the sky in a certain way that would reveal this.
Along these lines, the continous descension and imbuing of our world, by what is known as the Christ, the holy spirit, or the "hand" of god, like lightning sap through flora, is visible. I cannot see it right now as such, but I have. I won't prove that to you either. But again, there are mystics I could discuss this with.
I doubt I could find physical evidence. I cannot imagine what it would be. It's very natural, though, even though we term it super-natural.
You demand that I support my point of view with evidence while being unwilling to support your point of view with evidence. This is hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy for me to ask you for the proof you say exists. You seem to be asking me to deliver God to you. Completely different things, especially since I said it cannot be done on your terms. However, you purported proof of evolutionary theory, which if such a thing had existed, it would be deliverable. The only possible hypocrisy we are dealing with here, is your not being able to deliver what you said could be delivered.
To be clear once again, I am not going to try to convince you of anything. You can have your beliefs.
What is this great secret both you and the Pope share - why not let the rest of us in on it?
Huh? I said something about a secret?
On your suggestion that I'm barmy for taking scientific evidence as proof, when my wife becomes pregnant and her belly grows and I see this with my very own eyes and nine months later, we have another lovely little baby in the house, I suppose it's just a theory that I got her pregnant since me mammy told me that all babies come from under cabbage leaves and that the evidence I hold in my arms must therefore be a mere figment of my secular imagination and 'proves nothing'.
Yes, on the pregnancy thing. Pregnancy indeed happens after sexual intercourse. Although there are other ways for pregnancy to occur. The cabbage patch way is not one of these ways. This does not prove evolutionary theory, however.
Yours,
Rus
I might discuss it further than this with other mystics or someone who is comfortable with it.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say I'm uncomfortable with it. I may not be a mystic and don't believe in God, but I also don't think science has discovered everything. Talking about mystical or religious ideas can make for interesting conversations.
You seem to be asking me to deliver God to you. Completely different things, especially since I said it cannot be done on your terms.
I haven't laid down terms on how you are to present your proof to support your beliefs nor have I asked you to deliver God to me. I'm really not looking to be convinced or converted. I'm only wanting to understand what you think this "hand of God" or "holy spirit" you refer to is and why you think it's true.
your purported proof of evolutionary theory, which if such a thing had existed, it would be deliverable. The only possible hypocrisy we are dealing with here, is your not being able to deliver what you said could be delivered.
Proof of evolution is deliverable. You can buy a microscope, sneeze into a tissue, take a sample and horrify yourself by gazing at just how many organisms hang out in your nose, no doubt having long and involved debates as to the nature of your nosy universe.
Since you can see evolution in action with your own eyes, I think it's fair to say that the proof of evolution is "deliverable". Now if only we could say the same about the Supreme Being.
To be clear once again, I am not going to try to convince you of anything.
I am really not asking you to convince me of anything, only to give us your reasons for your point of view as I have tried to do for mine.
I said something about a secret?
Well, since you've said you and the Pope "know the truth" of this mystical connection and you won't tell us more about it, it suggests it is a secret.
Pregnancy indeed happens after sexual intercourse.
Who said anything about sexual intercourse? Don't be disgusting! When I say got her pregnant, I mean that we went to bed FULLY CLOTHED and tapped into the zuma karma electro-magnetic hotline, or Fred as I like to call it, and hey presto! babies came flying out of her belly button at top speed (five to be exact). Would you believe she's still a virgin?!
Bonnie, I don't know in my heart of hearts that I am right. Anyone who is honest with themselves cannot say they are right about what will happen after death.
ReplyDeleteAs for betting, why assume God is so interested in whether you believe in him and is waiting to punish you for all eternity if you don't? If he does exist, don't you think it's possible that all he wants is for you to treat people as you would like to be treated yourself, to be loving, generous and true and that he doesn't give a fig whether you believe in him or not?
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteTalking about mystical or religious ideas can make for interesting conversations.
Yes, it can.
I'm only wanting to understand what you think this "hand of God" or "holy spirit" you refer to is and why you think it's true.
I have had the experiences that I relate. They do not conflict with any other aspect of living, they agree with others who have related their experience, there is a personality aspect to them, and they are imbued with meaning--all this such that they become more "real" than the more often experiences of life that we can relate to each other, what would be called more "mundane" experiences, and they inform my life ("evidently", not yours, though).
Proof of evolution is deliverable. You can buy a microscope, sneeze into a tissue, take a sample and horrify yourself by gazing at just how many organisms hang out in your nose, no doubt having long and involved debates as to the nature of your nosy universe.
Since you can see evolution in action with your own eyes, I think it's fair to say that the proof of evolution is "deliverable". Now if only we could say the same about the Supreme Being.
That simply does not consitute proof of a theory. It is evidence only. I have pointed out that error of yours before. For you to continue to say there is proof of evolutionary theory, and then to offer evidence as proof, can be misleading in discussion. This is why I entered the discussion in the first place.
To show you your error, I simply cite this again: Theories as models. In my college schooling, first working toward a degree in physics, that I then switch to applied mathematics, in which I received an associates degree, what is said in that link jives with both what we did during the study and what we were taught. So I am somewhat qualified to correct such a usage error as you continually make, and then to site Hawking backs this correction up with expertise.
Proof of evolutionary theory will not be deliverable. Evidence supporting it will. Looking into a microscope at the behavior of micro-organisms will yield both supporting and defining evidence, but only "proof" in a too-generalized use of the word, such use not applicable to the discussion when experts talk about proving theories. And when informed people ask someone to prove a theory, this is what they mean, they would not mean to provide evidence--unless that evidence led to the proof experts speak of, and that experts say cannot be done. Think of it, even after you would have delivered your proof to the world and received your Nobel, the experts would immediately look at the assumptions you necessarily made, to see if they were acceptable. Questioning those very assumptions would then become part of the new scientific inquiry on the matter.
Well, since you've said you and the Pope "know the truth" of this mystical connection and you won't tell us more about it, it suggests it is a secret.
Like I say, I would rather shy away from "mystical connection", without context. Here in this context with your context, the word that comes to mind is God, even Allah or YHWH, what have you. God is not a secret as people from all types of religious persuasions practice their faith(s) in such an entity.
The purpose that a shaman has always held for a society or community, is that these aspects will not remain secret. The shaman is nearly as old as the hills, certainly as old as human society. There's never been a secret.
If it is the proof of such a God that you refer to as a secret, then this falls into the same category as not being able to prove evolutionary theory. If physical evidence is what you want, then I give you the world, but this is not what I think you mean. I think you mean the spiritual aspects. So I say, then, that I cannot give you any more physical aspects than the world around you, and I cannot hand spiritual aspects to you on scientific terms.
When we get down to it, there is no reason for evolution to be. There is no reason for our cosmos or universe to remain in existence one split second longer. Evolution gets played out on what is thus far an inexplicable playing field--and that can only be described and observed in relationship to itself and us. And we, then, discuss the matter.
This is similar to when I brought up the age-old known impossibility of the universe somehow having transcended an infinite period of time to arrive at the time we live in today. By definition and through contemplation of the word "infinite"--since there was an infinite time ago, assuming no sudden creation (which brings its own problems)-- this universe we live in has transcended such a period of time to get to when we are today: impossible.
The trick of the trade that we have, utilizes such things as integral calculus, things that can only explain how such an infinity can be represented in a finite space, something like what we "must" be "in", how we may represent such a model that appears altogether true. But theorists continually ask, then what is beyond that finite space the math says we are contained within.
I have given Reimann and Lobachevsky as examples, but the easiest model to consider is the sphere. As we travel to the edge of the sphere, whenever we would get halfway there, we would be half as tall, such that, relatively speaking, we would be travelling half as fast. Imagine walking. Steps would be half as long. In this way, we can never reach the edge, thus one representation of infinite "space".
Scientists try to determine the "shape" and behavior of this universe. We hear them saying that evidence supports an explanding universe, for instance. But, explanding into what framework is always the question. Spacially speaking, it would be thusly impossible for the universe to reach as "far away" as we are: impossible.
Our physical laws and theories work withing the framework of what we have to pick up and give evidence for. That's why we call them "models". They are also "discoveries", as we notice patterns developing, especially cross-discipline patterns.
Nothing is secret. Some things may never be known. (Most things? The vast majority of things?) Things we will never know about, we cannot even talk about, because we do not know about them. Other things after discovery, like evolutionary theory, can be looked into using scientific method.
It is no secret that part of being human is to have a subjective consciousness. This is no secret, even though it exists. You cannot deliver evidence supporting yours, and I cannot bring evidence to you supporting mine. But we "pretend" it is true. Indeed, we experience it only.
Yours,
Rus
This comment:
ReplyDeleteWhat I found in most of my conversations with theological buffs was that their knowledge of science - the basic workings of physics, chemistry or biology - was very limited, but I also found that their knowledge of scripture was very limited too, or at least, when pressed for clarification on certain passages in the Bible, they invariably resort to claiming that very few people actually understand the Bible, the suggestion being that you cannot criticize the idea of God without a deep appreciation of theology, a subject that cannot stand up to reasonable inquiry.
misses the point in several ways. For one thing, the technical definition of the word "theology" means study of the nature of the divine. "Theological buffs" as described here basically are mislabeled, for the simple reason that most of the extreme Christian fundamentalists, pentacostals, and evangelist sects have no theology at all, relative to the theology presented and studied in either Lutheranism or Catholicism. If you want to discuss theology, be clear who the hell you're talking about, rather than lumping ALL Christian groups into one big category. Church of England (Anglican) theology is very, very different from Southern Baptist pseudo-theology; the latter can barely be called theology, by any standard use of the label. Baptists have cant and dogma, and they don't really THINK about God, which is what theology is in essence. So, understand the terms before throwing them about.
It's precisely these sort of sweeping generalizations about groups of people that are the problem, lumping vast groups into simplistic categories. This is exactly what Dawkins is doing, and your comments above just recycle that pattern. You really need to look into that mirror of self-awareness a litte more.
What I find so humouours about all this is how irrational the Dawkins camp is about being rational.
Comments like "theology cannot stand up to reasonable inquiry" is precisely the sort of comment that makes me laugh, because they completely misunderstand what theology is, as practiced by genuine theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas. Theology is rational inquiry into matters of faith; in fact, genuine theology proceeds by using the tools of logic and rational testing of hypotheses. That doesn't mean that the basic assumptions (God exists) are provable by scientific means; but theology is a centuries-long attempt to do so.
And by the way, not all theology attempts to prove the existence of God. That is only one small corner of the theological enterprise. A great deal more ink has been used to contemplate the more interesting questions: if God does exist, and even if God doesn't, how then shall we live? how then shall we treat one another? how shall we live a good life?
Understand, I have no investment in either camp of this increasingly polarized argument. A pox on ALL your houses. LOL Especially since no one invested in the argument seems to be aware that there are third and fourth alternatives, or that this is very much an argument typical of only the Abrahamic religions, and the rest of the world's religions think it's silly. Buddhism, for example, is essentially an atheistic religion, more of a philosophy than a set of religious dogmas; it's very practical, and not at all theistic, and yet is considered one of the world's great religions. Reconcile THAT. LOL
It's amusing to me that the anti-Christian atheist argument reduces to nothing more than an anti-theist argument, but still uses the same basic assumptions about reality. It hasn't exchanged the chess board for a new game; they're still fighting on the same turf.
Logically, you just cannot prove a negative (God cannot exist) even when there is no evidentiary way to prove the positive argument (God exists). The latter is a matter of faith, and those of faith will never be dissuaded by a negative argument. Proving a negative argument is not what science does. Science proceeds by presenting theories and then trying to prove or disprove them via experiment. Experimental evidence is the basis on which theories are developed. Scientists really have no business talking about matters of faith, because faith is not part of the scientific enterprise. Conversely, evidence of the existence of God, which is a matter of faith, can never be proven by using the tools of science; which is a mistake the evidentiary theologians do make, and that is why they are only a small part of genuine theology. What both camps miss is that you can't use the tools of the other camp to prove the assumptions of your own camp: it's just a bad fit, even if only in terms of logic.
It's quite true that many Christian fundamentalist have a very limited knowledge of actual scripture, relative to genuine theologians, but pick and choose which passages to cite, over and over again, as cant and dogma, but without deep contemplation of their many possible interpretations. But it's also true that most atheists also won't undertake deep contemplation of scripture, except to cite it negatively. Neither camp has an open mind, neither camp reads what is really there—and neither camp seems to remember that "scripture" can refer to a whole lot more wisdom literature than just the Christian Bible!—and both camps come to scripture with their minds already made up about what they believe, and search through scripture for evidence. Neither camp reads scripture through the eyes of an innocent child; both read scripture through the filters of their pre-existing prejudices. Again, a pox on ALL your houses.
Of course, what's also amusing about all this is that the atheists use the same style of rhetoric to attack the fundamentalists as the fundamentalists use to attack the atheists. In terms of thinking-styles and rhetorical tropes, they're hard to tell apart. Dawkins saying that religious instruction is child abuse is just the mirror image of the religious right trying to ban certain books from being taught in school.
These opponents have more in common with each other, than not, and it's fascinating to realize how almost identical their psychologies are, in practice.
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteJust a furtherance or tangent of this from Art:
It's quite true that many Christian fundamentalist have a very limited knowledge of actual scripture, relative to genuine theologians, but pick and choose which passages to cite, over and over again, as cant and dogma, but without deep contemplation of their many possible interpretations.
(If Art is not careful, he will share a "camp" with me.)
I want to point out that Bonnie, who is the most scripture-oriented of us in this thread, is selecting passages as they apply to the conversation. This is very illuminating, for instance:
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God["] 1 Corinthians 1:18, or "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.
It comes from a mystical point of view, but a very human one as well. From a perspective that poets often take, this message was "given" to her to share with us. And so it was.
Rus
Brown-noser. ;)
ReplyDelete... I have pointed out that error of yours before ... To show you your error, I simply cite this again ... So I am somewhat qualified to correct such a usage error as you continually make ...
You are insisting on showing me the 'errors' of my ways for taking the truly overwhelming and publicly available evidence supporting evolution as proof that evolution occurs while at the same time showing no qualms in maintaining personal beliefs in supernatural powers without any evidence to support those beliefs. You are holding my ideas to a higher standard than you are willing to hold your own which is what hypocrisy is.
And when informed people ask someone to prove a theory, this is what they mean, they would not mean to provide evidence--unless that evidence led to the proof experts speak of, and that experts say cannot be done. Think of it, even after you would have delivered your proof to the world and received your Nobel, the experts would immediately look at the assumptions you necessarily made, to see if they were acceptable. Questioning those very assumptions would then become part of the new scientific inquiry on the matter.
I agree and that is why I take science over a religion. The same rigorous standards are not applied to the possible existence or non-existence of the almighty. In fact, just by questioning a person's faith, instead of opening a reasonable discussion on the subject, people react by becoming offended. Imagine a scientist taking that attitude to a challenge to his work. He would not be taken seriously and would be ridiculed for reacting so unprofessionally.
Evolution gets played out on what is thus far an inexplicable playing field--and that can only be described and observed in relationship to itself and us.
Things will always remain 'inexplicable' if we degenerate into the couch potatoes of the cosmos, drinking in random dogmas incuriously. It is pure laziness to accept what you are told without having the gumption to investigate it further.
There are two extremes - out with the old and in with the new, and cling to the old in spite of progress. I try to avoid both extremes. I don't always succeed, but it is my aim to take from our past those things we can build on, as we have for example with the works of Pythagoras, Euclid and Archimedes, and discard those things which no longer serve to advance humanity. Chain me up, cover my eyes, ears and mouth. You cannot stop my mind from working yet so many people surrender their minds without ever giving it a second thought (no pun intended). Why?
By definition and through contemplation of the word "infinite"--since there was an infinite time ago, assuming no sudden creation (which brings its own problems)-- this universe we live in has transcended such a period of time to get to when we are today: impossible.
Rubbish. If it were impossible, we wouldn't be here. We know that the history of the universe is finite though we are dealing with billions of years in time and because we know the universe had a beginning, we can surmise that in the very distant future it will also have an end. The term infinite can be misleading since we are dealing with things on such a vast scale that it is difficult for us to grasp.
It is very possible that outside our universe exists another universe or several universes. We do not at this time know. With our very short life-spans it is easy for us to look at the universe and say it is as it always was and always will be. Before the dawn of the dinosaurs, the moon was much closer to the Earth and it exerted its force much more strongly. Tides were more violent, as was tectonic activity. This was a fraction of a second ago, cosmically speaking. But to us, going back as many generations as we can imagine, the moon has not shifted.
But theorists continually ask, then what is beyond that finite space the math says we are contained within.
We don't know, and we can say that without feeling the need to make up an answer. We can say "I don't know but I sure would like to find out. Hand me a telescope, give me a craft that travels faster than the speed of light; most of all, give me a curious mind."
As we travel to the edge of the sphere, whenever we would get halfway there, we would be half as tall, such that, relatively speaking, we would be travelling half as fast. Imagine walking. Steps would be half as long. In this way, we can never reach the edge, thus one representation of infinite "space".
That sounds like a garbled version of an old riddle. You have a lion and a large hunk of meat. Every time the lion jumps, he jumps halfway to the meat. How many jumps does it take for him to reach his reward? Children instinctively answer two, but of course the trick of the riddle is that the lion never gets the meat. It's a riddle. In real life, the lion would stick out his neck, bare his teeth and savage the meat.
In real life, you would not take shorter steps, your physical form would not alter (though it would have exploded in the vacuum of space long before you got anywhere near the edge of the universe).
The universe is most likely finite. We may never get to the edge of it. Again we are dealing with scales so vast, our mind can only contemplate them on a very abstract level. A molecule somewhere in the center of your left big toe has a better chance of grasping the edge of your body than we do the edge of the universe. We are like sub-atomic particles. We are so small that when Voyager before leaving our solar system turned around and looked back at the path it had taken to get there and took a picture of it before heading off into the vastness of space, the Earth registered as less than one pixel of the high definition picture it transmitted. A little further out and we wouldn't have registered at all.
Science has given us more in the last two hundred years than Judeo-Christian religions will ever deliver with their promises of redemption after we are dead in return for life-long servitude to ideas and beliefs we are expected to swallow whole.
It is no secret that part of being human is to have a subjective consciousness. This is no secret, even though it exists. You cannot deliver evidence supporting yours, and I cannot bring evidence to you supporting mine. But we "pretend" it is true. Indeed, we experience it only.
If I say to you the fire is hot, you can argue with me and tell me this is a manifestation of my subjective consciousness, but I'll bet any sum you like that if you stick your finger in the fire, you'll find out pretty quickly just how hot it is. Personally, I'd prefer to use virtual fingers like thermostats to measure the temperature of a furnace. It is a cop-out and a cheat to say that you do not accept my evidence, or the evidence that science has been building for thousands of years, just because it is incomplete. Religions cannot compete at this level. They offer absolutely no evidence to support their claims.
Art, you might want to ask what I mean by "theological buffs" before taking it as written that I am referring to "extreme Christian fundamentalists, pentacostals, and evangelist sects" and then using this to tell me I should "understand the terms before throwing them about," as though I had termed theological buffs "extreme Christian fundamentalists, pentacostals, and evangelist sects."
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, theology is simply "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." That various religious denominations and sects express different theological views doesn't mean enthusiasts among them - Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah Witnesses, what have you - can not be termed "theological buffs".
It's precisely these sort of sweeping generalizations about groups of people that are the problem, lumping vast groups into simplistic categories
You mean like the fellow quoted in another thread on this forum who wonders if "ideologies that profess destroying against creating, such as fundamentalism, atheism etc. are essentially not only anti-art, but also, anti-life?"
Comments like "theology cannot stand up to reasonable inquiry" is precisely the sort of comment that makes me laugh, because they completely misunderstand what theology is
Theology does stand up to rational inquiry because by its very nature it has to fall back on supernatural explanations, being the study of the nature of God. Supernatural explanations are outside of the laws of nature, and cannot therefore be considered rational.
A great deal more ink has been used to contemplate the more interesting questions: if God does exist, and even if God doesn't, how then shall we live? how then shall we treat one another? how shall we live a good life?
As human beings we are responsible for coming up with those answers and are equipped with an innate sense of moral justice which allows us to do so without needing to rely on a religion or a God to do it for us.
Buddhism, for example, is essentially an atheistic religion, more of a philosophy than a set of religious dogmas; it's very practical, and not at all theistic, and yet is considered one of the world's great religions. Reconcile THAT. LOL
You might enjoy this article by Sam Harris "who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion."
Scientists really have no business talking about matters of faith, because faith is not part of the scientific enterprise.
Faith is not based on experience?
The rest of your post reads like a valiant attempt to equate theology with science, as though the claims science makes were subject to the same lack of evidence as the claims theology makes. As Douglas Adams put it, "All opinions are not created equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteYou have to understand how hilarious you're being. I am sincere. You don't even take in what I say for what I say.
Watch. You begin with this:
You are insisting on showing me the 'errors' of my ways for taking the truly overwhelming and publicly available evidence supporting evolution as proof that evolution occurs while at the same time showing no qualms in maintaining personal beliefs in supernatural powers without any evidence to support those beliefs. You are holding my ideas to a higher standard than you are willing to hold your own which is what hypocrisy is.
It's like you are insisting on not getting it about evolutionary theory, and then accusing me of not being rigorous because I cannot transfer my spiritual experiences to you. Your repetition of this error, and then your variations on applying your misunderstanding as if it is something in me and not you, struck me funny this time around.
This has nothing to do with standards, unless we consider that your standards of what you want to call "proof" are so much lower than Science's. Science is a discipline that cannot be as loose as you.
Before you said I must be a hypocrite. No. That you cannot prove evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I am a hypocrite. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. It also has nothing to do with whether I am rigorous in whatever I undertake.
Again, here: Theories as models.
And you say you choose science over religion. That's like saying you choose hamburgers over french fries. Some people will take both.
In fact, just by questioning a person's faith, instead of opening a reasonable discussion on the subject, people react by becoming offended.
There was that preacher on the tape that kicked Dawkins out. There are people who would do this. To be fair, it was a Dawkins-produced recording, and thus subject to being questionable as propaganda supporting his own bias. I have to be skeptical as it was Dawkins production.
But fortunately for us, you and I are here, with Bonnie and Art. This is not to say that you did not enter this thread with an insulting assumption about people who have argued this subject with you. I have not seen such a thing as that at Books Inq. either, but I believe you may have encountered it elsewhere. This type of thing happens with people, but you can always come here, it seems, for respite from such people.
Imagine a scientist taking that attitude to a challenge to his work. He would not be taken seriously and would be ridiculed for reacting so unprofessionally.
One thing that a scientist you imagine would do, is agree that evolutionary theory will not be proven, however. I don't see how you can invoke the support of the scientific community, when you disagree on such an important point of rigor with them. We hold the scientific community up to a high standard when it comes to proof of theory--they do themselves--much higher than your own standard, whereby supporting evidence is good enough.
Things will always remain 'inexplicable' if we degenerate into the couch potatoes of the cosmos, drinking in random dogmas incuriously.
That is why I used both the term "inexplicable" and the phrase "thus far," because breakthroughs in this area are possible. You seem to be agreeing with me here, while framing it as if you are arguing. You know my aversion to dogma already, and Art has expressed some of his sense of this as well.
The couch potatoes can have their couches. There are plenty of scientists and theorists working on such matter.
The universe is most likely finite. We may never get to the edge of it. Again we are dealing with scales so vast, our mind can only contemplate them on a very abstract level.
Ahh, you're starting to sound like me. Except I would not have used the term "probably" as I have extensive training in statistics. I might say that what we call our universe, seems to be finite. This, of course, is something I brought up that you respond to here.
Go one step beyond this, however. If the universe is finite, what is beyond the universe? Okay, you seem to think I am opening the door to say, "heaven, gotcha!"--but I have no such intention.
If you respond "maybe nothing"--not that you did--then we have a situation where the edge of something abuts nothing, which has never been documented. It may, though, at all times be the case, that there are nothings abutting all of our somethings, but we could have no notice of them. After all, they are nothings. If we observed them, that would be something.
Because we have never experienced true nothingness, because there has always been something in our experience (otherwise it would not be experience at all), then we have a concept to entertain that is outside anything we could know of directly.
Note that the math does not say there is nothing outside our universe. And note that math would support there being an infinite amount of subnothings abutting each micro-something.
Scientists look out for influence from outside our universe. Thus the speculations that superstring theory has led to, a place for scientists to constructively stretch their imaginations as they tackle such problems.
But back to the potential of personal experience of nothingness. If all your bodily functions ceased, and then you came back to life, we could say that we observed what must have been nothingness for you. Even though your body was still there, we could feel medically justified in asking, "How was your nothingness, Noel?" You might very well confirm our expectations by saying that it was like nothing, no time, no sensation, nothing, something like some of the stages of sleep we have at night, or a time you were knocked out cold. Or just, "I experienced absolutely nothing, guys."
Now back to the universe. At death, hypothetically, we may get zilched. We might ask if this hypothetical zilchness is much like the zilchness that maybe the universe hypothetically abuts.
You say:
Science has given us more in the last two hundred years than Judeo-Christian religions will ever deliver with their promises of redemption after we are dead in return for life-long servitude to ideas and beliefs we are expected to swallow whole.
Science has certainly given us more science than Judeo-Christian religions. But it has given us nothing spiritual in the magnitude of this or other traditions. Whereas one good thing about the Catholic religion, is that it has kept scripture. But, no matter the religion, I do not take kindly to bad karma taking good scripture and turning it into bad dogma.
And that's a problem, dogma, something spiritual people from all walks of life dislike. I do not think anyone who has entered the discussion here at Books Inq. is pro-dogma per se or to a damaging degree. You have separated yourself from Dawkins at the point of his thought of rearing children in a religious tradition being child abuse.
It is a cop-out and a cheat to say that you do not accept my evidence, or the evidence that science has been building for thousands of years, just because it is incomplete. Religions cannot compete at this level.
No cop out, Noel. The common knowledge you have supplied is well known to most educated people, and especially to scientists. Science does not accept it as proof of evolutionary theory. Science holds that evolutionary theory has not been proven.
Again, here: Theories as models.
It may, however, be a cop out to say that you can prove evolutionary theory, and then simply supply common knowledge support for the theory. That is not proof--as you have been repeatedly shown. (See link above, "Theories as models".)
Religions cannot compete at this level. They offer absolutely no evidence to support their claims.
What do you want for evidence? I'll be blue in the face still discussing aspects of spirituality with you. I am not going to prove to you that you, I or anyone has a spirit. But I will tell you of my experiences. This is not a cop out. If I did not tell you, I might be copping out, but that might be just that it would get me, well, nowhere.
Rus
LOL Rus...I decided to stay with brown, rather than go for blue-in-the-face...and just let it go!
ReplyDeleteNobody can ever say we didn't try!
That creatures evolve has been proven. How they evolve is still being debated.
ReplyDeleteHow do you justify the example of murder and the symbol of torturous death as a useful moral example for anyone, particularly children?
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteThat creatures evolve has been proven. How they evolve is still being debated.
No. That has not been proven. Evolutionary theory is the prevalent model that we use. But proof? Nope.
How do you justify the example of murder and the symbol of torturous death as a useful moral example for anyone, particularly children?
Oh my. You snuck back into the Dawkins camp last night? aligning yourself, ready to attack Christianity as child abuse?
I raised four kids. They are doing fine. I have nothing to answer for here.
Rus
Rus, I didn't ask how many children anyone on this forum has raised or question whether they are doing fine. I specifically asked how the example of murder and the symbol of torturous death is a useful moral instruction for anyone, particularly children. You haven't answered that question.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, there is no doubt that creatures evolve just as there is no doubt that the earth revolves around the sun. How creatures evolve is still open to debate but that they do is not. As mentioned many times before, all you have to do to see evolution in action is take a magnified look at microbes under a microscope.
Rus...let me take a stab at this one!
ReplyDeleteNoel,
You asked, "I specifically asked how the example of murder and the symbol of torturous death is a useful moral instruction for anyone, particularly children."
For your particular question let's look at the actions of Peter. (and I will leave out the scripture, since you prefer to ignore them.)
He was horrified by the thought of Jesus being tortured and subjected to capital punishment. And it really sent him over the edge to think about Jesus taking up his cross. Peter didn't get a messiah who would be a suffering servant, the Lamb of God led to the slaughter. When they came to arrest Jesus, Peter defended his Lord with a sword. Jesus ordered him to put down the sword. "Those who live by the sword will perish by the sword.
Now here comes the "moral part" that we teach our children. Here is what God demands of us: Perfect, unlimited, continuous love. But we as carnal humans can't meet this demand, and God knows it.
This is where the most basic part of the Christian faith comes in: We men and women deserve punishment because we are not good enough. But instead of punishing us, God let Jesus (who hadn't done anything wrong) be punished. God allowed Jesus to be tortured and executed, and in this way Jesus took the punishment that we rightly deserve.
We humans aren't especially loving by nature. Yes, we may be sweet and kind to our relatives and friends most of the time, but that is a long way from meeting God's demands for absolute love towards everybody, all the time.
This was what God did by letting Jesus die. Through Jesus' pain and suffering, the penalty for your and my inadequacy was paid. This is why we, as Christian...men, women, and especially children...praise our Lord.
Children especially understand being punished for doing something wrong. And to understand that someone else stood in for their punishment makes a very large impression on kids.
What remains is simply to say thank you. God made the ultimate sacrifice for our sake. Even if you had been the only person on earth, Jesus would still freely have died for your sake, whether you accept it or not. Now there's the real rub!
As for the violence and gore of the crucifixion, kids today are desensitized to that kind of torture to the 9th degree, what with the things they see on TV and in video games, so don't pull the holier than thou attitude about violence!
We men and women deserve punishment because we are not good enough ... God allowed Jesus to be tortured and executed, and in this way Jesus took the punishment that we rightly deserve ... Through Jesus' pain and suffering, the penalty for your and my inadequacy was paid.
ReplyDeleteSounding a little masochistic there, Bonnie. What have you ever done to deserve crucification? And God didn't murder Jesus. Human beings did that all by themselves, Jesus being only one of thousands killed by the Romans in that sadistic way.
Children especially understand being punished for doing something wrong. And to understand that someone else stood in for their punishment makes a very large impression on kids.
You can convince children of almost anything - that's why you have to be so careful about being honest with them. Teaching them to believe someone else stood in for an imaginary 'sin' is not a good moral lesson. If you steal, cheat, lie, murder, what have you, you're going to be the one to pay the price. No one can do that for you and it is better that children are taught to understand this.
God made the ultimate sacrifice for our sake. Even if you had been the only person on earth, Jesus would still freely have died for your sake, whether you accept it or not.
So what about every other living creature? I guess they're all going to burn in hell for not having a human soul. Their pain and suffering is sport for God.
As for the violence and gore of the crucifixion, kids today are desensitized to that kind of torture to the 9th degree, what with the things they see on TV and in video games, so don't pull the holier than thou attitude about violence!
You're assuming I let my children watch that stuff or play those games. We don't have TV service in our home, though we do have a DVD player. How can you say that it is okay to use murder and torture as a perfectly fine moral example because Sony puts out violent video games and there's lots of violence on TV? That is a strange way to justify your God's love.
Noel, I see in previewing that you posted while I was preparing this post. I will not have any time to address what you have written, not that you've addressed me. It is imperative that I begin work on P&P in Rags for tomorrow, because no one else will.
ReplyDeleteBelow the squiggly line is what I have prepared, and follows Bonnie's post.
~~~~~
Thanks, Bonnie.
That allows me to go to the mystic aspect of it. I had mentioned somewhere before that I had an experience that is similar, not identical but similar, to the Saul/Paul one. And I have spoken in this thread about the personality of what can be described as a sort of descension of light that travels through everything, sort of like energized sap through flora.
With such an experience, I realize that we are at all times surrounded by this perfect being, surging everywhere, with personality and purpose. This presents a very very serious problem.
I cannot live up to that. The problem is abject failure on my part to be part of what is all around me, and much greater than I am. At this point, it is not fear, mind you. It's extraordinary failure. As well as the great things, it's in the little things, the moments each and every day. I was presented with the most frustrating problem I have ever encountered: total failure, in its most impossible sense.
A few weeks later, I was out in the back playing with my oldest son, and my first wife called us in. As I walked up the stairs, an extraordinary mystical experience came. It was an unmistakable sense of total acceptance.
My first wife and I rarely argued, but she got me into it. Supposedly it was room cleaning time, and we had places to go. It turned into one of those "Don't talk to me like that" arguments. You would think the mystical experience would go away. It did not. It would not, as if to clearly communicate that I am accepted, even when I am a jerk.
We were all the way up the highway and almost to the beach, housework done, connection made with my sister and her family, until I came back to "normal." I'm in.
And onto this:
Secondly, there is no doubt that creatures evolve just as there is no doubt that the earth revolves around the sun.
There is doubt that most or all species have evolved from other species. This has not been proven.
That a species adapts to its environment in a form of evolution has been documented. One might say that the Danes have evolved into tall people from being on average shorter. With some species having the right camouflaging pigment means certain colors will survive, a form of adaption of a species that is considered evolution. We call these in-species processes "evolution", so there is nothing to prove.
We may highly suspect that all species have come from other species, but this is hard to fathom as well. It's the "how" of it.
We ask ourselves, "What else?" And there seem to be clues that this has taken place. But there are serious problems with thinking that two apes one day got together and had a human baby that found an opposite sex mate and started the first human family. The are serious problems with the idea that two pre-frogs got together and had the first frog, that found an mature opposite-sex frog in the pond, and started the first frog family. Same with pre-pigs, pre-eagles, pre-marlins, and so forth.
Evolution on these terms simply has not been proven. Consider too. Let's say we were to prove that all birds came from a certain pre-bird. That would not prove that all frogs came from some pre-frog(s).
To say that you have no doubt is one thing. That is up to you, and seems to indicate a style of thinking. I won't take that away from you. I will not argue that you have no doubt.
Yours,
Rus
I think I understand now what is confusing you about evolution. It is the idea that a species jumps suddenly from one into another. It's an interesting point you raise because many people are under the impression, most likely due to gaps in the fossil record, that creatures morph from one into another overnight. But this is not how evolution occurs.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is an extremely long-term process with tiny incremental changes that mean very little from one generation to the next. It takes millions of years for a creature to evolve. It's an impossible concept to grasp if you believe the world was created in a week and is six thousand years old. Science has proven that the earth is more than 4 billion years old. It is over this vast stretch of time that life has evolved.
On the mystical experience you describe, first of all I think it took courage to write. I found it interesting and have no doubt that you experienced it. However, your conscious mind told you that what you sensed was God. If you had not been raised with a Christian bias, you may have interpreted what you experienced in another way. Maybe you would have felt that it was Mother Earth that was accepting you, or your ancestors that were accepting you, or maybe that you had come into contact with the spirit of the deer you hunted last week.
A scientist might suggest that you experienced a mild seizure in your temporal lobes. This may or may not be the case. Scientists afterall don't know everything and there is certainly a side to life that our senses are too limited to perceive. We cannot for example see magnetic fields. You may well have been sensing something. You call it God because you need an explanation for what you experienced and God springs most readily to mind, but it wouldn't have if you had been born a member of a tribe in the Amazon where your experience might have been associated with the spirit of an animal - a soaring eagle for example.
Great experience Rus, I've been there myself!
ReplyDeleteAnd Noel, I have finally found something in your writing, that I agree with 100%...."Scientists afterall don't know everything and there is certainly a side to life that our senses are too limited to perceive."
My response is...
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God 1 Corinthians 1:18, and my personal favorite, that Rus understand perfectly from experience..."But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteI am not confused about evolution. It does not matter how long it takes for a species to get to the point where it becomes another species. The leap from one to the next is a quantum leap.
One day, there was the first human woman who would bear human children. Before her was a pre-human, a different species. Genetically speaking, her parents were not human.
At some point, there was a first girl in the same period and vicinity that there was a first boy. They lived healthily enough and long enough to find each other and procreate.
If evolution from one species to another holds to be true, this means that one species came from another. At the point of differentiation, the DNA is different. That's how we determine it.
On to the mystic matter. The cue came from Bonnie. I was prevented at work from being able to formulate what I wanted to say. I thought that it would be great if Bonnie came in the way she did, and then I could say what I waned to say. When I arrived home here, this had happened.
You say:
If you had not been raised with a Christian bias, you may have interpreted what you experienced in another way.
That is correct. That is why I have said that I am Christian, because that is the framework in which I was raised. If I were raised in Baghdad, I might be relating this experience as a Sunni would. A Shinto, a Sioux, and so forth. But here I am, raised as a neo-Pilgrim here in New England, what was the Congregational denomination passed down through the generations after their landing here.
On the other hand, it was asked of Billy Graham once, how it could be that God would not save people who had never had access to the Bible. Now, I am not a Billy Graham follower, but his response was right on.
He said that while he was doing his missionary work somewhere in the Orient, he told the story of the Christian gospel to this guy. The man's response was recognition, that he already knew this Jesus Christ.
I also have had many other experiences. Last time we were in a thread I was receiving them often. I don't seek them. I don't sit in the lotus position or anything, maybe later. There is no need. This type of practice, however, can be spiritually fulfilling for others so I do not discount it.
A scientist might suggest that you experienced a mild seizure in your temporal lobes.
Yes, of course. This is why I was talking about the underdone bit of potato that Scrooge may have eaten, and the possiblity of it being an allergic reaction to something. There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-Spiritual about there being a scientific explanation for such an occurrence. This was the point made by William James in Varieties of Religious Experience.
Having the possiblity of a scientific explanation of spiritual phenommena is a point of agreement. It is when science can say, "Yes, we confirm that happened, we detect it." Indeed, some cultures try to induce it with drugs.
But science is well behind most religion's scriptures and sutras and such, in applying mystic experiences for all their worth. Even evolutionarily speaking, if humans came from apes, the mystic humans have had an impact on the survival of the species. Maybe everyone should eat underdone bits of potato, to see if they can inform the human condition.
Yours,
Rus
Rus, evolution happens very slowly over time - subtle changes, little by little with the birth of each new baby. You can have a sudden change, which is essentially a mutation, for example when an albino is born, they are missing the information which allows them to produce pigment. This is a change in the DNA, an evolution. But would you say that an albino is inferior to us? Would you say that I am inferior because my eyes are brown and maybe yours are blue? In the same way we cannot think ourselves superior to any of the earth’s creatures. We have all evolved together and the evidence shows that we all began from common organisms in the sea that decided over time that it was more convenient to work together and form larger cooperative units or multi-cellular creatures like fish, and eventually, human beings. To deny evolution is to deny the very fabric of your being and also to deny yourself the pleasure of reveling in all of the multitudinous varieties of life on earth.
ReplyDeleteBonnie, there is one telling difference between the scientific view and the Judeo-Christian view and it is this: science does not arrogantly claim to have all the answers, including those of the hereafter, if there is one. Your religion arrogantly does, based on no evidence, no proof, nothing. I prefer the more humble view of science which understands better our tiny place in the universe. What science does understand it has studied and tested, unlike religion which just proclaims it and then insists we believe. We are born with minds and whether you believe God put them there or they evolved naturally, they are there to be used.
ReplyDeleteHi Noel,
ReplyDeleteYou're not getting the point when you say this:
Rus, evolution happens very slowly over time - subtle changes, little by little with the birth of each new baby.
I understand that. In fact, I noted that very thing.
What you're not getting is that a change from one species to another is a quantum leap. By definition, coded onto the DNA is a new species, whenever it would occur. There may or may not be a long time leading up to it. It may or may not require many subtle changes to the birthing species for such an evolution to take place. But, whenever it would take place, this is a discrete change.
There was a first dog, a parrot, a first porcupine, and so forth. That first one did not have parents of the same species. If it did, it would not be the first. And if a new species came about, then the DNA code changed.
There was an Eve, whether you believe in sudden creation or slow evolution. Evolutionists believe that Eve was born from a different species.
__
You go off on a wild tangent leading to this statement here, nealry hinting at accusing me of racism:
In the same way we cannot think ourselves superior to any of the earth’s creatures.
That is an incorrect and unnecessary inference that you have made.
I was not talking about inferiority or superiority. Read again. Pigment has allowed species to survive, as it serves as camouflage.
Rus
Noel,
ReplyDeleteI do acquiesce that you are not going to get our point, or understand our position. But like an onlooker morbidly drawn to a train wreck, or a moth drawn to a flame, I am compelled to respond.
As for your knowledge and scientific rhetoric, I submit this scripture, "Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise." 1 Corin. 1:27 NLT
And even Jesus' ressurrection was confronted by someone like you. The man was His own disciple. Thomas said in John 20:25, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
When Jesus appeared, His response to Thomas was, "Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29.
You go off on a wild tangent leading to this statement here, nealry hinting at accusing me of racism
ReplyDeleteRus, I'm not accusing you of anything of the sort. I wasn't suggesting you think yourself superior. I was making a general observation.
What you're not getting is that a change from one species to another is a quantum leap.
It's not a quantum leap from one species into another if the 'leap' occurs very gradually. (I've often wondered why "quantum leap" is taken to mean "large leap" since a quantum is generally understood to mean tiny, as in quantum mechanics for example).
The fossil record can be confusing. For a fossil to be made, so many things have to happen that it almost never does happen. When you walk through the woods you don't see bones of animals all over the forest floor even though animals are constantly dying. The bones of the vast majority of creatures disintegrate, very few become fossils. This is why we see great shifts in the fossil record - distinct and dramatic changes from one species into another - as though one species suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Though we can trace many crossovers, including our own descent from the bipedal ape Australopithecus, we cannot trace every crossover, at least not yet, but if you try to understand evolution by looking at the DNA and not just the fossil record, you can see how one species, or group of animals within a species, very gradually changes into another species, and when I say gradually, I mean millions of years.
By definition, coded onto the DNA is a new species, whenever it would occur.
We share something like 60% of our genes with the sea cucumber and 80% with the house fly. Every creature alive today started from the same ancestors and branched off in different directions, the changes occurring in response to their environment. Look at how geography alone has shaped us, how different we are just based on geographical location. If a group of us were to remain isolated for vast stretches of time, we would change incrementally until eventually we would become a new species, but it would take millions of years and you wouldn't have a direct cut-off because the changes would be minute with the birth of each new baby from one generation to the next.
But, whenever it would take place, this is a discrete change.
Discrete is the key word. Eventually there are enough subtle changes that one group is different enough from the group it came from so that you can say the first group has branched off into a new species, but the shift happens very gradually.
Look at the difference between a flying squirrel and a gray squirrel. One can glide from tree to tree and therefore avoid snakes; the other cannot, but essentially they are both squirrels.
A fish has a heart, intestines, a liver, a brain, spine and ribcage, and eyes just like we do, but it continued on its evolutionary path in the ocean while our ancestors climbed out of the water and onto land. And to see a perfect example for this transition from water to land, look at amphibians, frogs, for example. An adult frog has lungs, liver, brain, intestines just like we do, but when it’s a baby it swims in the water and breathes through gills. It is as they mature that they develop lungs and live on land. The point is that when you look beneath the surface of life on this planet, it is obvious that we all developed in a beautiful variety of ways from the same ancestors.
Everything is constantly changing, but on a time scale that is difficult to appreciate since our life-span is so short. Who knows what changes will be in the future for us and for all of the earth’s creatures? I am only sorry that I will be dead long before they come about.
That first one did not have parents of the same species. If it did, it would not be the first. And if a new species came about, then the DNA code changed.
DNA changes, just like everything else in life, and the changes are gradual and minute and occur according to Darwinian principles of Natural Selection. None of us, though we are all similar enough to be members of the human race, have the same DNA. We're all individual and all different and changing all the time.
Evolutionists believe that Eve was born from a different species.
No, they don't. Evolutionists believe as I have described above, unless they do not understand the science behind evolution.
When Jesus appeared ...
ReplyDeleteYou have evidence of the resurrection, Bonnie? We don't even know for sure who wrote the Gospel of John. Regurgitated religious dogma is unsatisfying.
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteAll that to display that you still don't get it about one species evolving into a new species.
DNA changes, just like everything else in life, and the changes are gradual and minute and occur according to Darwinian principles of Natural Selection.
The changes within a species are usually gradual. This is not necessarily the case, though. But . . . assume I already knew that. As you know, I have studied all this. So assume that I take all that into consideration.
I said:
Evolutionists believe that Eve was born from a different species.
You said:
No, they don't. Evolutionists believe as I have described above, unless they do not understand the science behind evolution.
Okay, possibly not, but not on your grounds. Eve was the first human to procreate successfully. She could have had aunts or sisters who were unsuccessful.
For my purposes, allow me to call the first human female Eve-1, even if our great-great-great-[ . . . ]-grandmother was some other Eve-X. Eve-1, then, because she was the first human female, did not have human parents--at least her mother wasn't. Otherwise, she would not have been Eve-1, someone else would have. That's who I mean, the real Eve-1, who shared far more genes than a mere 80 or 90% with her parents, but whose genetic make-up was so distinct, that scientists would categorize her as a different species.
Only if a new species can come from a different species, can there be evolution of the species. This is a discrete change, and what I term a quantum leap, ever so subtle possibly, but one of the mutations necessary for evolutionary theory nonetheless.
I need to add, that such an evolution would need to take place for all species, not just humans. Each of the mutations would need to find a mate of the same mutated species to procreate. This, unless there is a species birthing procedure that is yet unknown. In other words, as applied to us humans, our g-g-g-g-g-g-g-etc-grandmother would have had to have been able to mate with the pre-human species.
Rus
Hey Noel, you're stuck here! Move forward to Frank's post on Tuesday about The Richard Dawkins Delusion.
ReplyDeleteIt explains my position well!
Or, from the Adam perspective, the beow ditty from 1999.
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~
The Limerick of Adam & Kermit
A cave ape named Link once said, "Madam,
if you'll be the mom then I'll dad'em."
They had an affair
a chromosome spare.
The boy whom she bore they named Adam.
Now Link gave to Adam a pet,
a pre-frog who always stayed wet,
that mated some fish,
a caviar dish.
From this he and Kermit so met.
The ape girls thought Adam a ringer
for Elvis, the chimpanzee singer.
With each coy ape look
those pelvises shook,
and thus he became quite the swinger.
But Adam, he thought it quite cruel
that each ape he had birthed a mule.
He went to his Dad
who seemed more than glad
to father an Eve for his fool.
For Adam and Eve tweren't no biggie
to nudie it under the figgie.
They had Cain and Abel
and Betty and Mabel
and Kermit the Frog had Miss Piggy.
by Rus Bowden
9/16/99
Ha! Good one Rus!
ReplyDeleteI guess Noel can't argue with the Richard Dawkins Delusion. I don't see him posting over there!
Rus, I wish you'd stop telling me that I "don't get it." I'm not telling you that you don't get it.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is something that happens very slowly over time. And as it is occurring there are crossovers between species - an offshoot branches off into a different direction while the other retains more of its current characteristics. Some die out, like the neanderthals, who as you know had a very heavy bone structure and very large skull. There is fossil evidence to show a crossover between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, that they were close enough genetically to mate, and that they did. (Sometimes I wonder if the Abominable Snowman and Big Foot, if they indeed exist, aren't the last Neanderthals).
Human beings belong to the ape family of creatures. Over vast stretches of time our ancestors branched off in a different direction by walking on their hind legs, coming out of the trees, learning to use tools and hunting for food in the plains, in the process developing larger brains giving greater computing ability. But our upright method of walking evolved before significant brain enlargement occurred.
We share something like 90% of our genes with the chimpanzee, making the chimpanzee our closest living relative. A human being and a chimpanzee could not today mate, but as the changeover was taking place, we could have done.
Humans split from chimpanzees between 5 and 8 million years ago. There is recent evidence that human ancestors and chimpanzee ancestors interbred after they'd split. The article I've linked to suggests "hybridization is a common part of evolution, bringing together the best of two species."
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteNow you're starting to get it, when you address the issue of new species coming from other species. What took so long for your ideas to evolve up to where the discussion is now? Why all the talk about slow process, when I said I had taken that into consideration? You acted like I wasn't getting it, when it was you.
If evolution of even a single species is to be true, there had to be a time when that new species was coming from either one or two old ones, as mating of the different pre-existing species had to take place (as there were no genetic laboratories available to most animals in past ages). What I said and illustrated, you now point to. With good conversation, you further the thesis I have been trying to develop to say:
There is recent evidence that human ancestors and chimpanzee ancestors interbred after they'd split. The article I've linked to suggests "hybridization is a common part of evolution, bringing together the best of two species."
No, there is no evidence of such a thing. No missing links have ever been found, and the process that you've mentioned has never been observed. The hypothesis is (as I mentioned) that there would have had to have been a new-species birthing period (for each and every species of animal). That's why research money is being spent to try to support such a hypothesis. There is need to explain it all. That's why all the funding for digs, and labs, and so forth.
Like I have been saying, for evolution of just our species, human beings, to have taken place, there had to be a time when a human was able to mate with a pre-human. If species could cross-breed, then we would not call them species. That's why we would need a species birthing period, as I touched on in the poem from 1999.
Right now, humans can only breed with humans, chimps with chimps, dogs with dogs, cats with cats, and so forth and so on, which is why we refer to species in the first place.
Yours,
Rus
Rus, the lines between species may not be as distinct or defined as we might think. For example, as that article points out, a half-grizzly bear, half-polar bear was recently discovered in Canada.
ReplyDeleteYou can have a situation where a series of incremental changes makes one group that has branched off from another group different but not so different that one creature from a splinter group and one from the main group could not continue to mate with each other in the early stages of the split.
For example, the group of early human ancestors that came down from the trees, started walking on their hind legs and venturing off into the savannah in search for food gradually broke away from the group that stayed in the trees and remained apes, however in the early stages of the split they could still interbreed. What is surprising about the Boston Globe article I linked to is the extraordinary claim based on the fossil record and genetic research "that human ancestors evolved apart from the chimpanzees for hundreds of thousands of years, and then started breeding with them again before a final break."
When one group that has branched off from the main group in the species remains reproductively isolated for long enough - breeds in isolation to the main group - it gradually transitions into a new species according to the principles of Natural Selection. The alternative to Intelligent Design is not chance, it is Natural Selection. As you probably know, Darwin came up with Natural Selection from observing Artificial Selection which is the controlled breeding of plants and animals. He proposed that "if dramatic changes in domestic plants and animals could be achieved by humans in short periods of time, then Natural Selection, given billions of years, could account for the differences seen in living things today."
Hi Noel,
ReplyDeleteWhen one group that has branched off from the main group in the species remains reproductively isolated for long enough - breeds in isolation to the main group - it gradually transitions into a new species according to the principles of Natural Selection.
This is the type of necessary speculation that has to take place in order to make evolution of species work. In other words, it must be stated by evolutionists: If there has been evolution of species, then somehow there was a process whereby one species spawned another. It is hypothesis, the same type of hypothesis that is brought up in the limerick, the same type of hypothesis that Darwin had to ponder--even if not challenged by creationists. It is by definition what evolution of the species is. We have gotten nowhere since then on this serious issue of evolution of all of the species.
If in earlier years, someone had told me that one of my sons may not have gone to school as he should, I might hypothesize that he did. It would not be evidence that, sure enough, there's a school there, and look at all the kids there too. This would not be evidence that my son was there.
To say that human beings were hanging out with chimpanzees, does not mean that they were having sexual intercourse. And if they were having sexual intercourse, it would not mean that the female chimps were getting pregnant by human men (or a third species), nor vice versa.
We may hypothesize all of this. We may even consider that such a scenario would make the cleanest explanation. We may then go forward say such things as "Scientists theorize that chimpanzees were mating with humans" or "Scientists theorize that chimpanzees were mating with chimp off-shoots." But, that's all we have done in this thread, without needing the Globe article. Nothing more. (That's what my limerick said. Adam was mating with chimps and birthing mules.) Nothing new in 1999. Nothing new in 2007. It's strictly hypothetical.
Now, as to the hypothesis that a group of a species may branch off and evolve into another species: That's the hypothesis that evolution of species proposes. Nothing new there either. Even if the first evolution from the chimps was not human, that hypothetical species referred to as the Toumai, had to have had defining DNA such that we would not call them chimps any more. And here is the same problem all over again. We may as well be talking about pre-dogs evolving into dogs, and pre-porcupines evolving into porcupines as above.
By the way, the scientists are well aware of all this. The scientists will not be asking anyone to believe any of this until they get a whole lot closer to this being a truly plausible scenario. It's not that they do not "believe" in evolution of the species themselves, but just that they are all well aware of these issues. If this turns out to be the most plausible scenario yet, scientists will identify it as such. They will not advertise it as truth.
To imagine some time cloud where we can call a bunch of pre-human either a chimpanzee or human or Neanderthal or Toumais, all on a transition toward the new multiple species, is just that, to cloud the issue. Assuming the existence of a chimpanzee tribe that turned non-chimp after separation from the tree chimps, is to assume that at some point in time, that two non-tree chimps mated and had a mutation as a baby, instead of a baby chimp.
The article talks about how it came to be thought that humans were a hybrid, because of the time line contradiction coming out of the (speculative) birthing period from the (speculative) chimp to human.
This contradiction could be resolved, Reich said, if early creatures like Toumai then interbred with chimpanzee ancestors, leaving a population of hybrids that developed into today's humans. (In this scenario, the line of Toumai creatures then went extinct.) But it is also possible, he said, that the dating of the early human fossils is wrong, or that the dating of other, older fossils used in his calculations is wrong, which would partially undercut the interbreeding theory. Scientists said that the report will probably bring intense scrutiny, as researchers look for potential flaws in the work or other explanations for its findings.
By the way, part of the beauty of hybrids, two different species coming together to mate and create a third species is that two diverse genetic pools come together with multiple third specimens that are not even cousins. Imagine if there was a fairly large tribe of Toumai, and the men decided to mate with a fairly large number of female chimps. Diverse humans would be being born all over the place.
The problem is that this does not work as proposed. For one, it is highly improbable genetically speaking. And that is why they have to look into the DNA, to see if such a scenario can get anywhere past the hypothetical stage, to see if there is something new to learn. This is why the article ends like so:
Although the idea is controversial, there will soon be a wealth of more information to test it. Part of the Broad team's analysis relied on using DNA sequences from the gorilla and other primates as a kind of baseline to interpret their results. Only a relatively small amount of DNA has been sequenced from gorillas, limiting the amount of data the team could use. By the end of 2007, there should be a full sequence of the gorilla, allowing the scientists to do a much fuller analysis, Reich said.
The team also plans on looking at genetic data for other groups of closely related species to try to determine whether those species split apart fairly abruptly, or whether there is evidence that hybridization is a common part of evolution, bringing together the best of two species.
So, we are going to try to research a hypothesis. The reason this is a better road to go down than a single species generating a second different one, is the problem of a mutation. And it is a repeated problem for every single species.
The article supports my contentions, not yours.
Yours,
Rus
Also, note this ending paragraph again:
ReplyDeleteThe team also plans on looking at genetic data for other groups of closely related species to try to determine whether those species split apart fairly abruptly, or whether there is evidence that hybridization is a common part of evolution, bringing together the best of two species.
Today's scientists do not know how species could have evolved. If they did, they would not be giving the hybrid hypothesis this hopeful look. They would have already taken the evidence and come out with something plausible.
Some are hopeful that the hybrid hypothethis will present the reasonable explanation they've all been looking for. At issue, though, is the question of how a Toumai species could have occurred for each species of animal on the planet. That Toumai species supposedly evolved through separation, or branching off and not interbreeding.
How probable is it that this is a repeated pattern with all creatures on the earth: separation, evolution to a new species, followed by reunion?
And if it is a repeated pattern, the big question still remains. How on earth did a single species evolve into that second. There is no genetic explanation for it yet. What happens at the genetic level that allows one species to birth another? We still don't know.
Rus
I should point out that I should not be re-reading my limerick as I have. Link was supposed to represent the missing link, and thus any potential Toumais, and Adam did not necessarily mate with chimps, only possibly chimps. Evidently, I was smarter eight years ago.
ReplyDeleteThat said . . .
I also want to add, that I am not comfortable with the confines of the discussion of slow evolution as only opposed to sudden creation. Logically, there can be sudden evolution. This may turn out to be as probable as slow evolution.
For instance, when we look at the Toumais as maybe slowly evolving from being chimps, we do not look at the reunion and mating with the chimps as being slow. In this scenario, humans came about in a relatively small window of time, whereas we can picture a slower formation of the Toumais.
But, there could theoretically be such a thing as slow creation. This might parallel what we think of as evolution of species. Indeed, if creationists suddenly said that God created evolution of species as a way of creating us humans, evolutionists could then welcome them to the club and ask what took them so long to be convinced of evolution as the process of species origin.
However, we have also been talking about a seeming impossibility, the evolution of one species from another. Another possibility is that each species came out of whatever the primordial soup was, and that each one has been forming up through time, evolving within its own species only, and not crossing over. If this were to be true, it would be defining categorical errors that have plagued us in this century+ of investigation into evolution.
But, just as someone thought to offer up the missing link as a hybrid, and figured how it could, at least tentatively, be something to consider, it seems time to try to think something new. This model has been leading to too many dead ends, which, for instance, the Toumais seem to be. The scientists need now to be looking for different things when they look at the DNA, as there needs to be a model shift.
This is what the physicists are doing with string theory. It's not that it is true or false, but starting to get nowhere beyond where we've already gotten with it. Evolutionary theory as we know it, is too-long stalled at such an impass.
Mystics may be able to help. I've been getting mystic flutters tonight. Some of these are like memories that cannot be from my current life.
Jung spoke of a collective unconscious in his psychodynamic model. Much of what we think through and what we create is guided by such processes as are contained in this theoretical construct. It goes hand-in-hand with evolution and DNA, by the way, and can even have applications with intelligent design.
To illustrate: In my explanation of the Saul/Paul experience above, I could also have likened it to Tinkerbell descending, so much so that I think that's where the idea of Tinkerbell got dreamed up, a sort of down-to-earth, somewhat humanized mystic experience with a personality. I "recognize" Tinkerbell. The mystic content that creates her, though, is programmed into all of us, so much so that when an artist creates her, she's a popular hit.
In this sense, our path to this knowledge of our past, is traced into us. If an experience from a long-untraced human ancestor was placed into the collective unconscious, and this is at least some of what mystics pick up, then there are mystics who can help. Indeed, Darwin or someone close to him, or art he had pondered, may have been giving him the info in patterns such that he would come up with a theory for it. Concepts don't just grow on trees.