posted
I'm not sure that's true, KoM. Because nihilism is a denial and/or rejection of everything, including evil and the possibility of evil.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let me rephrase to an uncaring god, then. Let me also add that the natural end of theism, at least some kinds of it, is suicide : If you are in a state of grace, but might later fall from it through yielding to temptation, obviously you should kill yourself now and go to Heaven. (Hamlet's monologue where he debates whether to kill his uncle at prayer comes to mind.) Now, Christianity cops out of that one by forbidding suicide, but just the fact that it needs to be forbidden is a dead give-away.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Giving as many atheists lead full, happy lives, I think your notion is soundly defeated
I wasn't trying to say there aren't happy atheist, or people who believe in both God and evolution. I am sure there are plenty of both.
I was just trying to explain why some people are fighting so hard for ID. I wish I had some more specific examples. There are lots, but I have not really thought about it much in a couple of years. When I was looking into it I remember being constantly hit with things evolution had changed in our collective thinking, most of which were contrary to the Christian view point. I don't think it was usually a direct thing as much as it was the conclusions people drew on their own from evolution.
Any way just trying to represent a view point I hadn't seen here. Apparently I didn't do a very good job.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution is the great game of Chutes and Ladders. And with the first breath of life, God gave this planet the dice.
I do believe in something like intelligent design, but not necessarily the teaching of it in public schools. Let science teachers teach science. To ask them to teach religion as well could be, well, disastrous.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
SC, I think the fugu13 post you're quoting is referring to Vid's atheism=suicide post, not yours. I could be wrong, but the response makes much more sense that way.
posted
I think some of you ID believers should be upset, not at the evolutionary teachers, but at the closed minded literalists who are abusing you.
Your arguments here make sense. ID as the force behind evolution, or stating at the begining of science class that evolution does not and perhaps should not be seen as denying God, is a reasonable and justifiable request.
(It seems that many of you had the worst kind of science teacher, bigotted and self-important)
However it is the Biblical Literist Fringe associates who are trying to take over the ID movement that should be getting you upset.
You say that ID is behind the ancient animals we find in the fossil records.
They say that fossils are all fakes.
You say that the Scientific Method is great, but ID is needed understand what science never can.
They say that the Scientific Method is useless, and the ID is the only science needed.
You say that we need faith beyond science. They say that we need faith not science.
You wonder at a God creating the univers billions of years ago. They wonder how we can believe in anything older than 6000 years.
You are willing to discuss ID. They are wanting to preach ID.
You sound sincere and intelligent. They sound dangerous and fascistically fanatical. And they are the ones grabbing the microphone.
They are using your support for ID, and twisting it into a medieval theocratic antithises of what you believe. And they are doing it loudly, over every microphone they can find, and they are claiming that you support them.
Yes, if I were you folks, I'd get really upset with these Fanatics abusing your ID name. I would do everything in my power to insure that your beliefs are not swept away as surely as any liberal Christian's or aethiests or Buddhists when these bad people try to enforce their idea of biblical literalism on you.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
But some of the things you've named are the more extreme groups, that don't even believe in ID, as it still incorporates too much science into what they see as a wholly Creationist event.
I'll give my take on it. Discussing ID can only benefit understanding of science -- although I doubt ID will survive the discussion.
The argument of irreducible complexity (half an eye or a wing not being useful) seems quite refutable, as others in this thread have already shown.
The argument of probability (which I couldn't find, but I am sure it is part of the issue) seems based on guesstimates of probabilities that are so small and so poorly known we could be off by many, many orders of magnitude. It's like the Drake Equation, for calculating the number of intelligent races in the universe. Plug in a bunch of numbers that are guesswork, and reach a conclusion -- but it's still a guess, which could be very wildly off.
These pages on ID (Wikipedia) discuss specified complexity. Complexity is quantifiable; in computer science it can be the number of bits to represent an answer, for example. I don't know what "specified" means, quantitatively.
I don't know if ID people discuss it, but there is also the issue of the anthropic principle: noting that the universe must have certain characteristics in order to have us in it, observing it. If we define life to require stars, there is a very narrow range of ratios between the fundamental forces that can support life -- these forces differ by hundreds of orders of magnitude, but if they were off by (I forget) something like 10^-150 in either direction, stars wouldn't be possible. Tweak them some other trivial amount, and molecules can't form. I understand this better, since I know more about physics than biology.
There's a fun novel, Calculating God, by Robert Sawyer, that explores this. Atheists take comfort: if he isn't one of you, he fakes it well. The only really nasty people in the story are conservative Christians, who quite naturally (!) wish to murder extraterrestrials and academics.
I can't draw much conclusion even from the anthropic principle. If we were to randomly pick the strengths of the fundamental forces, the likelihood we'd find a combination that allows for life is vanishingly small. Yet here we are. This could be because
* Sometimes wildly improbable things happen. I find this explanation wildly improbable! * It's wildly improbable, but there are so many universes that the likelihood of it happening at least once is high, and look, it did. * It's wildly improbable, if it were random, but it isn't: somebody made it happen this way. * It looks wildly improbable, if it were random, but it isn't: some natural process we don't know about made it happen this way.
Trouble is, it isn't even theoretically possible to find evidence to disprove any of these explanations, so we aren't talking science.
And now, on to politics:
This also isn't religion, unless religion becomes so broadly defined that it can mean anything offensive to atheists! It's philosophy. It isn't wrong for schools to discuss philosophy.
Anyway, opponents of ID should be happy to have it discussed publicly. Exposing it will puncture it a lot better than censoring it.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are in a state of grace, but might later fall from it through yielding to temptation, obviously you should kill yourself now and go to Heaven.
Big if. Baptists don't believe it's possible to fall from a state of grace and be damned; they call this doctrine "once saved, always saved"; Presbyterians call it "perseverance of the saints." Other Christians can read Hebrews and get the same doctrine they do, whether they name it or not.
I can't swear no Catholics believe the doctrine you propose, although I certainly don't. We do have the concept of a state of grace, which is the way we should be when we receive communion.
Jews usually don't believe in an afterlife.
It's not reasonable to call this a "natural end," since it either never happens or almost never happens, and is based on a premise we don't believe. Perhaps there's some other reason for forbidding suicide, such as its negative health consequences!
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Philosophy class might be a good place for ID. However, it's not reasonable to ban all non-science from science classes. Scientific method itself is not scientifically verifiable. Neither is mathematics. And we have to have them.
Where should the philosophy of science be taught, in high school? It needs to be taught somewhere.
So: what about creationism? A totally different animal. As Dan points out.
Thing is, creationism doesn't discuss probabilities; it ignores them. It doesn't have quantifiable concepts, like complexity, or probability; it ignores them. I'm not even sure I'd discuss it in a philosophy class, except to note that it can't be verified except by examining the character of God (whether he's the sort who would plant fake fossils, etc.).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, it's not reasonable to ban all non-science from science classes. Scientific method itself is not scientifically verifiable. Neither is mathematics. And we have to have them.
They are, however, axiomatic. Which is why we have to have them.
ID is not axiomatic; there's no compelling reason to call it science. No scientific theory depends upon it for its own existence. Basically, it is at best a sort of useless speculation.
I would not mind teaching the philosophy of science in a science classroom. I wouldn't even mind discussing how ID is not a scientific theory in a science classroom. But I suspect that the people who're pushing to get ID into science classrooms would like it discussed in a different context.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be all for it if schools made philosophy a prerequisite for HS graduation with or without the addition of Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, the chances of a State Legislature doing this is low because they don't want to fund education any more than possible.
This is sad to me, because if it comes down to writing a new Science curriculum that includes ID or at least includes some general disclaimers about evolution, or producing the funds to hire new teachers and write a new curriculum for Philosohpy, legislatures are likely to settle for the former. In addition, the avid proponents of ID are likely to oppose Philosophy as a Gen-Ed because Philosophy classes usually include sections on aethist thinkers (like Sartre) and also the existance or non-existance of God.
In short, I would love to see Philosophy classes become the outlet for this proposed ID reformation of education, it is unlikely to happen.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think fugu's distinction between intelligent design and theistic evolution is crucial and seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's important, all right; but I don't think it's lost in the shuffle. At least, I hope not.
Yes, ID is not axiomatic. So it's not as crucial to have as scientific method itself! It's more like the T-test, or the minimum R needed to call a correlation "statistically significant" -- other stuff we won't see much of in high school science classes. Unfortunately.
I'm also aware that I may be too optimistic. My college seniors very rarely what scientific method is, after a required year of college lab science. What's the chance they'll remember anything from an ID discussion?
Still, silencing its proponents will only give it strength. Let it out, in an environment where it can be understood, rather than promoted with bad rhetoric: sci or philosophy class. I'd love to discuss this in class -- with a group that understands why falsifiability is a good idea.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thing is, creationism doesn't discuss probabilities; it ignores them. It doesn't have quantifiable concepts, like complexity, or probability; it ignores them.
I think you are making the point that ID does 'have' these concepts?
Not in the same way that mathematics 'has' subtraction and multiplication.
Kalikh, in ancient Egypt, is having an argument about how large his farmed lands are. His friend interjects, "use math! it has multiplication!"
It's nature that has complexity and probability. ID merely mentions these concepts -- and as far as I can tell only in the most hazy, unscientific way.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you believe in the same kind of ID as Tresopax and rivka -- that is to say, evolution started and/or guided by a deity in ways that are undiscernible to humans -- then you aren't disagreeing with JVP.
*fweet* Hold da phone! Point of clarification: I do not believe that God's hand is "undiscernible to humans." I believe that His methods (deliberately) defy scientific evidence. That's not the same thing.
(And I couldn't tell you whether I do or do not agree with Tres -- his posts on this subject make my head spin.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Will wrote: It's more like the T-test, or the minimum R needed to call a correlation "statistically significant" -- other stuff we won't see much of in high school science classes. Unfortunately.
You beat me to it -- yes, the point of my previous post was that ID would not be a prerequisite to interjecting statistics, complexity, and probability into science.
I can only think that a high-school unit on, say, "the history of science and the search for the origin of all life," could (and should) include a mention of ID, as a fringe non-science that applies the concepts of complexity and probability in faulty ways with a particular end in mind.
And I agree, the accompanying exercises in complexity, probability, and statistics would be very useful and instructive. I wish they had been taught to all congresspersons, state legislators, and schoolboard members.
quote:*fweet* Hold da phone! Point of clarification: I do not believe that God's hand is "undiscernible to humans." I believe that His methods (deliberately) defy scientific evidence. That's not the same thing.
(And I couldn't tell you whether I do or do not agree with Tres -- his posts on this subject make my head spin.)
Excellent post, Rivka. I might say "by their nature" instead of "deliberately," but then again, I might not. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surely your god could, if it so chose, use methods amenable to observation? Hence, if they are not, in fact, observable, it's deliberate.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why I didn't say I would definitely say that. Nor would I ever say they are not deliberate. The word choice would emphasize a different character of those methods.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *fweet* Hold da phone! Point of clarification: I do not believe that God's hand is "undiscernible to humans." I believe that His methods (deliberately) defy scientific evidence. That's not the same thing.
God's hand in evolution certainly seems to be "undescernible to humans," though. I didn't say god's hand in the world writ large (I believe that because I don't believe in god, but I wouldn't expect you to).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you are making the point that ID does 'have' these concepts?
Not in the same way that mathematics 'has' subtraction and multiplication.
Kalikh, in ancient Egypt, is having an argument about how large his farmed lands are. His friend interjects, "use math! it has multiplication!"
It's nature that has complexity and probability. ID merely mentions these concepts -- and as far as I can tell only in the most hazy, unscientific way.
No, not the way mathematics has them, and not the way this proverbial Egyptian used them. I think ID is wrong, but it isn't nonsense to ask whether an explanation is too improbable to accept.
THis reminds me of a discussion at my church of what activities were too risky for outings w/o some sort of (utterly useless) legal disclaimer of responsibility. One of my engineer friends looked up riskiness of activities on the web. It seemed the only things that were riskier than the drive itself (to whatever we did) were skiing and reverse bungee jumping! Small probabilities, inaccurately estimated.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read either of the intelligent design threads yet, but I wanted to share this article from Chicago Tribune columnist Charles Madigan that appears in today's paper:
quote:God's hand in evolution certainly seems to be "undescernible to humans," though. I didn't say god's hand in the world writ large (I believe that because I don't believe in god, but I wouldn't expect you to).
In the scientific theory of evolution? No.
In the end results and in the process itself? I think yes. Again, in a manner that defies scientific evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In the scientific theory of evolution? No.
In the end results and in the process itself? I think yes. Again, in a manner that defies scientific evidence.
Ah, I see the distinction you're getting at. Of course, I don't see it at all, but then you wouldn't exactly expect me to.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will: I would greatly enjoy if you could point me at a single such calculation I can't poke full of holes in seconds Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If people want to teach ID in philosophy class, I'm all for it.
All classes in school should be philosophy classes - and I think they already ARE taught as such, more or less. By this I mean, teachers (or at least my teachers) do not really limit their dicussion to any given topic. They have a focus, but not limits. Science teachers do focus on science, but if science is related to another discipline, they do not shy away on discussing how science and that other discipline interact. For instance, we definitely discussed matters of history in science class, despite the fact they are claims not justified scientificly - macroevolution is an example of that, but so is the origin of civilization, and the history of great scientists, among other things We studied math as well - pure math sometimes, if it will later impact our study of science. And we definitely studied philosophy and anthropology, as we discussed how ancient and modern theories impacted the development of science as we know it.
I think this is how science class SHOULD be. We should be able to discuss the historical biography of Isaac Newton, even though that isn't a matter of science or falsifiable by science - simply for the reason that it relates to science. Similarly, we should discuss Intelligent Design in science class, because it is a very significant current philosophical debate that is deeply connected to evolution. It's in the interest of creating students who can see how one discipline is related to another.
This doesn't mean we should say that ID is scientificly proven, but nor should we say or imply that all of evolution is proven either. Instead we should say which parts of those leading theories have been backed by what evidence, and then explain the contraversy surrounding how those results are to be interpretted into a complete scientific-historical-philosophical theory. This teaches how science ought to operate - in an undogmatic, open-minded fashion that distinguishes what its experiments actually show from what can be legitimately extrapolated from those experiments.
Our students should be as much young philosophers as young scientists, because understanding the the latter really entails a certain understanding of the former. The danger in not also including the philosophy of science in science class is that students will fail to really understand the limits and advantages of the scientific method. It is a problem if they think science is a set of proven beliefs, or if they come to think science contradicts intelligent design - and I suspect that not mentioning the intelligent design contraversy at all would push students in that direction.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:w/o some sort of (utterly useless) legal disclaimer of responsibility
Small aside: As a general rule, people signing them need to be careful. Pre-injury releases are more enforceable than most people think, although many are so badly drafted they are not. But if you can't tell that it's badly drafted and don't have access to legal advice, I would operate as if such a release is binding when deciding to sign or not.
Of course, once injured, see an attorney to figure out if it is binding. Do not fail to investigate a claim because you signed a release.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Similarly, we should discuss Intelligent Design in science class, because it is a very significant current philosophical debate that is deeply connected to evolution.
Intelligent design or theistic evolution?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Will: I would greatly enjoy if you could point me at a single such calculation I can't poke full of holes in seconds
What is this in reference to?
If it's ID's use of probability -- I haven't been able to find a calculation, period. But all I can find so far is debunkers, satire, and a proponent site that talks about ID in education, rather than ID. Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough, ID doesn't even register on the radar as a debate among scientists.
Theistic evolution has a much larger mindshare, but there's no real debate over it, its just that some scientists believe it and others don't.
I'd be fine with ID being (briefly) used as an example of a bad attempt at science in science class, but it should not be presented as science, as it is not. As this would offend many people I'll settle for just not mentioning it at all Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring to any mathematical calculations you might find wrt ID. I realize you're not a supporter at all, but for the notion to be that ID is at all mathematically tied, the mathematics should at least seem moderately reasonable -- one can state one's notion is justified using math all one wants, but it ultimately comes down to a demonstration, hopefully at least semi-rigorous.
Until there's an ID calculation I can't poke full of holes with no particular effort, those calculations don't deserve any serious place in the teaching of science, just like all the other crackpot notions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ID can only be true if not only there's a superior being guiding evolution (which is perfectly acceptable as far as evolutionary theory is concerned), but the action of that superior being may be discerned through a scientific analysis.
Its that second part that's particularly problematic, and which ID demonstrably fails at.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, while your rhetoric is wonderful as always, it's still very much a hug, hug, "I like you folks, but not those idiots who are somewhat like you."
It's a lot like when visitors to my hometown in the Appalachians would sidle up to me and say what a nice fellow I was, nothing like the "poor inbred hillbillies" that lived "up there."
You're a great guy, but man, that was so patronizing.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think ID is wrong, but it isn't nonsense to ask whether an explanation is too improbable to accept.
I agree.
For this to qualify as scientific thinking, however, let's just make sure of three things: - that we are very specific about what we mean by 'improbable' and 'too improbable' - that we are very clear about the 'explanation' that we are thus critiquing - that we do not blindly substitute a different explanation (especially one for which there is no evidence) simply because it agrees with our general belief system.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure you could effectively cover one without covering the other. After all, the original question is whether or not God influences the evolution of species. However, that has led to the question of whether or not this is a matter of science. Both are issues students should think about - and to write one or both off as inherently bad science or contradictory to science would both be inaccurate and give students the wrong idea about what science is.
I think the fundamental problem behind the contraversy is that people (particularly religious conservatives) think that science acts as a set of dogma - and it really is often treated as such by scientists, as far as I can see. The message recieved by many is that scientific dogma states that God does not exist or needs not exist. This is not how science should be viewed, I think - and students should be taught not to view it as such. Instead, we should spend time to illustrate how science looks at theories like ID and either accepts them, falsifies them, or finds them untestable - and given that there is considerable disagreement on which of these categories ID fits in, it would probably be good to let them decide where to classify it, once taught what makes something a valid scientific theory. I'd also think it'd be good to have students question just how much of evolution theory is really scientific, and how much is speculative.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember one phrase from science texts that I abhor: "Scientists say ..." It makes them sound like gurus handing down truth from on high. Sure, "scientists say" that T. rex was a big muthah, but it's better to point out that T. rex skeletons are big muthahs.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd also think it'd be good to have students question just how much of evolution theory is really scientific, and how much is speculative.
This is either lazy language or insidious nonsense. Speculation IS scientific.
Speculation in its most general sense is an absolutely core part of all science -- and especially science education. Combine chemical x and chemical y, and get a bad smell. "Why do you suppose that is?" Drop a rock and a feather in a vacuum, they take the same time to fall. "Why do you suppose that is?" Count bald eagle populations after banning DDT, they are on the upswing. "Why do you suppose that is?" X% of people who smoked heavily for Y years see onset of Z diseases at a rate N% greater than seen for P and Q other populations. "Why do you suppose that is?"
Students should be taught to speculate with an open mind, as scientists often must.
Then there is the 'speculation' that is embedded in the theory of evolution, which is a much more narrow subset of all possible wild-ass guesses, an intricately interconnected tree of assertions, with tomes of supporting evidence.
Much of this speculation is akin to the 'speculation' one makes that a deer crossed one's yard, upon seeing deer tracks in the dirt. We say without hesitation, "a deer!" But maybe it was a rolling stone making an odd pattern. Maybe it was a neighbor playing a trick. Maybe it was a rabbit wearing deer-boots. Maybe we are hallucinating. Maybe it was a benevolent spirit, placing deer tracks there to make us pause, resulting in us not getting run over by a runaway freight car.
But the conventional 'speculation' is accepted without question as literal fact by the vast majority (of people who have shared this experience and know about deer and animal tracks). Kind of like evolution.
Note, I'm not saying that makes it fact. Just that calling something speculation doesn't automatically open it up to blanket dismissal, and isn't an antonym for 'science.'
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd also think it'd be good to have students question just how much of evolution theory is really scientific, and how much is speculative.
See, I'd like for schools to tach philosophy starting at grade 1 all the way up to 12, with the philosophy of science being a clear concern, but I find the idea of doing this with evolution, especially in a context that puts ID on an equal footing as it's natural opposite, to be either pretty dumb or pretty dishonest.
The lessons you're talking about are accessible from pretty much any scientific concept, most of which illustrate these lessons clearer and without the religious (idiotic and otherwise) baggage that goes alogn with it. The only reason that I could see to prefer evolution as compared to ID is as a way to sneakily backdoor ID in there.
But I could be wrong. Why do you think that this should be done with evolution?
posted
John, your posts are really the best summation of the whole ID frenzy I've read.
*** SC Carver:
quote:I was just trying to explain why some people are fighting so hard for ID. I wish I had some more specific examples. There are lots, but I have not really thought about it much in a couple of years. When I was looking into it I remember being constantly hit with things evolution had changed in our collective thinking, most of which were contrary to the Christian view point. I don't think it was usually a direct thing as much as it was the conclusions people drew on their own from evolution.
The problem here is not with evolution or even science in general. The problem is a phenomenon that will always be associated with static institutions and philosophies. I do see that scientific discovery is a very real threat to some brands of religion. Those are the brands that have a vested interesting in claiming to already have, if not all knowledge, then at least all the knowledge God wants us to have.
It is a fact of life that things change. Stasis is death. Large institutions or adherents to static philosophies are doomed to become anacronisms as the world moves on without them. If you feel that new knowledge is changing your world view in a way that is contrary to your current philosophy, perhaps it is a healthy time to review your philosophy. This is not to say that theism (or even Christianity) is wrong. It is to say that perhaps the philosophy you have culled from your religion is inadequate to deal with the world in which you live. This is evidenced when you use phrases such as "the Christian viewpoint". This, and the other ID thread, should be ample evidence that not all Christians are threatened by the ideas of evolution. They are able to take new knowledge and, if not alter their religion, at least view their religion in a new light. Sure some reject their religion in that new light. Others feel they understand it better and are uplifted by the new implications.
***
VID:
quote:I typed out a big, long post about how the natural end of atheism is suicide, but I decided not to expand on it and just leave it at that.
Thank God you took the wiser course. My own experience is totally contrary to that. I believe I came fairly close to suicide once. It was my understanding of my religion and the disjunction that it created with my knowledge of myself and the world at large that nearly took me there. It was the same thinking that saved me from that experience that eventually led me to atheism. I have never come close to such a dark dispair since. I know from first hand experience that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.
There is meaning in my life that does not come from God. Perhaps it is meaning I give it myself, but it is meaning nonetheless. I see value in life, honesty, happiness, integrity, altruism, faith, hope, charity and love all for their own sakes. I do not need to be told they are good by some theoretical supreme being. I can see it for myself. If anything, atheism makes my life more valuable to me than theism ever did.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I like the standard definitions of either term.
I believe that there is no "God". I do not dismiss the possibility of a vastly more intelligent being or beings, but I do pretty much dismiss what most theists mean when they use the word "God". I do not completely dismiss the possibility that this universe was created as opposed to "just happened". If by "God" you mean "creator" and nothing else, then I am agnostic. If you add almost anything else I can think of off the top of my head when you say "God", then I am an atheist.
Does that make sense? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
