Jesus Camp Trailer

[Sharkith]

Maybe - but I'd rather spend my life with nothing than with something I don't fully belive in.

/Ankh

can you see a paradox here? You value nothing more than something you cannot fully trust?

[<ankh>]

can you see a paradox here? You value nothing more than something you cannot fully trust?

Nope, I see no paradox. When I die I want to know that I didnt waste my life on something that turned out to be wrong. I can understand why you see it as a paradox - but we are after all quite different

/Ankh

[Cromcruaich]

Crom for me the theory very much depends on the observer who uses it. Theories are purposive and used with reason. I don't believe that these things exist out there in the form that people say they exist but that they are thoroughly bound to the human interests generating them. The idea itself is generated with certain 'interests' (in this case Darwin was following Malthus' arguments) and that is what I am particularly interested in tracing.

Technically if there were no human beings there would be no theory of evolution and the principal of natural selection would not exist.

That puts me into the school of thinking that is generally known as a radical constructivist. For me of course there is a reality out there by virtue of the fact I exist but that reality is only accessible through the concepts generated to understand it.

There would be no theory, but the mechanism would still exist. Lukily we dont need a theory of nuclear fusion to keep the sun in the sky.

How can you decide what is the best form of adaptation? How can you say there is no 'intelligent design" and at the same time assert: "the highest form of life in any environment is the one best adapted for it - we dont swim very well at 2miles down"? I don't see any escape for you here at all whatsoever.

I dont decide, there is no need to decide, death and breeding decides. The theory gives a mechanism, it doesnt decide what is the best form. Its the form and the environment that decide that. There is absolutely no design, adaption comes through success generations dieing and dieing and dieing, to the whims of the environment. Think of organisms like a billion dice, the white dots mean you are more likely to get eaten, each dice has a bit shaved off it randomly here and there, bumpd added to one side, a bit of sticky tape here and there (get a blind monkey to do the mods!) etc, now throw them all. Remove those dice that roll anything but a one, eventually you end up with those dice that are most likey to roll a one. They have been purely by random, with no intentional design been selected for rolling a one. This is selection without design, purely random.

I cant iterate how important it is that there is no intelligent design. Thats why you need to get away from Darwinism for this discussion. He did make some errors in Origin of Species, but that isnt relevant to the theory of how species evolved.

I am not so sure Darwin himself was totally free from making this error. I think I would need to dig out Cronin again to give a more direct answer. Nevertheless I can agree that in some ways there is an error here. However and this is the killer for you. How can one evaluate what is the 'highest form of life' in a given environment.

Lol, its not a killer at all. Ive said why. One doesnt need to evaluation the highest form of life. Why would it? Natural Selection never talks of the highest form of life. It is the best adapted. That on the balance of probabilities most likely to survive, but importantly in terms of evolution it is only relevant in times of selective pressure. Generally everything lives in an uneasy balance. It's when that balance tips, that selective pressure is brought to bear. It's not part of the theory - all that is necessary is variation, a method of heridity, lots of breeding, lots of dieing, and an environment.

I think its a very elegant theoretical account of how structural changes in species can occur. There are alternative theoretical models available however and I am also interested in those. The theory of autopoiesis for example is one I am particularly interested in.

Yup, this is one of the key problems this discussion has suffered from. Its been narrowed to Darwinism. Ive said a few times that Natural Selection as described by Darwin is far from the be all and end of what we term Evolutionary Theory. There are many theories that contribute to this huge body of scientific description (and it looks like autopoiesis could be a useful part of the puzzle as well). Some are flawed, some need refinement, but the main idea is that somewhere amoung it all lies an approximation to the reason for species differentiation, the truth of the mechanism is there somewhere, we may never fully know it, but we have an understanding that is an approximation to what forces did actually occur to produce that variety. What Origin of Species did was start us on a path to understanding, it gives a simple mechanism that can be taught and understood, and very simply seen. Its not the whole story, but its part of the mozaic. This is perhaps a mistake on the part of science that leaves the theory open to attack, and allows it to be to easily labelled Darwinism and people who are not creationists to be labelled as Darwinists.

Can you define science please?

I sense a world of hurt there.

How many times to I say I have no faith in God?

Steady, ive made a few posts, some have taken a while while responses have been posted. I saw your response, you dont need to say it again. Once is enough.


You position is really an intellectual argument about the nature of theory, and how history and society have affected Darwin's works, along with flaws specifically within Origins. Thats fair enough, I can accept that, what I cant accept is a blind belief in Creationism.

[Cromcruaich]

The second part of my strategy was to probe further into a controversy I know exists behind Darwinian theory to illustrate that in fact not even that 'foundation' is as solid as it is often presented. Like I said in response to Crom I am not convinced this is the answer and even t

It is as solid as presented. Its been built upon like the foundations of a house. This is called progress. On the shoulders of giants 'n all that. Its that key jump, from a world that accepted creationism, to opening a door that allowed people to start to think how species differentiation occured via mechanisms that required no intervention from a god.

[Lieva]

Never claimed we should, but most people written by men are when they tell their own opinions rather than somebody else. The Bible on the other hand is telling us that your god did this and that. And its put together long after mankind was created according to your religion (I guess I have to point out that its YOUR god or YOUR religion or else gandelf will start his shit again about converting..unfortunatly it makes the text way longer).

I would also like to ask you the same question as I've asked others in this thread (but still no reply from anyone). What makes you belive that your religion is right and the others are wrong?

/Ankh

hmm
i spose technically christianity and Jesus has been the only religion i have had the most access too.
I loved the stories from the hindu(?) religion with rama and sita however

Now i am an adult i would prefer to be jewish or buddist

If i became either my faith that i have atm will still be true

the only thing i could never be is an athiest simply because i know its well not true..
seriously - if i die now and find out there is no god..i would be 100% shocked

I did answer this before but i guess it was the post i deleted

I said that i would never say another religion was wrong. I only know what I personally believe.

I do have issues with the church atm so im not sure if i could ever be classed as a christian (by standards) ever again which makes me sad.

I dont think the thing with the 50 virgins would entice me into a religion - then again standing around in white robes strumming a harp doesnt exactly thrill me either

[Cromcruaich]

I prefer to see this as enthusiastic debate - so much gets lost in writing. If we see it like that it is less divisive I at least trust you to know this. Its harder with Xest because I don't know the poor sod so I tend to be a bit more brutal - and I should stop that of course.

What I believe about God is an unresolvable part of my biography. Believe me that is much too complex an issue to deal with here. Especially when people are being so aggressive.

Well things get misunderstood amoung all the language, for example it was far from clear to me initially that you were specifically talking with reference to the content of Origins and Darwin in particular (amoung a lot of other stuff). But thats the nature of forums.

[Xest]

I think that in a) your albiet inadvertedently suggesting that society would be better off without them. At very least your suggesting that they and we would be better off if they would/could change. For many of them that amounts to telling them it would be better if they didn't exist. I am sorry but I have to profoundly object to this. I would do it on the basis that you have no way of proving that society would be better off. The argument you seem to be making to support this is kind of utilitarian and I am profoundly against this approach.

I wasn't directly suggesting the world would be better off without these people, I'd be more than happy for these people to do the things they do minus the parts involving religion and effecting other people (e.g. shunning homosexuals because the bible says so). After reading your post and thinking about it I can see how it could possibly be extracted indirectly from what I said that if someone wasn't willing to give up their religion and they were also the sort of person who attacked (not necessarily physically of course ]I agree with b) but like I said earlier in the thread religion is relatively unintrusive in comparison to science. I think you can say no to religion but science is everywhere. So on this issue I find religion much less of a problem to worry about in society.[/QUOTE] But this goes back to my original comment in the post, that I feel there's nothing people can't do without religion that they can. The same really can't be said about science and this is largely because it is something that effects us physically and in a tangible way and this is where I see a difference between the two. I could quite happily accept that we should shed some science that is used innapropriately or is in itself inapropriate however of course, but scientific ethics is a different debate for a different day I think

[Sharkith]

There would be no theory, but the mechanism would still exist. Lukily we dont need a theory of nuclear fusion to keep the sun in the sky.

exactly and if the Sun operated purely by the rules of the theory of nuclear fusion I suspect we might not exist!! In other words the mechanisms should not be mistaken for the theory - and elementary error in a lot of science.

I am sure we won't replicate it here.

I dont decide, there is no need to decide, death and breeding decides. The theory gives a mechanism, it doesnt decide what is the best form. Its the form and the environment that decide that. There is absolutely no design, adaption comes through success generations dieing and dieing and dieing, to the whims of the environment. Think of organisms like a billion dice, the white dots mean you are more likely to get eaten, each dice has a bit shaved off it randomly here and there, bumpd added to one side, a bit of sticky tape here and there (get a blind monkey to do the mods!) etc, now throw them all. Remove those dice that roll anything but a one, eventually you end up with those dice that are most likey to roll a one. They have been purely by random, with no intentional design been selected for rolling a one. This is selection without design, purely random.

I cant iterate how important it is that there is no intelligent design. Thats why you need to get away from Darwinism for this discussion. He did make some errors in Origin of Species, but that isnt relevant to the theory of how species evolved.

thank you and yes I agree. If you read Darwin there is the problem of intelligent selection and there is the more profound problem of the organism as the basic unit of analysis. Likewise all of these ideas have been superseded and refined. All very important and nothing to do with God whatsoever...

Your position is really an intellectual argument about the nature of theory, and how history and society have affected Darwin's works, along with flaws specifically within Origins. Thats fair enough, I can accept that, what I cant accept is a blind belief in Creationism.

Indeed the ideas are developed out of the debates of the logical positivists with Kuhn. See also the strong program in sociology and the really funny debunking of the same school by Sokal, A. & Briemont, J. (1998 ) Intellectual Impostors. London: Profile Books - some really funny stuff in there!

As for a blind belief in creationism - I have been there and it wasn't as complicated as the belief in Darwin. Like I said I can't see the point in all the energy and time wasted in objecting to it. It all seems fairly innocous to meh!

[Sharkith]

Nope, I see no paradox. When I die I want to know that I didnt waste my life on something that turned out to be wrong. I can understand why you see it as a paradox - but we are after all quite different

/Ankh

nvm the point was lost in translation.

[Sharkith]

I wasn't directly suggesting the world would be better off without these people, I'd be more than happy for these people to do the things they do minus the parts involving religion and effecting other people (e.g. shunning homosexuals because the bible says so).

Yes I can see your principle however not everything that religion does that affects other people is bad surely?

I think I'd be lying if I said this wasn't the case, I really don't think the world does need the islamic suicide bomber that kills 20 jews just because they have different beleifs for example (but this probably stems back to when I mentioned my father in an earlier post, I'm really not as tolerant as him, I'm certainly aware of that).

To be honest I am not sure we can reduce suicide bombing to one cause. I suspect it is a key justification but there is considerable evidence to suggest that exclusion and poverty are more significant predictors of the behaviour.

I don't agree that anything I've said could be construed as meaning that the world would be better off without those who practice religion passively if they didn't want to give up their religion because contradictory to that I've stated that if people want to practice religion and not pester anyone else with it then I have no problem with that.

Ok thats cool I think this clarifes what you mean - I have to admit for me your more general statements left you open to this charge.

I feel there's nothing people can't do without religion that they can.

I cannot follow this Xest.

The same really can't be said about science and this is largely because it is something that effects us physically and in a tangible way and this is where I see a difference between the two. I could quite happily accept that we should shed some science that is used innapropriately or is in itself inapropriate however of course, but scientific ethics is a different debate for a different day I think ]

Well once more the examples were introduced to show that in fact religion is much less of an influece on the world and that on the other side of the debate on this thread was a much bigger issue that had remained undisclosed. I think we can agree that if we are going to use science as the basis for objecting to belief in God that we ought to consider very carefully whether or not science is the best way to do this. Especially since it is perhaps the biggest dominating and prevasive influence on our lives.

Now lets change positions. If your a religious person you will probably find that you have more reasons to complain about the intrusive nature of science on your life - especially since it is something that is used to beat the shit out of you at every turn.

If you were religious you might well have a much more legitimate concern than a lot of the points raised in opposition to this God thing here .