The Christian Union

[Setsuna]

[s]Mr Comedy wrote on 03:28, 2nd Dec 2004:

Evolution poses a challenge too. If things evolve, then why is there a need for a god?
I haven't got time to go into all the arguments about this, and I could write a book on the subject. However, I have delved into Biology enough to understand that at the heart of evolution there are assumptions, just like other faiths.
Therefore evolution is also a faith.
(Personally I believe that there is a certain amount of variability. I think that from one cat you can get over time, any sort of cat. But I don't think you can get a dog).
Much as I don't want to turn this into an argument for or against evolution, this is what I have been convinced of.


Evolution is not a faith. Evolution is a mechanism that has been observed in action and is backed up by continuous and careful research, especially over the last 50 years. There are theories and assumptions in evolution, but that is often to be able to quantify such a complex process. There are theories assumptions in Chemistry, Physics and Geology - are they faiths?

If you see lots of beauty in the world, in a scary american beauty sort of way, then thats great. Everything that has evolved exploits an available niche in a habit - therefore they are adapted for 'functionality', like you said. However, there are so many redundant and vestigial traits in many organisms, junk DNA, pelvis in snakes etc. that it seems very odd to include them. Creationists use arguments such as the convergent evolution of an eye (eg. in an octopus and a human), but there are only so many ways you can make a lens for an eye. Functionality again. As for the cat and dog thing you said, go back far enough, and you find a common ancestor for any two species. Speciation is a slow process; a dog doesnt suddenly morph from a cat or anything like that. Nothing was planned - everything just gradually progresses, mutualisms develop, novel characters arise, some exploit others - LIFE!

If you did evolution in second year, Mike Ritchie gave a cracking creationist-bashing lecture that made a lot of good points. Im really bad at arguing a case without someone arguing back. When you learn evolution, very little time is spent on seeing if you 'believe' in it. Instead, they just ask all the creationists in the first lecture to change courses.

[sweet]

Interesting thread, touchy topic. Y'know Mrs Ross told me I was going to hell.. but she's told that to everyone (apart from everyone who believes exactly the same as her, presumably.) Well why should I believe her? Because the Bible tells her so? That I must think something is true, because it's in a book that you tell me is true and has a guilt trip attached... well that isn't enough.

Really God (if there is one, I really don't know) would have to be a complete meany to damn a flawed but basically good person to eternal torture just for doubting His existence.

Maybe we all have a basic need to explain the unexplainable - creation and where we go when we die, and the personal views, predudices, and position of power of those who ran society being biggies.

Maybe back in the day a big man in the sky who created everything (after all the world is a beautiful place) put the people who weren't in your race/religion/sexual preference away in a burny pit, let you into heaven when you died, justified your power... seemed like a plausible explanation to give to the masses.

Maybe (gasp) people lie sometimes. Like, make stuff up. And 'God' is a great threat to make people believe what you say. It just seems much more likely to me that a lot of religion is an elaborate social construct to support certain people's views than the total truth. Sorry.

Anyway I know I've been a bit sarcastic, but I do mean the 'maybe.' Perhaps there is some sort of holy thing out there. Oh, and of course Christianity has some positive things attached too - like tolerance, anti-materialism, anonymous charity, peace love and not murdering your neighbour.

There's a thought maybe the CU should stop reitierating arguments I've already heard and spend that energy doing something worthwhile. (Before Cu members leap down my throat and say you do give to charity, reread that last sentence, I'm not saying you don't give, just that you're wasting your energy on me and people like me! Give toasties to kids in africa.)

And another thing why should people beat themselves up about being gay or having sex before marriage? If its not hurting anyone then why, rationally and without recourse to the word of the bible, should it be bad? 'Unnatural' is not an excuse by the way, and before you start talking about std's remember I said "if its not hurting anyone." Again, I am talking about harmless sex.

[Oirish_Martin]

[s]sweet wrote on 18:55, 4th Dec 2004:
Really God (if there is one, I really don't know) would have to be a complete meany to damn a flawed but basically good person to eternal torture just for doubting His existence.


He thinks a lot of people in this world are meanies for thinking they don't have to pay any respect to their Creator?

[Guest]

[s]Miz Manda wrote on 12:45, 4th Dec 2004:
[s]Tweedle-Dum wrote on 17:00, 2nd Dec 2004:[i]
[i]
4.1.2. My belief in the Bible as the Word of God and as my final authority in all matters of faith and conduct."



Which ofcourse excludes Catholics, as the final authority in matters of faith and conduct is the Pope.
[/i]

Yeah, Catholics technically speaking sign on. Is the thing about the CU praying for the conversion of Ctholics until a few years ago true?

[hr]
Any act of anti-social insanity is immediately sanctified by the magic word 'charity'. As someone once said, if Hitler had invaded Poland 'for Spina Bifida' then everyone would have just let him get on with it.
[/i]



I pray for the converson of the atheist, not the CU. If I heard them praying for me to convert to a protestant denomination then I would have somthing ot say!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pender Native]

Evolution is not a faith.


Something to think about is that science came up in my anthropology of religion course last year - not as the antithesis of religion but as a continuation of it. Basically the argument was that science has a underlying set of practices and ontological and epistemological assumptions, in the same way as any other social action does. For example, to be considered scientific, research has to meet certain criteria, which have been deveoped over time, and meet the expectations of other scientists as to what kind of facts science should discover. Therefore it is a culturally determined practice in the same way a say religion is, and not simply a way of finding out pure facts about the world.


[hr]
I like to listen to a man who likes to talk. Whoops! Sawdust and Treacle, put that in your herring and smoke it!

[LonelyPilgrim]

I have no problem regarding science as a quasi-relgious phenomena.

I am not in any way opposed to scientific inquiry or scientific research as a whole. However, I regard science as nothing more than one of several tools we can use to understand our reality. As such, I am deeply disturbed by those people who place science on a pedestal and idolise it as the be all and end all of knowledge and wisdom.

Science works within a self-limiting framework. It deals only with the physical world. It's inquiries into energy only occur when that energy impacts physically on the world. It assumes a physical cause for every effect and a physical effect for every cause.

Science rejects, by default, inquiry into possible spiritual knowledge since it would be impossible to conduct physical experimentation within the spiritual realm

So, in short, science assumes:

1. All causes and all effects are physical in nature.

2. All causes and all effects are observable.

3. Reality is predictable and understandable.

As you may imagine, philosophers are able to have great fun with this. #2 especially gets the epistomologists in a tizzy. #3 is a favorite for the philosophers of religion as well as the theologians who will ask 'Why is reality predictable?'

I do IR, so I'm not really equiped to handle this debate formally... so if a theologian or philsopher wants to step in now...

[Haunted]

What makes you think that there is a 'spiritual realm'?

[Senethro]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 16:31, 8th Dec 2004:
So, in short, science assumes:

1. All causes and all effects are physical in nature.

2. All causes and all effects are observable.

3. Reality is predictable and understandable.


I have to say that up to now in my life I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I am one of those who puts science up on a pedestal. I don't pretend scientists have all the answers but I do say that its only a matter of time.
With this outlook I do find it hard to believe in the spiritual whether it is religion or otherwise. I also find this area difficult because if any of it is true, then it probably all is. To know that the kiddie wiccans, the ufo believers and the mormons are valid and correct beliefs (not to mention the existance of hell) would be very bitter.

[Haunted]

It would be so much easier if one of the religions was true. Then, when I die and most likely go to hell or whatever I would have the satisfaction of finally knowing the truth. Sure theres the whole eternal suffering thing but it sounds much better than there being 'nothing' after you die.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Well, first I'd say that a realisation of the limitations of scientific inquiry does not automatically result in accepting all and sundry alternative worldviews.

Likewise, if there are UFO's and extraterrestrial beings, this is not a matter outside of science. Extraterrestrial life could be scientifically proven or disproven if we had the requisite level of technology. We do not. To believe in UFO's now requires faith in a currently untestable theory, but does not in itself deny the validity of science to comment on this matter.

As far as spiritual matters go... well, my personally beliefs are mostly formed through personal experiance. I've seen some pretty strange things. However, I would not expect anyone else to believe just because I say so.

My point in criticising science is not that there is a spiritual realm being ignored by science, but that the basic assumptions of science de facto rule out such a realm and therefore prevent people from treating it as a potential reality.

I simply do not agree with idolising a method of inquiry that claims to have the ability to eventually explain all of reality, when it is not equiped to even ask whether there is more to the universe than the physical world. It does not matter to me whether the answer to that question is yes or no, it's the fact that science can not even ask that question, yet alone envision a means of answering it that causes me to regard science as no more than a tool, a very useful tool, for seeking understanding.

[Senethro]

If the interaction of a spiritual realm with our own cannot be measured or even shown to exist then one can assume that it doesn't act upon us. If it does not act upon us and never can then it is not relevant to us. There is plenty of legitimate speculation on alternate realities that are completely inacessible from our own. But if its affect on us can't be measured then we cannot know if it exists.

So why play about with semantics, emotional appeals and word games for something we cannot know? If its effect is there we'll find it.

Science does not reject very much at all. Though scientists, being people too, might reject much on a personal level. A good scientist should admit that he cannot disprove the existance of a divine entity, (But biologists, historians and archaeologists have made what to me is a convincing case against the abrahamic religions and similar).

[flarewearer]

methinks this discussion is just a way to show off how many long words people know...

*clears throat*...

"Zooxanthellae"

i thankyaw

[hr]...it's fuckwittedness. Fuckwittery if you will...

[Greebo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 16:31, 8th Dec 2004:
3. Reality is predictable and understandable.


*whispers the words 'Chaos Theory' and runs away again*

[hr]
http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Senethro]

blah blah blah "chaos theory"

Yes, the universe is PREDICTABLY unpredictable.

[Haunted]

Also, quantum wave mechanics
its all probabilities, there are no determinisms

[LonelyPilgrim]

Well, I never said that the spiritual would not affect this world in a physical manner. It wouldn't be a physical cause, though. As such, science, being unable to explain the cause, would be incapable of replicating the effect, and therefore will not pursue the matter.

Similarly, just because a physical cause results in a physical effect, it could also be reasonable to assume the possibility of a spiritual effect as well, that we would be unable to measure, physically.

[Haunted]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 21:41, 8th Dec 2004:
Well, I never said that the spiritual would not affect this world in a physical manner. It wouldn't be a physical cause, though. As such, science, being unable to explain the cause, would be incapable of replicating the effect, and therefore will not pursue the matter.

Similarly, just because a physical cause results in a physical effect, it could also be reasonable to assume the possibility of a spiritual effect as well, that we would be unable to measure, physically.


Sorry but...

1)Science would endevour to replicate/explain any observed effects/phenomena, NOTHING is dismissed.

2)If there is some underlying 'spiritual world' then it would have its own laws which govern its properties. Properties can be observed, laws can be deduced.

3)There is no evidence of any such sub-world let alone evidence of any effects it may have

4)what?

[joe]

I have never heard a convincing argument for religious beliefs. In the end it seems to come down to faith.

Religious people talk about 'faith' as if it is a virtue, but I can see no more virtue in having an irrational (though perhaps psychologically understandable) belief in a god than having one in some sort of demon or grand tooth fairy. In fact I can see none in either.

I suppose at least faith in god might make people act more decently... Hang on though, that doesn't seem to be what history shows us (Christianity giving us many particularly bad examples).

'By their fruit ye shall know them'

I accept that a religion can be a force for good, and I accept that I cannot rule out the possibility of a benevelovent God. Equally though I cannot rule out the possibility of omnipotent tooth fairy. And I think it is a massive waste of our human faculties to rely on 'faith'.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Joe,

Well, if you are at all interested in finding good arguments for Christian belief that don't revolve around faith, then I would suggest going into a book store and trying to find some books on apologetics.

Too much of contemporary attempts to spread the faith follow the evangelical line... faith, the word of God, personal stories, emotional appeals.

Apologetics refers to the rational defense of faith. There are strong arguments out there, it's a shame that they aren't getting made as loudly as the "I've been born again!" crowd make theirs.

[joe]

Please go ahead and post one. While being open-minded, I strongly doubt you will be able to produce a convincing argument. It would be interesting to see what others make of it.