Secondly, some people would say that Heliocentrism is wrong.  I was in a debate on this subject with some folks, and they presented me with a very detailed geocentric theory which was capable of explaining all observable phenomenon.  From my scientific/mathematical background, I could tell that indeed it was a plausible model of the universe.  However, its key feature is the centrality of Earth, and it is adhered to for that specific reason by these groups.  Plus, for a model to truly be good, it must make accurate predictions about phenomenon not yet tested in addition to explaining observed events.  This is where they could no longer answer my questions.

This is also why the Theory of Gravity, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are so successful, because they each gave us the ability to make predictions of unseen events that proved to be accurate (within our ability to measure them).

Now, I confess that I don't know much about Evolutionary Theory for two reason (I'm not a Biologist, and I don't believe that the resolution of this topic is pertinent to the state of my immortal soul).  However, I am not aware of this theory making predictions that have been verified.  I am also aware of the difficulty of any theory of this nature being verified in this way, but I think it is an interesting and important challenge.

If anybody has any such examples, I'd be interested in seeing them.  Until then, I think bloviating on either side of this 'debate' is pointless. 

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

  1.  The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

  2. The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.

  3. Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

  * Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
  * Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
  * Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
  * Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
  * Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
  * Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
  * Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

  With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.

  4. If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.

Source

However, the first part of your bolded text does not refer to evolution of a species, because no mutations are occurring in the process of natural selection.  Just a small nitpick.  Those less understanding than I would use it as an excuse to ignore all of the good data in the remainder of your citation.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Check out the ID website:

http://www.intellige...

There is nationwide organization called the Alliance for Science which is seeking to combat the influence of the IDers. They have regular meetings in NOVA and DC and they advocate that there is no contradiction between a belief in God and scientific knowledge, including evolution.

I think Copernicus would agree:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Many other scientists believed in God as well, including Einstein.

There was a lengthy trial on ID in the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania recently and there is a PBS special on it here:

http://www.pbs.org/w...

Check out the website for The Alliance for Science. I encourage everyone who does not want to live in a theocracy to join this organization. There are already fugitives from the Truro church here. That's the one which split from the American Episcopal Church because they don't like gays. Check the website for The Alliance for Science:

http://www.alliancef...

Keep in mind that it was Pope Gregory XIII who straightened out the calendar (and that is why it is called the Gregorian Calendar today).  He also built the Vatican's observatory.  Even Galileo had Pope Urban VIII as a benefactor and friend before the Church felt it had to shore up its bona fides when it came to Biblical interpretation in the face of the Protestant Reformation.

And when it comes to Galileo, the Church's position was that of Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (a scientist himself); the literal interpretation of a Biblical narrative must take precedence over a scientific possibility, except in the cases of scientific certainty, when science took precedence.  So keep that in mind when considering this time period.  The Catholic Church has always been more open to scientific inquiry than many Protestant sects who hold to more literal interpretations of the Bible (and whatever interpretations they decide to make!).

As for an example more germane to the topic of evolution, it was Gregor Mendel, the botanist, who made many fundamental contributions to the science of genetics.  He was a monk, a fact not often reported in the scientific community.

Then there was, more controversially, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest who attempted to conflate evolution and Christianity.  Louis Pasteur himself was a firm Catholic, though only a layman, and we are all indebted to him in the microbiological battle against disease.

So let us not engage in our gut reaction to attack religion and religious institutions over this debate.  Quite frankly, that is divisive and only aids the creationist movements because they can then claim victimhood, and many people are more likely to believe them.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

In fact, I attend a church which has no problem with science. Its safe to say that Copernicus had problems with elements of the church even though some accepted and welcomed his discoveries.

By the way, just because I disagree with some people who profess to be religious doesn't mean I am attacking religion. I also disagree with some people in the Democratic and Republican parties, but that doesn't mean I am attacking democracy.

And then I went into history mode.  I tend to get carried away on that subject.  Far too much misinformation running around.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

The creationists rely on a document whose historical validity has been called into serious question for at least two centuries.  We're not just talking whether the Bible should be literally interpreted, but whether it is of much use at all.  I'm reading a book right now by an Iowa State religion professor, Hector Avalos, who argues that the Bible is an inaccurate relic of a bygone civilization and it is no longer worthy of serious study.  (I've read a lot about the history of the Bible and so far Avalos' serious theological references are all on point -- he's basically just summarizing lots of others' investigations.)  In fact he says that many theology professors who dismiss the Bible as a worthy document only continue to write and teach about it because it pays the bills.  The title of the book is The End of Biblical Studies.

In terms of telling us anything about the creation of the world, consider this summary of a book by an archeology professor at Tel Aviv U.:

The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah.

Next time you meet a creationist ask them what they think of Finkelstein's book.

Consider also that many ancient text were ordered destroyed by religious authorities.  President John Adams asked: "Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius?"  Some seem to have been recovered, as discussed by theologian Karen King.  http://www.hno.harva...  King also points out (as have others) that cheats altered Biblical text to aid their arguments, e.g., that women were inferior.  http://www.pbs.org/w...  Prof. Pagels at Princeton has written extensively about the Gnostic Gospels.  "In 367 Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, ordered all the secret, illegitimate books (the Nag Hammadi texts) to be burned, and he named the books that are now in the New Testament as the only correct books." http://www.fordfound...

Historical fictions, textual alterations, attacks against science, destruction of opposing texts -- this is the sacred history which the creationists lean upon.

As far back as the first couple decades of the second century AD, the four Gospels as we know them are identified as those used by the Early Church in the writings of the Church Fathers.  The gnostic Gospels are all written much later, and whose historical significance lies only in shedding light on the beliefs of groups who were opposed to the Early Catholic Church.  They were never, in any way, part of the Early Church tradition.

As to the rest of your post, it is emblematic of overzealousness on the part of those who attack creationists (no matter how much creationists deserve debunking).  You have crossed the line from attacking creationist bad science to attacking religion.  This is why debates on this issue irritate me; some just do not know how to keep the debate on its merits.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

The Gospel of Thomas is believed by some to predate all but Mark.  No one knows for sure.  http://en.wikipedia....

The Gospels were all written well after Christ died -- John about 70 years later.

None of the gospels are internally consistent.  That's been settled since textual analysis in the 19th century.  Jefferson, of course, was smart enough to see this 100 years earlier.  And we're talking about serious errors concerning the major events.

Many well-schooled theologians [e.g., the participants in the Jesus Seminar] believe large parts of the Gospels were fabricated, essentially concluding that only the sayings of Jesus seem reliable. 

Modern scholars hold that there was a wide variety of concurrent beliefs in early Christianity.  Sorry, you're just wrong about this.  Look around you.  Those same conflicting beliefs are alive today.  [For simplicity purposes I'll just use a simple, two-sided comparison.]  First, there's a group that believes in following the institution blindly (which is what the fathers wanted), and the group that takes what the hierarchy says with a big grain of salt.  There are now many more in the latter group, e.g., almost everyone rejects the teachings on birth control.  Indeed, many modern Catholics reject other significant teachings.  (Of course there are gradations of hierarchical adherence.)

And as for historicity of the Gospels, Avalos says "the dirty little secret" of historical Jesus scholarship is that the Graeco-Roman sources used as independent evidence of Jesus' existence all depend on manuscripts of medieval date.  See p. 215 of the Avalos book.

You can believe what you want to believe.  That's what "faith" is.  No one is stopping you.  But my extensive reading has led me to conclude that science says something else about the accuracy and historical value of these texts.  And that's an important point when attacking creationism.

What I find interesting, and illuminating, is that so-called thinking religious people will scoff generally about creationism, but when you start trying to talk about other scientific analysis (e.g., archeology) that throws substantial doubt on other parts of the canon, all of a sudden it is labeled as attacking religion. 

The study of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), has been going on for many more centuries than you cite.  However, trends in the field have actually been turning of late in other directions, and a lot of the research of the past century is no longer being taken as the solid truth.  New discoveries are being made, and the historicity of some things in the scriptures are becoming more plain.

Now, regarding Gnostic texts, I reiterate that most were written much later than the Gospels, and most scholars think that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 2nd century at the earliest. 

However, I wonder why I shouldn't be defensive when you boldly claim that my faith is a lie.  My own research has led me to the opposite conclusion, and don't think I haven't done any.  The problem with science discussing matters of religion is inherent in Biblical criticism.  Namely, science does not possess the language or the capacity to describe or to test God.  The starting point of a lot of this Biblical criticism inherently leads them to the conclusions they've made.

Further, I am reminded of what one Jesus scholar said about his contemporaries, "You will know them by their histories of Jesus."  In other words, I think we learn more about the scholars themselves than we do about Jesus.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Also, there is a book called "The Jesus Papers" which documents facts about Jesus which have been found from other sources. That's interesting too.

The fact is the Bible is a collection of historical writings which happens to document the words of various prophets as well. One can find almost any form of human behavior in the Bible and some can justify anything using the Bible. The latest twist being used by some Evangelicals is to justify torture using the Bible.

Intelligent Design is another misuse which seeks to discredit science using the Bible as a supposed supporting document. The IDers are just religious fasists who want to run our lives. They are aspiring to be the equivalent of Big Brother with a theocratic twist.

"What I find interesting, and illuminating, is that so-called thinking religious people will scoff generally about creationism, but when you start trying to talk about other scientific analysis (e.g., archeology) that throws substantial doubt on other parts of the canon, all of a sudden it is labeled as attacking religion."

You have one attack on religious people in particular that I want to highlight.  The use of the words 'so-called thinking religious' is an implication that a religious person doesn't think.

Quite frankly, that's as historically inaccurate as they come.  I have cited several scientists who were deeply religious in other posts.  And then some of the greatest thinkers of all time were priests or monks (St. Thomas Aquinas for one).  Even Plato and Aristotle in their philosophical explorations concluded that there had to be a divine hand in the universe, even if they didn't know who or what it was!

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Overall, 19% of respondents believed the Catholic Church is the one true church, 14% believed that while not all religions are equally good ways of finding truth the Catholic Church is not the one true church, and a strong majority (68%) strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that all religions are equally good.

Another interesting result:  A majority (58%) of respondents believe that the Church should allow women to be ordained as priests.

Personally, I believe comparative religion should be available as an elective in public high schools (similar to a comparative government course).  However, religious leaders would never go for that because, if taught correctly, each religion's warts (e.g., textual inadequacies) would have to be exposed.

What is wrong with standing up for what I believe to be the truth?  Isn't that what we are all about here as Democrats, standing up for what we believe to be the right thing to do for our state and our country?

As to whether I would vote for an atheist for President, I may, if that individual were the best person for the job.  Religious affiliation is not a 100% determinant of a person's moral compass, as PM has pointed out.  Nor is it the case that some sins lead to bad policy decisions.  Heck, I'll be the first to admit that there have been many Popes whose moral fiber left a lot to be desired!

Is religion something I will take into consideration?  Of course.  It is a part of us, no matter how seriously we take it.  But what we make do with our faith, that is far more important to me than simply what we profess to believe.  The lips may lie, but our actions do not.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

You'll note those were the words I used.  Even the Catholic Church doesn't say all Jews, Muslims, etc.. are going to Hell.  You are proceeding from the assumption that I am stating that only Catholics are going to Heaven, which I, nor the Church states. 

Yes, 'There is no salvation outside the Church', but what constitutes the Church is more than just a building or a hierarchy.

I can think of a few non-Christians off the top of my head who by their actions demonstrated that they loved their neighbor as themselves.  Given more time, I could likely list dozens, if not more.

Nor do I believe that everyone who claims to be a Catholic will be going to Heaven.  I fear for my own soul.

In fact, I generally don't make any claims about individuals, mainly because it is not for me to know.  I do not know the state of their heart at the moment of death, and am not privileged to know.  I can only pray, learn, and share my faith with others who are interested.

Nor is this belief a harsh one.  The history of the world is full of cruelties, especially this most recent century when so many were put to death for the sake of men with power.  My belief is that there is a God who loves us, and wants us to share in His glory forever, and He sent His Son to unite us to Him.  All out of love.  But those who reject His Son and turn away from all His entreaties, how could they be with Him in His glory at the end?

It is not a matter of making friends, Lowell.  I know my beliefs may not win me many.  But I do not adopt these beliefs out of a sense of superiority, or in attempt to cause division.  I believe because I have hope in the promises of Christ, and I recognize my own failures, which are many.

And for those of us who believe, this is what we believe.  It is a message not of exclusion, but of hope and love.  One only need consider the lengths early Christians went to care for each other and those not of their faith.  Charity, as we understand it now, was born in this time. 

Anyway, I hope that sheds some more light on what these beliefs in Heaven and Hell really mean.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

As rationalists have pointed out, Christian missionaries are possibly causing lots of souls to be condemned to eternal damnation because they've introduced the Gospels to them.  If the damn missionaries would just stay home, the poor heathen would have a better chance of it -- they have no opportunity to reject the Gospels.  (And what of the missionary who does a lousy selling job -- versus the one who does a credible job versus the one who could sell the Brooklyn Bridge -- does God grade on the curve so the heathen with the bad teacher gets a break?)

As the Internet spreads knowledge -- even more people are potentially subjected to hellfire -- if they read an apologist blog and think it's silly -- they get fried like bacon.

Also on God's "hell" list: the large number of highly educated theologians who have rejected significant parts of the Gospels.  I guess all those members of the Jesus Seminar are going to Hades.  Here's the list (though not all members agree with all conclusions in the finished product):  http://www.westarins...

Here's a question.  Given the brutality and horror on the earth caused by its creator (assuming there was one) -- tsunami -- famine -- climate change caused by meteors striking the earth, etc. and etc. --  why do apologists expect a fairer deal in an afterlife?  Maybe where we end up is a result of the same random ugly chance that seems to control life on earth. 

There's also a reference in this thread to an NYT op-ed by a physicist on the issue of science and faith (or, as it might be called, belief in the absence of facts).  I had spotted the same major error that PZ Myers did:

Davies lost my respect for his thesis early on, from the first sentence actually, but I'll focus instead on this claim from his second paragraph: "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed." Perhaps this is where not being a physicist has the virtue of a different perspective, because I can say without reservation that he's completely wrong - in a historical science like evolutionary biology, we have no problem when we encounter a phenomenon that isn't orderly or rational, and that has all the appearance of haphazard meaninglessness. We're accustomed to seeing simple chance as a strong thread running throughout biological history.

http://scienceblogs....

Myers has links to some of the scientists who are hopping all over the NYT writer at the bottom of his piece.

And as I've stated, I cannot state whether anyone is going to heaven or hell, or whether they are there or not.  I'm sure many people from the Jesus Seminar believe strongly, if not more so, than do I.

Davies argument is rather weak, and some of his canards are tired, and the refutation of them was sufficient.  However, when confronted by natural events that defy current explanation, do you believe that science will eventually be able to explain them or not?

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

You and I may merely have a different chemical structure, or DNA, or glandular secretions, that causes us to believe certain things and act in certain ways.  I started out as a strong believer, and when I retired I set out to explore (though seeds of skepticism were already there -- I already had waltzed over to the Episcopal religion).  My wife did the same -- reading somewhat different books (though she was raised as a free-thinking Lutheran who believed only part of the Nicene Creed).  We came to the same basic conclusion.  Others have, others have not.  I think of Bart Ehrman, and this young man I read about here. http://debunkingchri...  We both now attend a Unitarian church -- and a fair percentage of people there are either non-believers or solidly agnostic, but feel there is value in exploring moral ideas within a community.  However, I must say, attending a "Christmas Eve" service at such churches is a weird (and perhaps fatuous) experience.

I have enjoyed this debate; I do get emotional at times so forgive me for that.  (It really is in my body chemistry.)  As an evolutionist, I think each of us needs to continue thinking and working so the world can progress.  I see no reason why religious and moral thinking should not evolve too.

Again, thank you for a well thought out debate.

Also, we have remants of body parts which are on their way out, you might say. That is to say that we haven't really figured out what they do and we can live without them. Some of these, like wisdon teeth actually can cause problems.

Other examples are the spleen and the appendix, and some might argue the tonsils. Some think the little toe may be on the way out, but I think that is debatable.

When one looks at the brain one can see the stages of evolution. The reptilian brain in under the areas where logical thinking takes place, indicating that the areas of higher thinking evolved later overlaying the earlier fish brain.

Personally, I think children develop through previous evolutionary stages. They like to climb like monkeys at some stages, and the mental development seems to imitate the stages needed to become a fully consious human.

Of course there are some exceptions where we actually see regression. That is cases where people have been drinking or abusing drugs for a number of years. Sometimes this detroys cells in the higher brain leaving the individual with a more preimitive mode of thinking. A few of these people actually find their way to high political office.

Science and Religion, as both philosophers and theologians have come to understand, operate in different spheres and answer different questions.  For the one to attempt to answer the questions of the other only leads to problems.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

I'm a convert both to Catholicism and to the Democratic Party.  I used to be a WASP Republican of the worst sort.  But I got better. ;-)

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

But if we recognize that science and religion are both seeking answers to our greatest existential yearnings, we have common ground to build  upon.  Can I say this discussion then will be built upon rock, not sand?  Remember, apples and oranges are both fruit! 

I, however, think this needs a strong nuancing.  I believe that human beings are innately curious, information seekers.  We are small animals in a grand and awesome universe and we seek meaning therein.  The biggest questions that, taken as a whole, humanity does not have consensus answers for are: (1) Who are we? (2) Where did we come from? (3) What is our purpose? (4) Where are we going? (5) Is there life after death? 

Science and religion, operating on their own paradigmatic and epistemological guidelines, seek to answer these questions.  Atheism and agnosticism also posit a set of answers to the above questions.  Science is grounded in ratio-empiricism, verifiability, reproducibility, and the need for peer-review.  Religion, Western Religion more precisely, takes a different approach: an acknowledgment of the self-revelation of a Loving and Benevolent Creator-God.  Both of these epistemological paradigms provide a set of answers to our questions about what it means to be human in this universe. 

Are we random-chance occurrences of the Big Bang Theory, or did God create us and the universe?  Is there a Big Crunch/Freeze or a time where God will be "all in all."  Is death the permanency of our individual lives or is there a post-mortem reality? Or, in all of these questions is there some creative interplay between these schools of thought?

So it isn't that they are apples and oranges.  Science and Religion are doing the same thing: providing answers to our deepest existential questions.  Their approaches, however, are grounded in different epistemological tenets and approaches.  And as today's New York Times editorial perceptively states, these approaches are grounded in faith statements.  The truth is, we are all grasping at mist.  We recognize that there is finite human comprehensibility in relation to the Unknown Other.  Yet, we have to make claims about the Unknown Other in order to function, behave, and relate in this world.

But I am no Stephen Jay Gould.  Just the humble thoughts of a Divinity School graduate seeking my own set of answers.

Peace,
Drew

As a side note, I really enjoy these debates, when handled responsibly.  I think, as Democrats, we need to have these discussions.  What is the healthy and responsible balance of Religion in the public and governmental spheres?  When the Republicans unhealthily posited that religion should strongly influence public policy, Democrats went to the other extreme: religion is private and should hold little to no place in policy discussions.  I don't think this is healthy either, and has lost Democrats a lot of votes over the years.  Debates like this allow us to fine-tune the Democratic message on a healthy balance of religion in politics. Again, my humble thoughts on the matter at hand.

She also thinks discussing theology on blogs is a fruitless endeavor, and I think she's correct.  (I don't think anyone here is going to run down the street and say -- "My heavens, the Free Will Reformed Dutch Scottish Rite Lutherans were right all along!")

I'd like to add the point that many parts of Europe have largely abandoned religion, are getting along nicely in their lives (with high contentment indices), and are killing a lot fewer people than when they were heavily religious. 

You make a very good point about the different epistemological methods in both religion and science.  As a Mathematician, I can assure you that we use many different methods to approach every problem.  But to add another layer of nuance, you need to use the proper tool, methodology, etc... to properly address the problem, and there is no one tool that handles everything.

Thanks for your thoughtful insight.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

"But, it is important to remember that intelligent design does not really support any particular religion. In its simplest form, the argument is that billions of years ago, someone of unknown identity designed the first cell or cells on earth that already contained all information necessary to produce descendant organisms.

This may seem far-fetched, but in fairness it should be pointed out that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, thinks that life on earth may have begun when aliens from another planet seeded our planet with spores. It is but a small step to think that an advanced civilization on another world might design an artificial cell from scratch. An agreement that cells may have been designed does not imply that the designer was necessarily God."

So proving some sort of intelligent design doesn't necessarily prove the existence of God anyway.  A belief in God is an act of Faith. (Seems to me Christ said something about believing even when one hasn't seen...) Don't know why many so-called Christians want to waste so much time arguing about logistics and terminology.  Seems to me that Christ would much rather they concern themselves with feeding the poor, healing the sick, befriending the friendless, comforting those who mourn, etc.

See also:
http://themanitoban....

It was discovered that the book was begun before it was illegal to teach creationism in school. The author had been using that term and drafts were found which showed that the author later struck the term creationism and substitued intelligent design instead. Some of the creationists terminology made it into the book anyway accidentally.

This is conclusive evidence that the ID people are just creationists in different clothing. This is one reason they lost the case in Pennsylvania and were not allow to teach ID in schools. It was proven that ID is just creationism warmed over and teaching creationism is illegal.

Why do they waste time worrying about proving "intelligent design"  instead of trying to better the sorry state of  The Human Condition as we know it to exist?  By spending time on such  matters they aren't living up to the things Christ told everyone to do.

I'll just let the story speak for itself:

Controversy erupts after schools pull 'atheist' book

Updated Fri. Nov. 23 2007 3:10 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Centre for Inquiry and the Canadian Secular Alliance is calling an Ontario school board's decision to remove a children's book from its library shelves, "an overt example of the discrimination against atheists by the religious."

The Halton Catholic District School Board ordered "The Golden Compass" to be removed from library shelves at dozens of schools after receiving a request for review from a member of the community.

The book, written by popular British author Philip Pullman, has won numerous awards including the Maine Student Book Award and the American Library Association's Best Books for Young Adults award.

Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, is urging the books be returned to shelves "so that libraries may continue to be places of learning and imagination."

"Some of our greatest authors, philosophers and scientists have been atheists. If books written by atheists are banned for not conforming to Catholic worldviews, will the school board proceed to ban books deemed pro-Muslim, pro-Buddhist, or even pro-Protestant if they are critical of Catholicism?," Trottier asked in a statement on Thursday.

"Pretty soon the only book in their library may be the Bible."

The board -- which oversees some 43 elementary and secondary schools in Ontario -- has pulled the book from public display and two other Pullman titles from the "Dark Materials" trilogy. The books are available to students upon request.

Of course, my question is, what books advocating religious belief do you think should be allowed in a public school?

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

By the way, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury,  argues that Pullman's criticisms of religion "are focused on the constraints and dangers of dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself."  Exactly right.  Also, see here for the Archbishop of Canterbury's call that Pullman's books "should form part of religious education in schools."

While one can derive interpretations of works not deliberately intended by the authors, I think one must give weight to his statements to understand what he meant to accomplish with these books.

But I think my earlier question is still pertinent: what books  that advocate religion and faith would you want in your public school library?

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Pullman said the Narnia books contained "a peevish blend of racist, misogynistic and reactionary prejudice" and "not a trace" of Christian charity.

"It's not the presence of Christian doctrine I object to so much as the absence of Christian virtue," he added.

"The highest virtue - we have on the authority of the New Testament itself - is love, and yet you find not a trace of that in the books."

Quite different from what you're trying to argue.

Source

I'm not interested in banning his book, but I do understand why others would want to. 

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

The inquisition is an example of how the temporal government used Christianity to enforce obedience. All this had nothing to do with Christ's teachings which basically boil down to "In him (God) there is no Greek (pagan) or Jew". This is a quote from Christ's own words so you can see how Christ's teachings have been distorted and used for political reasons.

Let's face it. Christ was just too inclusive for most people. I guess that's why he ended up on the cross.

Constantine called a Council because at the time the Arian heresy was tearing the Church apart, and he wanted to see Christendom united.  The Nice Creed was a product of this Council, and was recited to help properly form the faith to combat Arianism (Arianism claimed that Jesus was a created being, and hence, less than God).

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

As for Athanasius, champion of what became the orthodox version of the Trinity:

Some modern historians suggest that the tactics of Athanasius were a significant factor in his success. He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force. In Alexandria, he assembled a group that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement "built up and perpetuated by violence."[16] Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents. Unsurprisingly, these tactics caused widespread distrust and led him to being tried many times for "bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder.[17] While the charges rarely stuck, his reputation was a major factor in his multiple exiles from Alexandria. He justified these tactics with the argument that he was saving all future Christians from hell.

Pagels notes that the concept of eucharist was familiar to pagans of the time, who practiced it.  And of course the celebration of Christmas is widely recognized as a copy of Mithraic worship.  Some say many other concepts, such as the virgin birth, etc., were all borrowed from Mithras.  My brother's long stay in the Middle East allowed him to see Mithraic religious art, and he said it looks stunningly Christian, right down to the halos.

As to Constantine's anti-antisemitism, it arguably had its roots in the seeds intentionally planted by the Gospel writers to foment opposition to the Jews; Pagels has pointed out that the Jews get blamed increasingly the later the Gospel writing.  Pagels: "The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics."  And Pilate gets more "innocent."  Go and compare yourself, reading John Chapters 18-19, and compare it with, e.g., Mark 15.  And ask yourself -- how did 70 years after the crucifixtion the writer of John know the exact dialogue held in private between Pilate and Jesus? 
Sounds all made up to me.

I'll leave you with this quote from Homer Simpson: "But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder." 

Reading through the material on Athanasius, we find that scholars are divided on this issue, with many claiming that these accusations against him are overblown or not supported by the historical record.  Either way, his life was a harrowing one, having been exiled many times with his life under threat.

Regarding Christianity borrowing from Mithraism, it is certainly true that some Christian art in the 4th century borrowed from Mithraic art.  It was a common practice in that day and age to do so.  However, Roman Mithraism (in contrast to Persian Mithraism), which featured Mithras astride a bull, has no historical antecedents prior to 80 AD, which is after the composition of the Synoptic Gospels (according to most Biblical critics).  I think the likelier situation is that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity in its competition (something that Justin Martyr points out in one of his second century writings).

And I don't think the Dec. 25 parallels hold much water, because at the time, every religious sect under the sun celebrated that day (it was the Winter Solstice at the time).  Further, the selection of that day corresponds more to Jesus's death during the Passover feast and to the ancient Jewish custom of ascribing an integral number of years to a prophet's life (thus, Jesus would have died on the same day he was conceived).

Good quote from Homer Simpson.  He's absolutely right.  It is why, in studying my faith, history, and the various challenges to it, that I left my roots in Protestantism and embraced Catholicism.

I used the same criticism of conservative policies versus progressive policies when forming my political beliefs, and it is why I am generally on the left with most issues. 

We have both reached different conclusions, and I doubt we will convince each other of the rightness of our own position.  However, in the future, you might want to refrain from insinuating that religious people do not think, as it is rather offensive.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

I dare say Constatine would consider a lot of the Christian religions we have today as heresies. One man's heresy is another man's true faith.

BTW, I see no problem believing Christ was both a man and holy, a holy man you might say. All he said about himself was that he was a son of God, but he also said we all are capable of being sons and daughters of God.

I would even go so far as to say Jesus might be outraged that he has been deified if he came back today. His emphasis seemed to be on finding the will of God, not that he was God. -Just my interpretaion, of course.

The first: 'A Rabbi Talks With Jesus' by Jacob Neusner and Donald Harman Akenson.  Neusner is a Rabbi, and places himself in the time of Jesus, as if he were an eyewitness to the events as portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.  He decides in the end not to follow Jesus, and he states very clearly why.  But he does recognize that Jesus did not claim to be a mere teacher.  Heartily recommended.

The second: 'Jesus of Nazareth' by Pope Benedict XVI.  The current Pope is a scholar and an academic, and takes such an approach to the subject.  However, he tries to present a view of Jesus in light of the whole of scripture, and of what came after.  His insights and meditations into our understanding of Jesus is truly thoughtful and has helped me understand and appreciate the contributions of both the Church Fathers, and more recent Biblical Scholars.

Thank you so much for providing a thoughtful discussion on this difficult subject. It is probably best if we let it lie or now and get back to the real reason why we're here at Raising Kaine. :-)

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

... the U.S. Conference of Bishops recently issued its official review of the film - and it's a rave.

Writing for the Catholic News Service (catholicnews.com), critics Harry Forbes and John Mulderig call the movie "lavish, well-acted and fast-paced."

[...]

"Is Pullman trying to undermine anyone's belief in God? Leaving the books aside and focusing on what has ended up on screen, the script can reasonably be interpreted in the broadest sense as an appeal against the abuse of political power."

Addressing the question of whether the film may inspire teens to read the books, the writers suggest that "rather than banning the movie or books, parents might instead take the opportunity to talk through any thorny philosophical issues with their teens."

The religious themes of the later books may be more prominent in the follow-up films, they note, but for now "this film - altered, as it is, from its source material - rates as intelligent and well-crafted entertainment."

Exactly what I've been saying all along.   Thank you Catholic bishops!

This all reminds me of an anecdote from my college years in Georgetown.  A really nice guy, whose father was head of the Philosophy Department, came back from class one day, and with a quizzical look on his face said "Prof. so-and-so apparently thinks that every poem ever written is symbolically about the Crucifixion and Resurrection."

How can so many be victims of mass delusion, the believers say.  Anyone who has read about the madness of crowds, or browsed through the Harper Torchback series on the psychology of religion will see how those are recruited to faith, through their impelling psychological need for answers and an anchor in their lives.  Sadly, as history adequately demonstrates, the goodness that might come from these journeys instead, throughout the millenia, turned to repression, torture and murder of those who disagree with the brands of the powerful.

It's heady reading to learn how, for example, Thomas Merton's driving internal forces swept him into the priesthood (The Seven Story Mountain), but it also illustrates how man cannot accept what his reason should be telling him about all that there  is to our lives, four score lucky years and then nothingness.

All this talk, and yet I always see (of course with some exceptions) those believers mourning the passage of life in their children, relatives and friends, they themselves so fearful of death at age, say, 95, when they should be rejoicing, if they truly believed.

To those irrationals who do not believe in evolution, preferring creationism or ID, the preference from which this debate sprung, I suggest that you view those ape-like creatures from whence Darwin says we sprung, then view our President--then, and only THEN, tell me you doubt the theory of evolution through natural selection. 

Even science requires a measure of faith to appreciate.  When confronted with situations you cannot explain, or with unresolved tension between competing theories (here I think of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity which have yet to be synthesized) you must have faith that an answer will eventually be worked out.

In politics, we desperately need a measure of faith that even the Democrats we elect will do the right thing and not cave into the corporate taskmasters!  That and a very watchful eye. ;-)

I haven't read "The Seven Story Mountain", but I did read Thomas Merton's "In The Sign of Jonas".  If you are interested in reading a spiritual biography in our modern times, I can think of nothing better.  Merton achieved depths that I can only grasp at.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim