A question about Religon and Progress

[FrostyBoy]

I've been watching a lot of Dawkins and Hitchens vid's on YouTube (sparked from having just read God Delusion (went on holiday, need something to read on beach)). So while my mind is probably overflowing with anti-thiesm by now, one question has come to me which I find interesting.

According to the video's, the majority of American's believe in a God, approximately 70%+, although I'm sure the real number is much lower, one of the main reasons being that most Americans are either having difficulties admitting it or don't know/don't care.

And much of developed Europe is on the flip-side of America.

So my question is, what holds for a nations future and position of power that does not embrace science by facts, but by foolish ideas such as ID? Would it collapse? Would it fall behind? Are we seeing something similar like that happening now?

And a second question, why does it seem to be difficult for a thiest to cross-examine their own belief and the understanding of natural selection? It seems thiests/believers immediately reject any answers given by any scientists/debators, whilst those scientists/debators have a previously understood knowledge of theology. The thiests don't seem to know what they're talking about, the discussions/debates quickly turn into what seems like adults v's children, which gets pathetic, and I ask myself why these intellectual people waste their time against childish arguments? Then I turn on the T.V. (or actually in my case, read the news online) and I can quickly see why.

Here are some of my favourite video's:

Richard Dawkins:





----

Christopher Hitchens
(I love it when he says "No, that would be absurd".)



----

For laughs:




Ali G

[Japher]

I think you are making sweeping generalizations... not like I'm against that. However, if you think that a couple of blowhards are going to dictate the progress of our individual nations my advice would change my way of thinking. Those who tend to know the least about something seem to be the same people who talk the most about it.

70% of Americans believe most likely because the majority of Americans are 50+ and need to believe in God because they are all about to die! Or, they have matured enough to realize The Truth. I think if you took a similar poll on the college campuses you will find a more liberal mind set, and thus less religious people. If, for some reason, you think progress only comes from atheists (which is a wrong opinion) than I wouldn't worry about it, since a lot of the US youth are ignorant like that.

Anyway, I am certain nations will get left behind. The US will be playing catch up on the stem cell issue, for example. However, these are minor hiccups that will not slow progress only refocus who reaps the benefits, and I have no problem with that. Perhaps it will wake up some people.

[SlowwHand]

You and your education via You Tube is your problem. It doesn't mean you 're correct, it means you're lazy.

[FrostyBoy]

Slowwhand, once again, posting without really saying anything.

[Elok]

1. Learn to use apostrophes correctly.

2. It doesn't speak much to your "open-mindedness" if you listen to professional asswipes like Dawkins and Hitchens who make their money preaching to the (Godless) choir. Gee, you listened to someone who fired you up about your own preconceived notions, you're much better than silly theists who let clergymen manipulate them.

3. ID has been repeatedly beat down and belittled by the courts for most of a century now. Fundies are a definite minority, just a very loud and obnoxious one.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Slowwhand, once again, posting without really saying anything.

I said exactly what I meant, and your response verifies my opinion. You've lost the ability to think, Mobius. I mean, Frosty. Excuse me.

[OzzyKP]

Considering the USA has been strongly religious for all of its 200+ years of existence and considering that the USA is one of, if not THE top innovator in the world for much of those 200 years it is rather silly to say that religious belief is going to somehow harm us in the future.

[FrostyBoy]

Slowwhand, I don't care that you said what you meant, my point was that you consistently nitpick anything but the topic at hand, maybe you fail to seperate paragraphs or whatever, don't you get that whether or not I got my information from youtube or The Great Oracle doesn't stop you from answering the question. That is my gripe with you; you time and again do this, you just post stupid one liners that don't really contribute to anything.

The question is good, the rest of my paragraphs is just jibberish, it's not important to refute, it's not important to worry yourself over.

[FrostyBoy]

OzzyKP, I better jump in and say that I do agree with you, I don't want anyone misunderstanding me, I am simply asking to get a more informative view since I do not live in America (and of couse, have not heard anyone ask this question).

The subject does not primarily have to be America, it could be any country.

[Robert]

that does not embrace science by facts

It's most of the time not the fact that causes the difference of opinion but the conclusion people draw from the facts.

I do accept science, but I do not accept everything that's scientific. Nobody does, btw. Scientists are also human and make mistakes. There have been many scientific theories that later turned to be wrong nevertheless.

That's not a problem, that's how we make progress.
We come with a theory, then we come with a better theory.

but by foolish ideas such as ID

ID isn't foolish. It's most probably not an alternative for evolution. But as a tool to show some problems in evolution, it's very effective.

Perhaps there are answers to the questions raised by ID that do not need a designer indeed. That doesn't mean that those questions shouldn't be raised.

Not to forget to mention that ID is supported by very well educated scientists. Maybe they're wrong. That doesn't mean they're foolish.

Darwin was wrong about many mechanics he imagined behind evolution. That's why we now have the 'neo darwinistic theory of evolution'.
Does that make Darwin a fool?

I think it's only foolish to call others who disagree with you a fool.

So my question is, what holds for a nations future and position of power that does not embrace science by facts, but by foolish ideas such as ID? Would it collapse? Would it fall behind? Are we seeing something similar like that happening now?

Our modern science and culture is a result of the reformation. It's the reformed vision on christianity that settled the grounds for freethinking and modern science.

It's not for nothing that the christian nations are most developped at this moment.
Not to mention that there are many many christian scientists who are very well respected in their fields.

And a second question, why does it seem to be difficult for a thiest to cross-examine their own belief and the understanding of natural selection?

Dude, I am cross-examining my believes and thoughts about 50 times a day. I have many questions regarding my faith. I have many problems and things I can't find an answer on.
I am being forced to rethink my position many times a day.

And eventhough I have many technical questions on the history of the Bible and rational troubles with christian concepts, I still am absolutely sure that evolution from 1-cell-organism to human is bollocks.

Even if I become an atheist tomorrow, then I will still reject evolution as presented these days by the neo-darwinistic theory of evolution.

Don't act like you're the only one who's thinking.
My thoughts are killing me. I'm thinking about these issues hours per day. Sometimes they make that I can't sleep.

And everytime I still conclude that there must be a God and that evolution is bollocks.
I can be wrong, maybe I am, but please stop acting like "those christians never think".

Not to mention of course that what you said about christians can be said about you as well.
Maybe you reject ID or God without rethinking it.... Maybe you do not accept arguments or evidence. Maybe maybe maybe......

But we have no use for maybes. Why can't we accept that both parties in this debate can be thinking individuals who have different opinions?
Why always that "I am smarter then thou" attitude?

You are not smarter then me. period. You show that by posting bollocks like: "Christians never rethink their position" or "If christians would only understand natural selection...."
How simplistic....

It seems thiests/believers immediately reject any answers given by any scientists/debators, whilst those scientists/debators have a previously understood knowledge of theology.

Stop kidding me.
When I read your holy Dawkings I laughed my head off b/c of the stupid things he says about religion.
I really had troubles breathing when he claimed that "the universe can be self-existing if God can be self existing". That's really really really such a form of poor reasoning that it's embarashing that that many people hold him high.

You just saw a lot of atheistic propaganda of very poor quality. You are brainwashed.
Like those many people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job after viewing those conspiracy theory-videos.

The thiests don't seem to know what they're talking about, the discussions/debates quickly turn into what seems like adults v's children

Sure, you're smart and we are all dumb and stupid.
We know nothing, you know everything.
How could I doubt your message. I should accept it as the final word on everything.

We theists suck big time, we are all mentally incapable to think. We follow our preachers blindly.

People like you are awesome! You are a free-thinker. You base your opinion on people like Dawkins, but you don't follow Dawkins blindly, nooooo, you create your opinion after having read many books, both from theists and atheists.

I am sorry that I am not like you.
I'm sorry that I am a sheep.
Please teach me how to become like you.

Seriously, I have read books from both theists and atheists. Many theistsic books hold a lot of bollocks. Like many atheist books hold a lot of bollocks. (did I mention Dawkings 'the universe can be self-existent if God can be self-existent' remark already?)

But also do both sides of the debate hold good arguments. I've learned many things from people who hold a different opinion then I do.
Everytime I read or hear something that makes my brains ring I try to look up a possible answer from someone who disagrees with it.
Every argument has a counter-argument.

If you applaude Dawking's videos but never tried to read a counter-dawkings book then you are no better then an european catholic citizen from the middle ages who believed everything the pope said.

Now go to the library and take some books from theists and read them. If you really want to enlight yourself, then that's what you should do. Read books from people you disagree with. Try to understand why they reason like they reason.

don't be like: "Those billions of christians are stupid, I am smart. They are like children who debate with an adult. I am an adult"
That's silly and 100% immature.

I'm sorry, but this kind of behavior really really really annoys me more and more since more and more people adopt that "Smarter then thou" attitude.

Then I turn on the T.V. (or actually in my case, read the news online) and I can quickly see why.

You should read books.
Knowledge is in books, not in online news or youtube videos.

Like health is in vegetables and not in the candy store.
Youtube is the candy store, the library is the grocery.

Do you have books? Scientific books? Did you read them?

Basing your arrogant attitude upon watching Dawkins on youtube
It's almost like: "In 'friends' phoebe beated Ross in a debate about evolution, so now I become a christian".

[Agathon]

The problem with Dawkins is that he's an English twit. Many people turn to religion out of a desire for meaning or a fear of death. Dawkins ignores all that and treats the question of religious belief as if it were the same as selecting from Starbucks' range of caffeinated beverages.

This is a long standing problem among a strain of English intellectuals (Nietzsche complains about it in his books). They all decry religious belief, but their stiff upper lip and emotional hollowness blinds them to what they are giving up. That's why they come off as ***** most of the time.

Having said that, there are plenty of shallow religious people too.

[Felch]

Plenty of progress has been the result of religious people. Gregor Mendel was a priest for instance.

Until Dawkins or Hitchens can provide scientific evidence that religion is bad for human development, they're just voicing opinions. Their hypothesis needs to be rigorously tested.

I second Agathon on Dawkins being a twit. His personality really makes it hard for me to listen to what he has to say.

[Ben Kenobi]

So my question is, what holds for a nations future and position of power that does not embrace science by facts, but by foolish ideas such as ID?

The facts of the matter is that scientists don't exactly know how creation preceeded. They have theories, and what has tended to be the case, is that the universe is governed by laws, some seen and some unseen.

Would it collapse? Would it fall behind? Are we seeing something similar like that happening now?

There's nothing in religion, or Christianity that bars someone from scientific investigation. Usually the way we see things is that God has chosen to make the world, and one of our tasks is to use the reason we have been given in order to better understand his creation. We don't see much fruit in the Darwinian explanation, we feel it ignores as much as it illuminates.

And a second question, why does it seem to be difficult for a thiest to cross-examine their own belief and the understanding of natural selection?

What makes you think that we were always theists. What Darwin confronted me, is that those with disabilities are subhuman, which is a logical consequence of natural selection, and survival of the fittest. How could the fittest be those with disabilities, who had difficulty functioning in the world.

I found the idea repugnant, but what I also saw is that Darwin's theory supported it wholeheartedly. I couldn't see an alternative explanation that would be supported by Darwin.

This is why I turned away from his theory, and embraced Christ, because Christ says we are all made in the image of God, and thus we have equal worth and values. Our value is intrinsic, and not based on our current abilities.

It seems thiests/believers immediately reject any answers given by any scientists/debators, whilst those scientists/debators have a previously understood knowledge of theology.

Either case is not true. Scientists are at best amateur theologians, and I don't believe scientists have a better understanding of theology, as theologians have of science. My experience has been quite the opposite, although as always there are a few notable exceptions. Dawkins is shockingly ignorant of theology.

The thiests don't seem to know what they're talking about, the discussions/debates quickly turn into what seems like adults v's children, which gets pathetic, and I ask myself why these intellectual people waste their time against childish arguments? Then I turn on the T.V. (or actually in my case, read the news online) and I can quickly see why.

Reverse it and you would see how we see things. We see children that don't like rules rebelling against them so they can do what they want. Intellectual? Nothing Dawkins teaches is anything foreign to a 10-12 year old.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem with Dawkins is that he's an English twit. Many people turn to religion out of a desire for meaning or a fear of death. Dawkins ignores all that and treats the question of religious belief as if it were the same as selecting from Starbucks' range of caffeinated beverages.

This is a long standing problem among a strain of English intellectuals (Nietzsche complains about it in his books). They all decry religious belief, but their stiff upper lip and emotional hollowness blinds them to what they are giving up. That's why they come off as ***** most of the time.

Having said that, there are plenty of shallow religious people too.

I believe religious belief is genetic in same cases. I know people who get no benefit (like the ones you mentioned, overcoming fear of death, a more meaninguul life etc) from their religious belief.
Instead all they get are "bad things" like living in constant fear of hell, or for example, if they are homosexuals sadness due to not being allowed to be in a relationship, or divorced men and women, who fall in love again, but are not allowed to get into a new relationship.
They can`t help it. They are people who wish God did not exist but can't help believing in God.

[Barnabas]

I wanted to mention something similar to what Felch said.

The father of genetics was a catholic monk, Mendel.
The creator of the Big Bang theory, was also a catholic priest, Lemaitre.
Newton, probably the greatest genius ever, was very religious.
All the prestigious european universities were founded by the catholic church.

Atheists often have a hard time, in my experience, understanding how intelligent people can also be religious.

Atheists, in my experience, also believe that only for being atheists, they are smarter than most of the world's population.
Being intelligent is not that easy.