Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

".
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.

---

Actually Whiff, your agurment reminds me of an Anthony Burgess novel, called The Wanting Seed. Set in the future where societal decisions are made by pure reason devoid of religious values. A great novel. I think you might enjoy it.

My, my, we have been busy while I have been getting my beauty sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

I think it has been implied in this thread that extreme religious views have brought about the current evils in the world.

---

I won’t take issue with what you say after this for reasons of censorship. However, if you think that I implied the above, I believe you are mistaken. I can’t see where anyone implies it, either. At no point am I suggesting that the current state of the world is because of ‘extreme religious views’. In my first post, I say ‘certain beliefs’ and ‘some beliefs’. In my second post (no. 4), I specifically request that we discuss “any ideas that could be considered absurd.” In my third post (no. 7), I say ‘many absurdities’ and used an emoticon after my comment about the state of the world. I wasn’t referring to evil so much as monumental stupidity.

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."

---

Tempted though I am to consider your views as wiser than Voltaire’s or that he churned out meaningless phrases (it’s not a phrase by the way, it’s a sentence), I will stick with his I think. The aphoristic quality of his statement should not, in my view, lead us to assume that he was suggesting that there is a simple and direct correlation between absurdity and atrocity. I tried to explain this in response to Virgil. For me, the sentence is valid if we think of it like this - if people are willing to believe in nonsense then there are others who will exploit that gullibility. Each individual inhabitant of Nazi Germany who believed in the ideas of Hitler did not necessarily commit any atrocity (although they might have) but their general acceptance is necessary for evil to thrive. This is why I see Golding’s novel as relevant. The boys who support Jack might not themselves commit atrocities (though some do), but Jack is able to exploit their fears and unwillingness to question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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?

---

Not really. I don’t mean that a few lessons of creationism will make students run for the nearest axe and embark on a killing spree. However, I am saying that if people allow others do their thinking for them and fail to question what they are told to think, we will eventually end up with a body count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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

---

The odd thing is then that I don’t have much time for religious belief yet I would not consider the Amish way of life as absurd. To me, they do not appear absurd; in fact, in many ways I would say the opposite. Their rejection of what you called ‘the modern world’ strikes me as laudable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

---

I didn’t say that writers and/or their works are sacred, merely that they have produced food for thought about human experiences and situations, which are relevant when discussing certain ideas. This is not to say that either Macbeth or The Odyssey is the definitive word on ambition, simply that they offer something to consider when formulating our ideas. That is why I said that this is a Literature forum. I wasn’t saying that the discussion was off-topic, merely that I would expect the contributors to such a forum to subscribe to the view that writers do have something of value and interest to contribute to a discussion of ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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 ...

---

I don’t follow your point here. Is it that there is no definitive conclusion to be reached or simply that Golding is not as definitive as the authors you mention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

---

Virgil rewrites Voltaire to clear up any confusion! I think Xamonas articulated my other objections.

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.

---

So you consider culling human beings as ‘reasonable’? What standards of ‘reason’ are you applying? To me, that is a belief that leads to atrocities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Humanity will always find rationales for comitting atrocities.
Actually back to the Nazi scenario, the halocaust seemed perfectly reasonable Hitler and his henchmen.

---

The problem is not the rationale for committing atrocities but the gullibility of those who accept that rationale, especially in the case of Nazi Germany. Hitler and his henchmen would not have been able to succeed had not sufficient numbers of people accepted the doctrine of ‘The Final Solution’. Genocide needs its administrators, after all. Michael Burleigh’s book, The Third Reich: A New History (Winner of the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction) is worth reading for its exploration of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

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.

---

This completely overlooks so many assumptions. What is meant by ‘too many people’? Too many people for what and according to whom? For each to have enough ‘consumables'? Wasn’t it Gandhi who said that the world has enough for each man’s need but not for each man’s greed? The idea that such a proposal is not based in anything other than mathematics is itself absurd. Moral judgments are being made at every stage.

I recently watched a TV programme about the diminishing numbers of Asian elephants. Part of the problem is the huge market for Asian ivory, especially in Japan. They interviewed a young Japanese consumer and asked him if he felt guilty buying ivory products. He looked amused by the question and replied, “No, why should I?” He was told that the elephants from which the ivory came were being hunted out of existence. The man didn’t seem to understand. He finally replied, “but they get all the ivory from dead elephants in the elephants’ graveyards. They die from natural causes so why shouldn’t we use the ivory?” He genuinely believed this. To me, this is an absurd belief that has very negative consequences. You could argue that this isn’t really a belief as such at all, merely a case of ignorance of the facts. It appears to me that in that it resembles some of the debates already taking place on this forum. Besides, I was thinking more about this type of belief when I asked the question. You could also argue that what he believes is irrelevant – it’s what he does as a consequence of that belief that matters. True, but what he does is innocuous to him. He sees himself as simply buying the waste products of elephants that died naturally (presumably after a long and happy life). I think such beliefs need challenging. If he continues to consider buying ivory as legitimate then, even if he no longer does it himself, the society in which he lives is unlikely to be challenged in its assumptions and elephants will continue to die. It’s not just about what we actually do but what we think, which is a powerful determinant of what we do.

"Tempted though I am to consider your views as wiser than Voltaire’s or that he churned out meaningless phrases (it’s not a phrase by the way, it’s a sentence), I will stick with his I think."

Like Xamonas Chegwe, I don't believe in the "absolute truth of holy books," even when written by a Prophet of Reason, like Voltaire. I prefer to think for myself.

"Wasn’t it Gandhi who said that the world has enough for each man’s need but not for each man’s greed? " There you go again, depending on some other sacred writing. Time changes all things. In Gandhi's day, the world held enough for man's needs, but mankind did not have the will or the infrastructure to ensure a fair distribution, so local excesses of need over supply occurred. Xamonas has pointed out that the human population has vastly increased since then, so Gandhi's words may not hold good even globally for much longer. -

must dash, she who must be obeyed is waiting in the car - much more pressing than global calamity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Like Xamonas Chegwe, I don't believe in the "absolute truth of holy books," even when written by a Prophet of Reason, like Voltaire. I prefer to think for myself.

---

As do I. However, even the great Unnamable is not so arrogant as to think that the likes of Voltaire have nothing to teach him. This is a Literature Forum. May I ask if there are any writers you consider able to supplement your own intellectual powers?

The extent to which thinking for oneself is possible is another issue – one covered at length in the Language as Power thread if you are interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

"Wasn’t it Gandhi who said that the world has enough for each man’s need but not for each man’s greed? " There you go again, depending on some other sacred writing.

---

I think you fail to distinguish between depending on other people’s writings and referring to them in acknowledgement that they have had something interesting and worthwhile to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Time changes all things. In Gandhi's day, the world held enough for man's needs, but mankind did not have the will or the infrastructure to ensure a fair distribution,

---

And lack of infrastructure of course, was (and remains) part of the reason. It has nothing to do with a lack of inclination to ensure fair distribution on behalf of those who benefit most from unequal distribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

Xamonas has pointed out that the human population has vastly increased since then, so Gandhi's words may not hold good even globally for much longer. –

---

Even ‘much longer’ implies it is currently. If the West decided to stop consuming at the rate it does and also stopped eating meat, vast amounts of resources would be freed up. But why argue about the mass starvation of billions of people and the destruction of the planet when we have more pressing matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

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)?

---

Since I may have been the torch that touched this whole thread off over on the other thread, let me state here an emphatic ABSOLUTELY NOT to every one of these statements, XC. I used a foolish example (i.e. if people believe the world was created by Puff the Magic Dragon) to try to stop name calling and put downs for what people believe about the creation of the Earth. It was a mistake I will not make again. I considered these beliefs harmless, and if people wanted to stick to them like glue, I said I would respect the person, not the belief, or at the least, that is what I intended to say. But people's right to a belief ends when it destroys another person's rights to life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness. That is why the constitution makes certain the government cannot force us to have a national religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

That is why the constitution makes certain the government cannot force us to have a national religion.

---

In your country perhaps. The head of state over the pond here in the UK is also head of the established church. A truly secular government is the exception not the rule.

And, if the US has no national religion, please answer me these:
Why does "In God We Trust" appear on your coins? (As well as being plastered across everything else official like measles?)
Why is the phrase, "One nation under God" included in the pledge of allegiance?
Why does the president (most presidents - I'm not singling out the present incumbent - no current politics from me, Oh no!) finish every speech with "God bless America"?

Perhaps you're not as godless as you believe. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

In your country perhaps. The head of state over the pond here in the UK is also head of the established church. A truly secular government is the exception not the rule.

And, if the US has no national religion, please answer me these:
Why does "In God We Trust" appear on your coins? (As well as being plastered across everything else official like measles?)
Why is the phrase, "One nation under God" included in the pledge of allegiance?
Why does the president (most presidents - I'm not singling out the present incumbent - no current politics from me, Oh no!) finish every speech with "God bless America"?

Perhaps you're not as godless as you believe. ;)

---

Have people not taken any classes in logic? Perhaps this focus on post modern crap squeezes out important stuff like rhetoric and logic? Because there is no national religion, it does not follow that there is no belief in God. There is non-denominational prayer at the beginning of every session of congress and other functions. Actually Bono from U2 was just recently here at a prayer function with the president. No national religion means that neither Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism or Baptism or whatever is an official religion of the country. That's all. There is a line drawn between government function and religion; where that line is drawn is an evolving issue of debate and discussion. It evolves over time.

It may be non-denominational, but it's still prayer. The problem with a major argument for keeping the "Under God" in that Pledge of Allegiance, for example, is that even when you try to include everybody that believes in any god, there's still people that get left out. C'est la vie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

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

---

Uuu, I didn't know that one. Love it. :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

It may be non-denominational, but it's still prayer. The problem with a major argument for keeping the "Under God" in that Pledge of Allegiance, for example, is that even when you try to include everybody that believes in any god, there's still people that get left out. C'est la vie.

---

In Canada-the western part at least, I cannot speak for the east, the word God is mentioned in the national anthem obviously because it was a very religious country when put together.
But absolutely no prayers are allowed in parliament of any sector of the government nor in schools nor any public assemblies excepting naturally Easter morning service in the outdoors.
I have no problem with that. I found really when I was a child and it was still done that it was a forced thing, a rude thing and it made me ashamed because Christ Jesus was gentle to all, eating with the tax collectors and prositutes etc.He of course taught them not to walk this way for their well being,but it in no way affected His deep love for them. So I think it needs to be in the home and in the heart. You cannot legislate loving God, that is why under the law which was but a shadow to the coming of Christ God showed how flawed such a thing was even though we convenated with Him. Like in a marriage He wants our heart not our being conscripted. The same about believing anything at all. that is why I love the scripture where God says" come let us REASON together." That is fair I think. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

It evolves over time.

---

Ah-ah, so you do believe in evolution! :D

I must own up, Virgil. I have never taken a class in logic. I refused to enter a building whose existence I considered nothing more than a mental construct.
I got an 'A'. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Have people not taken any classes in logic? Perhaps this focus on post modern crap squeezes out important stuff like rhetoric and logic?

---

Quote:

---

Rhetoric: Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive affect on it's audience, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

---

And that's important stuff? Sounds like using language as control to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Because there is no national religion, it does not follow that there is no belief in God. There is non-denominational prayer at the beginning of every session of congress and other functions.

---

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Actually Bono from U2 was just recently here at a prayer function with the president.

---

(Warning. The next passage contains sarcasm. Those of a nervopus disposition should skip it.)
Bono, you say? I take it all back. If Bono agrees, it must be true. :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No national religion means that neither Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism or Baptism or whatever is an official religion of the country. That's all.

---

So you are saying that generic christianity is? Sounds like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

There is a line drawn between government function and religion; where that line is drawn is an evolving issue of debate and discussion. It evolves over time.

---

Somebody beat me to it on the 'evolves over time' comment. But I felt it needed emphasising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented?




So you are saying that generic christianity is? Sounds like it.

---

I couldn't fairly say, XC, honesty being the best policy here. I do know that Wicca and Voodoo are recognized religions in the USA, and that we have our share of everyone you mention, plus more. There is much argument against the wording on our money, the pledge, and the prayers in the Senate/House, etc. Are we Godless, you asked? No. But I would be hard pressed to tell you why sometimes when I see the fighting among churches and religions...