Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?

On the creationism/evolution debate, differences of opinion have inevitably resulted in the question of whether or not certain beliefs are worthy of respect. Such questions can be marginalized as ‘off-topic’ on that thread but I think the question is important, so I’ve started my own thread.

I made my position clear when I posted a quotation from Voltaire:

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."

So my question is, ‘does it matter if people believe what they want to believe or are some beliefs so absurd that to leave them unchallenged is dangerous?’

I would also like to make clear that I have no problem with discussion of the Nazis, before anyone tries to suggest that any such discussion can only be indicative of a debate that has descended into pointlessness.

I think my last post in the creation / evolution thread is the sort of thing you're looking for here. At least I hope so. I tried my best to reclaim the topic for sanity.

If not, you're just a nazi and should be boiled alive in chip fat. ;)

I have no problem at all with people believing in Creationism. I do however have a problem with it being taught as a viable alternative in SCIENCE class, under the guise of intelligent design. Let's leave discussion of religious ideas to either philosophy or religious studies class. However thats as much as I'll say on that subject (being careful to avoid discussion of politics)

btw...I see your point about some beliefs when unchallenged being dangerous, but I think creationism is a few rungs lower down on the ladder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

btw...I see your point about some beliefs when unchallenged being dangerous, but I think creationism is a few rungs lower down on the ladder.

---

I don’t mind if the discussion opens up to a consideration of any ideas that could be considered absurd. It seems not only acceptable but also important to see individual examples in a wider context. As for a ladder, well the problem is that some ideas might start a few rungs down but they always seem to manage to climb higher. Ignoring low-level nonsense might allow it to gain acceptance and before we know it, we are being boiled alive in a vat of chip fat. :D

The end (and relevant part) of my last thread in creation / evolution. As I said - relevant, I think - chip fat is on hold.

Quote:

---

Evolution does not conflict with the existence of God. Many believe quite happily in both. What it does conflict with is the dogmatic belief in every single word in the Bible, Qu'ran and other holy books describing creation in terms of divine intervention.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved, it is a matter of faith. The absolute truth of holy books is another matter. I submit that it has been disproved already, to the satisfaction of all but the deliberately dogmatic.

---

On the point of the belief of creationism being dangerious..... this has been proven in the past to be somewhat true, but it is not necessarily fair to restrict dangerous beliefs to those of creationism - a fanatical/radica - and often absurd belief of any kind (religious, scientific, etc) could become dangerous. I do not believe that the average believer in "the world was created by a divine being" will take this belief to a radical point - but there are always the exceptions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

but it is not necessarily fair to restrict dangerous beliefs to those of creationism - a fanatical/radica - and often absurd belief of any kind (religious, scientific, etc) could become dangerous.

---

I agree with you, which is why I said above:

“I don’t mind if the discussion opens up to a consideration of any ideas that could be considered absurd. It seems not only acceptable but also important to see individual examples in a wider context.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I do not believe that the average believer in "the world was created by a divine being" will take this belief to a radical point.

---

Nor do I. I think there are many absurd beliefs that are not dangerous on their own but the cumulative effects of many absurdities can be catastrophic. Look at the state of the world! :D

I think that intelligent design is a little more complicated than just lumping it with creationism. Nonetheless, it is not for a science class but philosophy. It is the contemplation of first cause, which science has not been able to identify. And may I add it is not one of these absurdities that should not be discussed. There are lots of scientists that believe in God, including I may add Albert Einstein. If Albert Einstein can believe in God, it is not an absurdity that adds to any cumulative dangerous effect. Frankly contemplation and discussion of God is a lot less dangerous than allowing gratuitous racists comments to go unchallenged. Seems to me there is a misconstrued priority as to what should be challanged and what not.

Virgil,

I really don't think that belief in God per se was ever lumped in with the absurd and dangerous theories mentioned by anyone in this post. This is a figment of your misinterpretation. Please read through all the posts before arguing with something that was never said.

I think we've travelled this road before somewhere...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Frankly contemplation and discussion of God is a lot less dangerous than allowing gratuitous racists comments to go unchallenged. Seems to me there is a misconstrued priority as to what should be challanged and what not.

---

Contemplation of God is not under attack and I resent any insinuation that it is. I really hope that your reference to racism is not a veiled accusation. What ‘misconstrued' priorities are you talking about? Whose priorities? I consider Voltaire’s words above to be true. I too believe that some ideas are not only absurd but also dangerous. How about relating this to Piggy in Lord of the Flies. The belief in the Beast is absurd. Piggy can see that but the world is full of Jacks, his minions and those who just want to be told that they’ll be safe.

"The belief in the Beast is absurd. Piggy can see that but the world is full of Jacks, his minions and those who just want to be told that they’ll be safe"

The Beast, of course, being the "Yellow Peril," "The Red Menace," "The CIA," and "International Terrorism," to name but four of the mythological bogies of my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

How about relating this to Piggy in Lord of the Flies. The belief in the Beast is absurd. Piggy can see that but the world is full of Jacks, his minions and those who just want to be told that they’ll be safe.

---

Piggy in Lord of the Flies is a fictional character in a fictional book from the imagination of an author. Let's get real.

I was not saying you were a racist. What I was saying was that you accept racism in literature, you find it problemattic when someone condems racism in literature, but you find an axe to pick (that is, condem) with people who contemplate the origins of the universe and its relationship to God. I find that misconstrued.

Let's anlysize Voltaire's statement:

Quote:

---

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."

---

Does that mean that if someone believes in Freudian or Jungian psychology that they are going to go out and commit atrocities?
Does that mean if someone believes in using horse to get around New york, that they are going to commit atrocities?
Does that mean that the Amish of Pennsyvania, who refuse to enter the modern world, are going to committ atrocities.
Does an Orthodox Jew who by observing the Sabath traditions, that is no modern device to be used, go out and committ atrocities?

I can list an infinite amount of these, I just don't have the time.

You seem to succomb to fallacies of non sequitor. Believing in absurdities is not mutually exclusive to committing atrocities. It just doesn't follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Let's anlysize Voltaire's statement:


Does that mean that if someone believes in Freudian or Jungian psychology that they are going to go out and commit atrocities?
Does that mean if someone believes in using horse to get around New york, that they are going to commit atrocities?
Does that mean that the Amish of Pennsyvania, who refuse to enter the modern world, are going to committ atrocities.
Does an Orthodox Jew who by observing the Sabath traditions, that is no modern device to be used, go out and committ atrocities?

---

And you consider these absurdities do you? Personally, I see them as differing world views. Again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no-one in this thread has described religious belief as absurd. The discussion is about far more extreme convictions than the ones you describe above.

For example, I would describe the dogmatic belief in every word of the bible, coupled with the idea that those that didn't share this belief were to be burnt at the stake, as absurd. How about you?

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]And you consider these absurdities do you?

I would have to agree.... I do not believe anything mentioned could be considered "absurd".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

And you consider these absurdities do you? Personally, I see them as differing world views.

---

Well, what exactly is belief in creationism, even in it's most extreme where God created the world 5000 or so years ago in seven days? That's not a world view?