Disbelief is not a choice

It's so nice to see intelligent people debate topics without insulting other groups or beliefs, or resorting to coarse language in their descriptions.

Too bad this isn't one of those threads.
 
A sweet little granddaughter was being babysit by her Granny and Grandpa.
She ask grandmother: "Where did all the people come from?"
Granny says, "A very long time ago there lived the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. They had children just like you and many more children were born throughout the many years. Now we have all the people you see."

Later that day the granddaughter ask grandfather: "Where did all the people come from?" Grandpa says, "Many, many years ago there were only apes and monkeys but over time people came from them. Today we still have apes and monkeys but also many people."

Confused she went back to Granny and repeated what Grandpa said. She ask Granny: "How can both stories be right?"

Grandmother answered, "Very simple my darling, Grandpa told you about his side of the family and I told you about my side of the family."
 
It's nice to see people use rational thought and logic in threads rather than always comment from a dogmatic and judgmental position. Too bad this isn't one of them.
 
Cheetah said:
not to be rude... But maybe his religious views really does not matter when discussing science/the history of space flight?
Click to expand...

I know you are not trying to be rude, neither am I. I read a lot about Wehrner Von Braun. He was a former Nazi Rocket Scientist, and atheists are quick to point that out. He was also a very devout religious man. He once explained what his religious beliefs were in regards to science. He felt that science is simply a tool to be used to understand the natural universe.

Nowadays, if you were to tell school children that the man who came up with the scientific technology to land men on the moon was a creationist - it might blow them away. Especially when reknown atheists are known for quotes such as "Science flew men to the moon, religion flies men into buildings .. "

No .... it was a religious scientist who flew men to the moon. It was religious fanatics that took down the twin towers.

Science should never be used as a tool to eradicate religion. It is silly to see the attempt to use it as such a tool.
 
Regarding the inventor of rockets: so were Galileo and Johannes Kepler; they were devout followers until their death beds. They both had to change their theology to fit their discoveries. Kepler struggled for years consoling his Protestant upbringing; but he eventually aligned his belief with science. Just because one is a creationist doesn't means one can't be flexible in the face of new evidences.
 
Copernicus was even before Galileo and Kepler. There was nothing in their theories that was contradictory to biblical creation.
 
Reba said:
Copernicus was even before Galileo and Kepler. There was nothing in their theories that was contradictory to biblical creation.
Click to expand...

Actually, it did. It conflicted with how people interpreted the Biblical creation of that time period. Of course, we no longer see it that way. But Copernicus's works were suppressed on theological grounds.

But Kepler's biggest problem was he honestly believed Platonic solids were proof of a creator. After all, only a supreme being could create such beautiful symmetry as they were mathematically perfection so therefore they were inherit in everything in the natural wold.

It took him to reconcil disproof of the solids did not equate to disproof of his own religion.

Kind of like the whole "the eye is perfect" argument, only reframed.
 
Steinhauer said:
Science should never be used as a tool to eradicate religion. It is silly to see the attempt to use it as such a tool.
Click to expand...

You can't eradicate spirituality. The context may change, but people are still prone to believing in something beyond the physical realm.

Look at the New Age movement. These people are atheists and agnostics because what they were taught didn't jive with their parents' beliefs, but they are still very anti-science; despite the fact they USE science to validate their view-points. The mere existence of astrology and alternative medicine is anti-science. These people believe in Deepak Chopra who claimed to fully understand quantum physics! Any serious physicist will says if one think they understand quantum, then they really don't have a clue at all.

The point is: science won't be able to eradicate religion. It can only disprove commonly held beliefs (or formerly held beliefs) such as the Flat Earth or how why lightenings and thunders occur.
 
souggy said:
Actually, it did. It conflicted with how people interpreted the Biblical creation of that time period. Of course, we no longer see it that way. But Copernicus's works were suppressed on theological grounds.

But Kepler's biggest problem was he honestly believed Platonic solids were proof of a creator. After all, only a supreme being could create such beautiful symmetry as they were mathematically perfection so therefore they were inherit in everything in the natural wold.

It took him to reconcil disproof of the solids did not equate to disproof of his own religion.

Kind of like the whole "the eye is perfect" argument, only reframed.
Click to expand...
The point is, these men of science, and many others over the centuries, didn't become atheists even though they were men of science. They continued their scientific work and yet never gave up their faith in God. None of their theories or discoveries contradicted anything in the Bible.

What specific church hierarchies enforced isn't the same thing as personal belief in God.
 
Reba said:
The point is, these men of science, and many others over the centuries, didn't become atheists even though they were men of science. They continued their scientific work and yet never gave up their faith in God. None of their theories or discoveries contradicted anything in the Bible.

What specific church hierarchies enforced isn't the same thing as personal belief in God.
Click to expand...

Reba, I am going to ask a moderator to lock the thread if the Bible isn't disengaged from the conversation. There are passages which justify the geocentric viewpoint of the universe. So, no, their discoveries really did contradict what was commonly touted.
 
souggy said:
Reba, I am going to ask a moderator to lock the thread if the Bible isn't disengaged from the conversation. There are passages which justify the geocentric viewpoint of the universe. So, no, their discoveries really did contradict what was commonly touted.
Click to expand...
Your topic is "Disbelief is not a choice."

Disbelief in what?
 
Consider when the essay was written and where. It's written by an American during the presidential election. Right now, the major issue among Republicans is the debate over evolution. So far, the candidates who are sweeping through the ridings are anti-evolutionists.

Now, one of the major motto being touted is that evolution is a belief. A belief is a choice. He is arguing it is not a choice whether or not evolution is fundamental to them. They know it's true.

I know Niose uses Dawkins as an example, but it was Bernard Russell who argued every single being on this planet is essentially agnostic. He also argued atheism is more of a practicality than actual certainty. However Dawkins could choose any number of compatible models from pantheism and liberal Christianity to Paganism to Hinduism and Buddhism or Taoism. He just rejected his upbringing because what he was taught to believe in as a child and as a teenager didn't coincide with what he learned in university.

Since we can neither prove or disprove there is a supernatural being, let alone whose supernatural being, we cannot discard evidences based on argument of "it's a choice to believe in that!"
 
souggy said:
Consider when the essay was written and where. It's written by an American during the presidential election. Right now, the major issue among Republicans is the debate over evolution. So far, the candidates who are sweeping through the ridings are anti-evolutionists.
Click to expand...
Really? The major issue amongst Republicans is evolution? I thought it was taxes and unemployment, with a smattering of national security.

Of course, I'm not a Republican so maybe I'm out of that loop.

Now, one of the major motto being touted is that evolution is a belief. A belief is a choice. He is arguing it is not a choice whether or not evolution is fundamental to them. They know it's true.

I know Niose uses Dawkins as an example, but it was Bernard Russell who argued every single being on this planet is essentially agnostic. He also argued atheism is more of a practicality than actual certainty. However Dawkins could choose any number of compatible models from pantheism and liberal Christianity to Paganism to Hinduism and Buddhism or Taoism. He just rejected his upbringing because what he was taught to believe in as a child and as a teenager didn't coincide with what he learned in university.
Click to expand...
I guess I rejected my upbringing, too. Throughout all my school years, I was taught evolution. When I was about 29, I turned from evolution. So, that would be a choice.

Since we can neither prove or disprove there is a supernatural being, let alone whose supernatural being, we cannot discard evidences based on argument of "it's a choice to believe in that!"
Click to expand...
Especially since we're not even allowed to discuss the supernatural being's existence.
 
Wirelessly posted

Sure. Those are concerns for everyone. However it is quite disturbing even Ron Paul employed the point as part of his platform when he realized he's up against Rick Perry and Bachmann. Mitt Rommey seems to be mum on this point. Honestly, there are lots of libertarians who are hoping Mitt will win the primary because he's silent on how children should be educated; even if he doesn't represent the statist ideology.

What is more intriging is: what convinced you evolution is wrong? It can't be based in theology because in every debate with pro-evolutionist Christians and Muslims, and Old Earth Creationists, their viewpoints are both logically and theologically sound; so neither necessarily conflict with the other. So, there must be something much more which persaude the two are not compatible. Why?

I know for myself, I struggled with accepting the theory of evolution because it was such a simple concept, it couldn't possibly explain everything! There were too many things left unaccounted for, I reasoned.

However over the recent years, I came to discover, simplicity does not equate to lack of the complexity in application. Evolution in itself is extraordinary complex, and the more one reads up on the dynamics of genes and how nature doesn't favour the fittest; but rather the most stable, then it became acceptable to me. It took about fifteen years for me to come to term with it. It really does explain the natural world as we see it, it just requires looking past the "nature is red in teeth and claws" basis.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

What is intriging is: what convinced you evolution is wrong? It can't be based in theology because in every debate with pro-evolutionist Christians and Muslims, and Old Earth Creationists, their viewpoints are both logically and theologically sound; so neither necessarily conflict with the other. So, there must be something much more which persaude the two are not compatible. Why?
Click to expand...
Not intriguing enough to break the AD rule. :lol:

Yes, "young earth" (six-day) creation can be based on theology, and supported by science.

Evolution and Christian theology are not compatible. If you want to know why, I'd have to break the no-B***e or religion rule, so you put me into a bind.
 
There is no bide. There are numerous people who don't see it as biding because they can explain it without the Bible while still having faith in the Bible..

I am just asking you what seems to be unacceptable? The gaps in the fossil records? The seemingly unexplained diversity in life? The complexity of the cosmos?

However accepting the Bible has complex logical underpinning. One just doesn't wake up and start accepting what it says, especially after three decades. Events have to occur for one to start questioning the existence of his or her former belief system. I know of one Young Earther because to her: "nothing exploded for no reason creating everything then everything rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into tiny, self-replicating bits, which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
 
Steinhauer said:
It was science that continued to support segregation as well as the T-4 euthanasia mercy killing centers of the Third Reich. Not saying that all science is bad - it can be used for good and evil.

It was religion, specifically, the teachings of religion, that ended segregation.

It was also a devoutly religious man that allowed our nation to land on the moon. He was a creationist, but why don't students ever learn about that?
Click to expand...

... What? Are you implying that religion alone is responsible for ending segregation as well as the creation of the Gemini/Mercury/Apollo program...?

I'm sorry but that is a really weak argument. Especially when I can give you many examples of how people who did bad things are also "religious." Religion can play a part in one's upbringing and defining their character, but religion alone does not encourage people to fight for civil rights nor encourage people to pursue science. Honestly, in my opinion, it barely makes a difference. Considering that the majority of people are affiliated with religion, it would be pretty common that a religious person can do good/valuable things.

In fact, I can prove it to you with a quote from Wernher von Braun.

"My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"

Sounds like he wasn't even that religious before tinkling with science. He became more religious as he went deeper in science. But that's just my opinion.

I do agree that one does not have to believe in science OR the Bible/Creation/God/etc., as if they are mutually exclusive. I also agree that they do adjust their viewpoints in light of new evidence.

For example, the age of Earth, dinosaurs, first humans, evolution, etc. One can still believe in Creation but now adjusted the "6 days" to be a metaphor instead of literally. "It could be 1 day to God, but not 1 day as WE perceive it today." Something like that.
 
Back
Top