Exactly HOW is religion supposed to give meaning to life?

[WyattGwyon]

I could say the same thing about those who have the atheistic lean who put there faith in the own interpretive science. The theory of evolution is still just a theory...and I wish that it was not presented as fact. Evolution seems as far fetched to me as creation seems to atheists, and the evidence doesn't support it. I wish that the education system was not controlled by the liberal bias. I wish that our legislation wasn't so left leaning. Maybe we need both sides to keep the balance...instead of wishing that we could silence the one side. You think that the "religious" people need educated, well, maybe the atheists need just as much education (but not by an atheist institution like most of our universities are...)

Bienvenu,
Like most who make statements like "the theory of evolution is still just a theory," you seem to be unfamiliar with the definition of the word theory as it is used in scientific contexts. Theory and fact are not antonyms. The fact that something is called a theory has no relation to its truth value. For example, the heliocentric theory of planetary motions is confirmed by unequivocal established fact, and it has been so for centuries. A theory is just a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon or set of related phenomena. Even after everything the theory predicts is proved true, as in the case of the heliocentric theory, the set of propositions it comprises is still called a theory and will always be so designated. That the theory of evolution has been confirmed as a veridical explanation for countless related natural phenomena and historical processes is an established fact accepted by all reputable life scientists. Only basic scientific illiteracy can allow one to reject it out of hand.

[WyattGwyon]

Based on history there is a theory of creation. If you want to split hairs on whether or not it comes under the science curriculum or history curriculum then go ahead. My point is that the theory of creation is NOT taught at schools, including history. Anything containing the R word is lightly touched upon at best. I'm referring mainly to government schools of course.

This is not hair-splitting. A theory whose propositions are by their nature not falsifiable does not belong in the science classroom. (Falsifiable means that they are susceptible of confirmation or disconfirmation by means of observation.) As any bright eight-year old will tell you, the theory of creation is not an explanation of anything, since it just substitutes another question (How did God come to be?) for the question of how the universe came to be.

[WyattGwyon]

You show me where we have observed ANYTHING evolving into something different. Because that is what science is about.

We have observed the evolution of countless modern species from their historical predecessors through the fossil record and DNA studies. This information is widely available to anyone who actually wants to expand their knowledge.

[WyattGwyon]

I'm sorry....that is not evolution...that is reproductive creation.
No...I mean show me where something like a monkey turns into a man. That education that you think others need, maybe be applicable to yourself as well. (and no....that is not a personal attack)

Monkeys don't turn into men. If you mean this in anything close to a literalistic sense, I would recommend some remedial science education. Homo sapiens, monkeys, and other primates are all sub-branches of one particular branch of the evolutionary tree. Humans share common ancestors with monkeys and closer (more recent) ones with apes. When speciation occurs it doesn't mean that one species ceases to exist and another replaces it. Usually it is a matter of two closely related species or populations diverging over time.

[BienvenuJDC]

We have observed the evolution of countless modern species from their historical predecessors through the fossil record and DNA studies. This information is widely available to anyone who actually wants to expand their knowledge.

I've seen the so-called evidence. It is flawed and interpretive. The actual fossils are mere fragments, and the conclusions are sketchy based on circular reasoning. Evolutionary scientists draw their conclusions based on their assumptions. If there is some real evidence, then please post it...don't just say..oh, it's out there somewhere.

[BienvenuJDC]

Bienvenu,
Even after everything the theory predicts is proved true,

Ah...there's the rub...everything that the theory 'predicts' hasn't been proven to be true. That is a bold faced lie.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm so glad Wyatt joined this discussion.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm so glad Wyatt joined this discussion.

Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.

[Varenne Rodin]

I've seen the so-called evidence. It is flawed and interpretive. The actual fossils are mere fragments, and the conclusions are sketchy based on circular reasoning. Evolutionary scientists draw their conclusions based on their assumptions. If there is some real evidence, then please post it...don't just say..oh, it's out there somewhere.

This kind of thinking further demonstrates the fanaticism taking place in America, as I said. Christians will argue that extremism isn't happening, or that it's only in isolated cases, because they have no awareness of how openly hostile or obstinate they are when confronted with information that contradicts that the events in the bible are factual accounts.

Until we can somehow transport fossils and mass volumes of texts through single message board posts, Bien, you'll have to get your extensive education from an accredited learning institution off site. You don't want one, though. You seem to be fighting for the sake of fighting. I can never explain to you how disturbing it is.

[WyattGwyon]

Ah...there's the rub...everything that the theory 'predicts' hasn't been proven to be true. That is a bold faced lie.

Are you actually arguing that the basic predictions of the heliocentric theory have not been proved? That is what this phrase related to in my message.

As for actual evidence: Your request is silly. It is like asking someone to provide evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Just go and get any one of many basic texts on evolutionary biology and read it. Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a good one. The basic science has been firmly established for well over a century! A great read that is fascinating and for general audiences is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett. This is from a philosophy-of-science perspective in case you are interested in the state of current thinking on evolutionary theory from many perspectives.

[WyattGwyon]

Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.

Your unfamiliarity with the scientific definition of the term "theory" is not unsubstantiated rhetoric. This was the principal point of my post.

If you don't think evolutionary theory is relevant to the thread then don't bring it up. I was just responding to what you had written. It was a short correction of your terminology and could just have been graciously accepted so we could move on.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.

You never discussed how religion gives meaning to life. I believe that you want to believe it does. Your arguments seem to be more directed at convincing yourself than demonstrating how or why Christianity offers anything good or reasonable. What exactly is your intent? Do you feel repressed? Do you think your faith is threatened by science? Is your faith not adaptable to newer information than the stuff dreamt up by an ancient telephone game? Genuinely curious.

[WyattGwyon]

Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.

I am not sure why your finding the meaning of life in religion requires you to be hostile to scientific thinking. Many people find a comfortable accommodation between scientific and religious viewpoints. Does evolutionary theory contradict some fundamental tenet of your religious beliefs? Many have accepted evolutionary processes as the means by which God orchestrates his creation of life. For an omniscient and omnipotent God, willing the Big Bang to happen as it did would entail the intentional creation of mankind.

[SleepyWitch]

I hate to interrupt your discussion about evolution, but could someone answer my question?

hum.. that's one of the things I don't get about religion. Whoever said this life was so bad? I mean, I can understand that life was bad for lots of people in the past in a material sense (and still is for lots of people in the developing world). But what is so bad about our lives as people in the developed world that we need to wish for a better afterlife? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be antagonistic or saying that we don't have any problems at all. I'd genuinely like to know what kind of things in life religious people judge as bad.

[Varenne Rodin]

I hate to interrupt your discussion about evolution, but could someone answer my question?

I was wondering too. I'm starting to think waging war on reason is the Christian meaning of life.