Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?

I am too unlearned to go into any detail concerning this thread. I have only one thought to offer:
I believe one has the right to have any belief one desires, I believe God's not outrightly killing the first angels,people that challenged Him and did their own thing-and starting all over shows our right to our own beliefs
But I think that how we ACT upon those beliefs, bringing harm to another, trying to take away another's basic human dignity and right to live in peace -well then I think something must be done.
I read about how Hitler and some of his guys stalked into some meeting place and demanded the German leaders that were present come under their authority, just like that. The leaders were indignant but at the end they gave in and although some of them got away later and recanted their agreeing to who they thought a madman-they did nothing. Hitler had every right to hate my people, but no right to carry out that hatred in the way he did. And I wouldn't have the right to do that to him either no matter what I thought. So yes there does seem to be a need to deal with such absurd ideas as he acted out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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?

---

Of course it's a world view. At its most extreme, it is also teetering on the edge of absurdity, because it is a world view which fits none of the facts that we know about the world except for a few words written thousands of years ago. By itself it is not dangerous though.

For any world view to be dangerous, it needs to be (as creationism once was, don't forget) combined with the view that any denial of it's validity can justifiably be met with acts of violence against the denyer. This is the kind of absurdity that killed Galileo; that burned the library of Alexandria; that sent millions of Jews to the gas ovens; that started every war in history.

Here are some world views that are absurd and dangerous by my reckoning:

The belief that you have the right to kill those that do not agree with you.
The belief that you the government of your country/the leaders of your religion are infallable and must be obeyed without question.
The belief that people that share your nationality/skin colour/religion/sex are intrinsically superior to all others.
The belief that it is right to have sex with children or to rape another person of any age.
The belief that you are the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan and that all Chinese people must be slaughtered.

Would you defend the right of anyone to hold these world views (even if they promised not to act on them)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

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.

---

Are you making a point or simply providing us with your opinion? I don’t know if ‘of course’ is meant to be sarcastic or authoritative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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

---

Are you suggesting that fictional characters and the works in which they appear have no relevance to the ‘real’ world? If you are, I’m astounded. Doesn’t it follow that all fiction can be dismissed as irrelevant? If we were discussing the nature of ambition, would it be pointless mentioning Macbeth? He also comes from the imagination of an author (I’m referring to the dramatic character of Macbeth, not any historical figure). Ken Kesey said of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, “It’s true even if it didn’t happen.” This is a Literature discussion forum, after all.

One of the ideas explored in Golding’s novel is the way people’s irrational fears can be exploited. I consider Golding’s exploration both interesting and relevant to the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

---

And this is better, is it? I’m not racist but I accept racist books. Astounding! So you believe that I accept racism in Literature? What, exactly, do you mean by that? I accept an author’s right to create racist characters and I accept that some writers expressed opinions that are considered deeply offensive now. That is not the same as saying that I accept racism. I also question whether a writer is racist. Just because you consider Hemingway to be racist, it doesn’t mean that he is. I will admit that I do not consider it to be the only thing I consider when I decide whether or not he’s worth reading. Once again, though, that does not mean that I accept racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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 never mentioned any of these. They are not what I consider absurdities so I can only assume that you do. I find interesting your implicit assumption that the beliefs of the Amish community are absurd. What happened to respect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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

---

First of all, Voltaire didn’t say they were mutually exclusive (I don’t know where you got that from). He said the one is linked to the other. An author you have mentioned positively a number of times said, “The Child is father of the Man;”. According to strict logic, this ‘just doesn’t follow’ but it’s not offered as a piece of strict logic any more than Voltaire’s words are. You are assuming Voltaire to have been a simplistic soul who was expressing a simple equation. He wasn’t. Obviously he wasn’t saying that every individual who believes something absurd will go out and slaughter everyone in sight. That would make him an idiot. He was suggesting that human reason was our only hope. Don’t forget he was one of the great voices of the Enlightenment. He also said:

"Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them."

Whiffl: "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. "


Unnamable: "Are you making a point or simply providing us with your opinion? I don’t know if ‘of course’ is meant to be sarcastic or authoritative."

My "of course" is not sarcastic - I don't do sarcasm. It is not authoritative - I have no authority. It is in fact entirely unjustified.

I think it has been implied in this thread that extreme religious views have brought about the current evils in the world. This might be a valid argument if we were considering the twelfth, or the seventeenth centuries (from a European perspective) but I do not think it a valid argument for twentieth/twenty-first centuries. Extreme political beliefs, and the deliberate setting up of bogeymen by devious governments (tautology?,) have served to justify the miseries of the last hundred years.

Of course*, any discussion on these lines will invoke the Moderators' blue pencil.

*Blast - there it is again, ignore it

Actually, I don't think I agree with Voltaire in this instance. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that causes the atrocities - unless you simply define any belief leading to an atrocity as absurd, in which case the phrase is virtually meaningless - it becomes "When men stop believing in things that lead to atrocities they will stop committing atrocities."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

First of all, Voltaire didn’t say they were mutually exclusive (I don’t know where you got that from). He said the one is linked to the other.

---

I made a mistake in my sentence. They ARE mutually exclusive. (Sorry about that; I was writing faster than thinking.) But my point still stands. The implication of Voltaire's sentence (and this is based on taking it out of context as you have; I don't know what the context is) is that belief in absudities leads to atrocities. You state or imply that belief in creationism is an absurdity, and therefore if taught, will lead to atrocities. Is that not what you are saying?

Quote:

---

I never mentioned any of these. They are not what I consider absurdities so I can only assume that you do. I find interesting your implicit assumption that the beliefs of the Amish community are absurd. What happened to respect?

---

I have lots of respect for religious people. I'm just mentioning things that could appear to be absurd.

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that fictional characters and the works in which they appear have no relevance to the ‘real’ world? If you are, I’m astounded. Doesn’t it follow that all fiction can be dismissed as irrelevant? If we were discussing the nature of ambition, would it be pointless mentioning Macbeth? He also comes from the imagination of an author (I’m referring to the dramatic character of Macbeth, not any historical figure). Ken Kesey said of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, “It’s true even if it didn’t happen.”

---

This is amoung the silliest things I've ever heard. MacBeth was ambitious and is tragic; Odysseus was ambitious and was a conquoring hero. Author's are people like you and me. They are not devinely inspired. They are artists who have opinions, points of views, change their minds from one work to another, disagree. They are not sacred or special, other than their language skills.

Quote:

---

This is a Literature discussion forum, after all.

---

You're the one who introduced a non-literary subject here.

Quote:

---

One of the ideas explored in Golding’s novel is the way people’s irrational fears can be exploited. I consider Golding’s exploration both interesting and relevant to the issue.

---

And so do I, but there's nothing that says it's definitive as to human nature. It's Golding's perspective. It's not Homer's or Dante's or Dickens or Shakespeare's or ...

"It's Golding's perspective. It's not Homer's or Dante's or Dickens or Shakespeare's or ..." R.M. Ballantyne's. Was not the "Lord of the Flies" written as a sort of pessimistic answer to "Coral Island?"

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Actually, I don't think I agree with Voltaire in this instance. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that causes the atrocities - unless you simply define any belief leading to an atrocity as absurd, in which case the phrase is virtually meaningless - it becomes "When men stop believing in things that lead to atrocities they will stop committing atrocities."

---

You make very good sense. If I might try to qualify Voltaire's statement, it might go like this: Humanity will always find reasons to committ atrocities, it doesn't take an absurdity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

You make very good sense. If I might try to qualify Voltaire's statement, it might go like this: Humanity will always find reasons to committ atrocities, it doesn't take an absurdity.

---

If those reasons result in the commital of atrocities, surely they are absurd?

Are you saying that there are reasonable reasons why 6 million Jews were killed by the nazis? A logical explanation for Pol Pot's massacres? Perhaps the crusades were instigated based on a provable mathematical principle?

I'd love to hear your non-absurd explanations of these atrocities. To me they can only have come from an illogical premise!

"If those reasons result in the commital of atrocities, surely they are absurd?
Are you saying that there are reasonable reasons why 6 million Jews were killed by the nazis? A logical explanation for Pol Pot's massacres? Perhaps the crusades were instigated based on a provable mathematical principle?
I'd love to hear your non-absurd explanations of these atrocities. To me they can only have come from an illogical premise!"

"Wrong?" yes, "evil?" yes. But not absurd, if that word has any meaning separate from wrong or evil.

A simple and reasonable justification for all the examples you give is that there are too many humans, and, in the greater scheme of things, it is good to cull the species. The only question, then is which ones to cull. Maybe a random selection; maybe everyone who is born on a Tuesday. More reasonably, focus on someone whose elimination gives other advantages - for example an identifiable race, political group or religion, (or class, perhaps, thinking of the proscriptions in Rome under Sulla etc.)

The problem, in fact, is not one of reasonableness, but one of reason devoid of morals - and morals are not reasonable; they are perhaps absurd, in that they state that certain courses of action, however reasonable, are unacceptable. So, it could be argued, or rather I have just argued, that absurd beliefs are necessary to prevent atrocities.

Perhaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"Wrong?" yes, "evil?" yes. But not absurd, if that word has any meaning separate from wrong or evil.

---

Wrong & Evil are not absurd?

Perhaps if you would be good enough to define these two terms, I might understand your position - I doubt it, but it's possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

A simple and reasonable justification for all the examples you give is that there are too many humans, and, in the greater scheme of things, it is good to cull the species.

---

Simple and reasonable!?

So, there were too many people in the world, so 6 million Jews were killed. It didn't work. There are approximately 4 billion more people in the world now than there were in 1945. Which 4 billion should we kill to get the numbers back to a 'simple and reasonable' total? Any suggestions?

Everyone born on a Tuesday would only get rid of about 0.85 billion. Perhaps everyone not born at the weekend?

It looks like we have a genuine absurd believer in the thread. Anyone want to ask a few questions before he/she starts culling?

I hope that you're playing Devil's advocate here WP. I really do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

If those reasons result in the commital of atrocities, surely they are absurd?

Are you saying that there are reasonable reasons why 6 million Jews were killed by the nazis? A logical explanation for Pol Pot's massacres? Perhaps the crusades were instigated based on a provable mathematical principle?

I'd love to hear your non-absurd explanations of these atrocities. To me they can only have come from an illogical premise!

---

No. Come on. I met religious justifications. In fact, you make a good point. What exactly is Voltaire saying? I guess my qualification of Voltaire should be: Humanity will always find rationales for comitting atrocities.

Actually back to the Nazi scenario, the halocaust seemed perfectly reasonable Hitler and his henchmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

So, it could be argued, or rather I have just argued, that absurd beliefs are necessary to prevent atrocities.

Perhaps.

---

That thought has crossed my mind too.

"Wrong & Evil are not absurd?
Perhaps if you would be good enough to define these two terms..."

Actually, it is the definition of "absurd" that I was questioning. Wrongly, as it happens - I've just checked it in the dictionary and its meaning includes "out of harmony with propriety" as well as "out of harmony with reason." By the first definition wrong and evil are absurd.

That just brings me back to my original observation on Voltaire's words, as quoted, namely that they do not mean very much - when people stop having evil beliefs they'll stop being evil - wow.

I understood you to ask for a non-ridiculous premise for arguing in favour of three different examples of killing large quantities of people. (Let us take the emotion out by ignoring which people we are talking about.)

Without approving of killing large quantities of people, I offered what is to me a perfectly sensible reason, i.e. that there are too many people. A belief that there are too many people is not based anything except mathematics. (People x consumption per person) > (consumables available). If that inequality holds, then some action is required.

It is only the absurd (i.e. unreasonable) prejudice against killing people (and, in this case I am happy to be called absurd) that prevents what we are calling atrocities, since humans have shown themselves more efficient at reducing people than reducing consumption or increasing consumables.


What I find very interesting, is that when I offer a reason devoid of morality, you become quite excited - even shocked. It suggests that you are not quite a Vulcan in your devotion to reason, but that you do feel there are other important considerations in determining behaviour.