[Anita]

Thought I'd christen this forum with the following:

"Intelligence on their designs
Monday, November 22, 2004
Science and fundamentalism are natural enemies, because they represent diametrically opposite models for understanding the world.

Fundamentalism begins with articles of faith, gleaned from Scripture, for which it then goes in search of evidence as support -- ignoring, along the way, all contravening evidence.

Science begins with the gathering of evidence and data, which are then assembled into an explanatory model through a combintation of hypothesis and further testing. This model must take into account all available facts, including contradictory evidence.

They are, in other words, 180 degrees removed from each other in how they affect our understanding of the world. One is based in logic, the other in faith. As methodologies go, they are simply irreconcilable."

The complete article can be found here. (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/)

Thoughts? Comments?

[Aleph Null]

Hi Anita,

It's really nice to see you here. I would like to tackle this sometime when I've got more than 4 hours of sleep under my belt. I also hope Flint will show up as I'd love to read his views, and of course, the views of some religious folks would be needed to balance it out.

c

[Libertarian]

I was told once by a really devout Christian that he believed that God had put all of the fossils underground and created other things that pointed to evolution as a test of faith for His followers.

[Jimmy Splinters]

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic, which has colored my worldview considerably. Until I was a teen, I never really thought about 'God' other than as a fleeting image of some old, stern white-haired guy scowling down from the sky. Naturally, as I've grown older and more well-read, I've become more contemplative of the question.

The problem for me is that I can see both sides of it clearly. I can and do understand the leap of faith necessary to believe in a Creator and I still tend this way, although I think that the Universal Mind concept makes far more sense than the image I was raised with. I also understand that there is no scientific way to prove it.

I am also honest enough with myself to admit that a large part of my tendency toward belief is simply because I want it to be so.

The bottom line is that, unless God Himself or His Designated Agent show up in person, none of us will really know until we die. Maybe not even then.

Dan V.

[Flint]

For those who are into this kind of thing, there is an entertaining and active forum, populated largely by (and fairly reasonably moderated by) the intelligent design advocates at the ARN forum (http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-13.html)You can read it, but to contribute anything you need to register. You get assigned a password. Administration is fairly tight.

Not administered in the same way, much more similar to the old Greenspun approach, is the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/) site. No registration, make up a new name and address for every post if you wish. It gets occasional spam attacks, but someone cleans these up fairly soon. The software is frankly lousy, and complains that your post didn't get through when in fact it did. You can refresh, exit, return refresh again, your post won't show up until you post it again, then you get two of them. So you see a lot of repeated posts, but these get cleaned up too. The Panda's Thumb consists almost entirely of mainstream types, and the occasional creationist kind of get ganged up on.

Few if any at the ARN forum ever mention their religious faith, and when one occasionally does, the Official Story is that religion isn't relevant to intelligent design. The Official Story is that it is possible (and legitimate) to conclude design by statistical and analytical means, outside of any context.

The discussions tend to be unintentional comedies of missed connections. The ID (intelligent design) proponents sometimes repeat the tired creationist arguments so well and exhaustively refuted at the talkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html) site, but most of the time they argue the latest in biological publications quite energetically. The basic ID position is that life could have happened in only two ways: theirs (which is self-evident, but only if you're objective) and wrong (which is anyone who disagrees), but few are quite that dogmatic.

After some reading, one realizes that Anita's caricature of the debate isn't even close to accurate. The life sciences are in their infancy (and fields like genetics and molecular biology are exploding), and there are several genuine puzzles. Scientists are just as armed with preconceptions as anyone else. The evolutionary biologists and ID biologists (they exist), when they are not sniping, both admit that they are not misrepresenting the evidence or hiding any from each other, but that neither philosophy can be ruled out, and that both interpretations are based on preference.

And so the ID people have a bulletproof "theory" - whatever we observe, was designed that way. If we're wrong about how it works, that doesn't mean it wasn't designed, only that we were wrong about how the designer did it. Meanwhile, the evolutionists have an equally bulletproof theory. If the evidence changes (and it does fairly often), then the theory simply changes to accommodate the evidence. Both sides, then, point out that the other side is doing exactly the same thing they are, so how come it's OK for one and not the other?

There are, in other words, fairly large dollops of both logic and faith on both sides. The real debate lies not in the rhetoric, but in the utility of the competing explanations, and the utility is determined by the number of accurate predictions each view can generate. Right now, evolutionary biology is WAY ahead by this scale, but some ID researchers (and they actually exist, sort of) have used teleological models to make accurate predictions also.

Meanwhile, outside the narrow confines of biology, we really DO see the incompatible methodologies Anita mentions. Nearly all of the funding for evolutionary approaches comes from government grants and large corporations, and is spent in labs (or digs) doing direct research. Nearly all the funding for the ID proponents comes from churches and through faith-oriented funding drives, and is spent entirely on public relations campaigns, political action groups, lobbying, and support for creationist front organizations like the Discovery Institute. While the ID proponents at ARN regard themselves as well above and outside of this arena, in fact ID is a political and not a scientific exercise. To be blunt, it was fabricated, and is positioned, with the intention of making an end run around McLean and other court decisions that have held that "creation science" is a religious doctrine.

So the ID proponents huff and puff to distance themselves from any religion, and speak piously of the "designer" being an alien race and so on, and of how the inference of design is a purely mathmatical and scientific inference (in general, "we don't have any positive evidence of design, but any other proposed explanation for life is so obviously stupid that what else could it be?"). But there is always the problem of raising money, and the "religion has nothing to do with it" leaders of the movement are well aware of where the money comes from and where they have to go to get it, and what they have to say. And to get it, they must Praise Jeezus at numbing length nationwide.

Not that they believe the courts won't notice, of course. Instead, they believe that if they can get the votes (and they can - a majority of Americans reject evolution, believe in creation, and desire creationism to be taught as a "competing scientific theory" in high school), they can get a couple of hand-picked judges elected or appointed into the appropriate courts, gin up a couple test cases, and get some favorable precedents set. They are upfront in calling their strategy the "wedge" - some gullible open-minded scientists can be misrepresented as saying science has found God, this gets voters to elect creationist school board members (in Kansas again, Ohio, Louisiana, Arkansas, now Delaware and the beat goes on) who teach our children creationism to cement even more voters, who elect Bush and those like him, who appoint creationists (oops, I mean "strict constitutionalists") to top courts, and soon Satan will be routed. The've laid this all out in books as explicit as Mein Kampf.

Meanwhile, polls and studies show that all the average American knows about evolution is that it is false and evil. He can't tell you what it is, or even give the haziest guess. Most of the rest of Americans can tell you a good deal about evolution, learned from their Bible studies, and all of it often hilariously wrong - and just as indelible.

But I'll stop by saying that there is no contravening evidence to intelligent design, and there can't be. Just close your eyes, spin around until dizzy, point at random, and say "that was designed" and who could prove you wrong? The ID people, at the tip of the wedge, are not Genesis literalists, dammit. They are scientists. And they are.

[Anita]

<div class=blockquote>Proponents of intelligent design make no claim to knowing the source of this order. No scientist "can use science to get to what that intelligence is," says John West of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which backs intelligent-design research.

But for much of middle America, it's easy enough to fill in the blank.

"The book's going to be a good resource for children and parents who try to believe in God and be religious," says John Workman, whose daughter is a sophomore at Dover High. "God should always be in the country, and in the schools."

To critics, his words provoke a collective "I told you so." Intelligent design, they say, is merely creationism in a lab coat. Dr. Scott calls it the evolution of creationism: "They're trying to find a strategy that will stand up in court, and they only have a chance if it is something as far away from religion as possible."

Yet even Scott acknowledges that Mr. Workman has hit upon something deeper - a desire among many Americans that the cold facts of science not quench the spark of faith. It is the tendency of science to say, "God had nothing to do with it," she says, and for students therefore to think, "I can't listen to what the teacher is saying or I'm sinning."

Intelligent design, it seems, would at least have science and spirit shake hands. Barbara Tubbs, for one, supports the curriculum, but only because it is optional.

"[I believe] we came from God," says Ms. Tubbs, the mother of a freshman whose class is due to study evolution - and to be offered the panda book - in January. "But I wouldn't want to push it on anybody." </div>

Complete article can be found here. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1123/p11s02-legn.html)

[Flint]

says John West of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which backs intelligent-design research.
Have you bothered to examine the "intelligent-design research" the DI has backed? If you can find any, please tell someone. On the other hand, you won't have any difficulty finding what their money IS spent on. It's available to be examined. Unless you wish to to define "backing" research as hot-air predictions that if someone else someday wishes to actually DO any research, they'll find something, currently undefined.

Intelligent Design is an excellent illustration of the sheer pushy determination of the fundies. They couldn't get their religion into science classes by brute force because the courts shot them down. They tried to position their doctrine as "creation science" but the courts saw through that as well. Now they've repositioned themselves again, this time it's not "really" religion, they can't identify the "designer" (nudge, wink) but nobody needs to guess.

This strategy is based on the observation (did you see the poll at your link? 80% wish creationism taught as science!) that people wish science and religion to kiss and make up. They KNOW their god(s) exist, if science is any good, science has no choice but to identify those gods, and here is ID saying science did exactly that. Yeah, the courts are no stupider than ever, they're as aware as you and I that this is yet another try to get the SOS into the classrooms. The point is that the courts WANT to do this, needing only the kind of plausible deniability ("huh? God? I don' see no steenkin' god") ID hopes to provide.

But how about peer review? A research program? A testable hypothesis? A genuine scientific (as opposed to political) controversy? You know, anything remotely resembling science as we know it? Where is ANY of that? Ahhh, who cares, let's call Genesis science and teach it as scientific truth - the very sort of absolute truth science cannot reach by definition, but who cares about that either? Science as a method, as a philosophy, is irrelevant. PREACH THE DAMN GOSPEL! How simple do you need it to be made?

But they don't want to push it on anybody, oh no. So long as it is misrepresented as an "optional scientific theory" nobody is pushing, right.

In general, the entire exercise is labeled "lying for Jesus" and it seems to work. This is how con artists have always worked - tell the sucker what he wants to hear, and he'll buy any bridge you offer him. Including this one.

[Anita]

I agree with one of the first things mentioned in the FIRST article I posted, which stated something like "inability to EVER reach agreement, because the two are 180 degrees apart." You and I just can't fathom ID because we don't believe in a God PERIOD. This doesn't mean we don't share space on this planet with lots of people who do. I'm quite content with the theory that pretty much everything/everyone had its beginning in primordial ooze; in fact, I find a perverse sense of appeal in that thought. Politics requires compromise, and you NOTICED that a majority of people in our country WANT this. It comforts them; Jimmy mentioned this above. I KNOW what some of the people PUSHING this want, but I also think they won't see it in my lifetime. My brother is one of the people who would like Creationism taught; he ALSO thinks he'll be raptured soon. People like Stephen Poole want to believe in ID to create a bridge between science and faith. I'll Email him the link to this site if he has any interest in "battling ghosts of his past". He's better suited than I to discuss the details.

[Flint]

It would be nice to see Stephen Poole again. And I agree that I really can't grasp what it must be like to believe in the supernatural. The closest I can come is to suppose it's something like my smoking. I haven't smoked in over 4 years, but neither have I stopped wanting to, and I look forward to going to bed because I smoke in my dreams. Maybe a religious belief is like that, the only difference being that I KNOW what I want is bad for me.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

And if human intelligence had never evolved into existence, Intelligent Design would then be called "Dolphin Doctrine of Design" by that order of mammalian inhabitants of this planet. ID is doctrine not science as Flint has so eloquently explained. Flint appears to be extremely well versed on this issue and offers well balanced conclusions on the subject.

[Anita]

Flint: I E-mailed Poole with an invite, as well as inviting two good friends of mine from meat world. One is Christian [although liberal] and the other is more inclined to Eastern philosophies. I think we could have some good philosophical/religious/political discussions if these folks come. I hope they can find some time.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

*Gratuitous off topic post*

Hi Anita,

At least we can most definitely say we have a bunch of colorful characters in this joint, can't we?

Good to see ya here... :beer:

PMI

[SmartAZ]

Hi Anita!

That is a very nice essay. It's politely written and could lead to a lot of discussion.

One big problem in this general topic is "code words". Code words are undefined, except that they don't mean what they normally mean. "Fundamentalism" is such a word. It normally means "following the fundamental principles", but as a code word nobody knows exactly what it means except that we poke fun at it. Even people who claim to be part of that group cannot coherently explain what it means. The same is true for all code words.
Fundamentalism begins with articles of faith, gleaned from Scripture, for which it then goes in search of evidence as support -- ignoring, along the way, all contravening evidence.

Science begins with the gathering of evidence and data, which are then assembled into an explanatory model through a combintation of hypothesis and further testing. This model must take into account all available facts, including contradictory evidence.
Let's try to eliminate the code words. "Science" is anything that can be measured. "Spirit" is anything that can't be measured. Love can't be measured, so it is a spiritual concept. "Charity" (Greek for 'love') is defined in our society as a gift to the needy. Acts of charity can be counted, therefore charity is a scientific concept. The difference is too erudite for some people to comprehend, but at least you can keep things straight in your own understanding with these definitions.

Now we can define some things in more useful ways. We all know people who decide what they want to believe and then go looking for scriptures to support their foregone conclusions. They are not all "fundies". They are sprinkled throughout every named group. Even a lot of scientists are in this category. When we talk about "fundies" we usually mean people who are not moved by any logical examination of what they believe. Doctors, for example, believe what they were taught in med school and will go to their graves without changeing their beliefs. Medical advances happen as doctors of the old school die and are replaced by doctors of the new school. But doctors are not "fundies". Baptists are unable to read Acts 1:5 as it is written because it conflicts with what their church teaches. It says, "John verily baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the holy spirit and with fire." Baptist ministers omit the word "but" because their church sets the two baptisms "coequal and conecessary". This is not a logical process, they simply can't read the word. But we don't call baptist ministers "fundies". Mormons do a similar thing with the verse that says, "Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why then are they baptised for the dead?" The whole church is built on the idea of baptising living persons in behalf of dead persons, and they don't even notice that the verse makes no sense as it is translated. It is a Greek idiom, and says something very plain and very different when the idiom is correctly rendered, but of course the mormons are not going to give up their most cherished tradition just because they discover a mistranslation. But we don't call mormons "fundies".

My point in this tirade is that when you identify and eliminate the code words and replace them with sensible definitions, you discover that things are a lot clearer. You also discover that the spiritual rot has claimed a lot more groups than you thought.

[Flint]

SmartAZ:

You make a good point here. I have been saying on these forums for years that some people would much rather be certain than probably correct, while others would much rather be probably correct than certain. By this aphorism, I intend to distinguish what you are calling "fundies" from what I am calling "rational people."

But I also believe that everyone is really somewhere along a continuum with absolutism at one end and mindless gullibility at the other. And most of us are in the middle - there are things we are quite sure of, things about which we know nothing and are open to knowledge, and things we feel are worth defending, but we're still willing to change our views on them because we realize our basis for an opinion is not strong.

So I think you're right with respect to a small minority of scientists and doctors, and a large majority of Baptist ministers. They are all blends of rigidity and adaptability, but nonetheless fall at very different locations along that continuum. As one of many axes along which people can be ranked, the percentage of our foregone conclusions (and their contents) is a meaningful measure.

[SmartAZ]

You make a good point here.
That clinches it! You're a phony! The real Flint would never have admitted I had a good point! What have you done with him?

[pop pop]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein, 1940.

[pop pop]

I find it ironic that so many people who "don't believe in a God PERIOD" are so compelled to post so frequently in a forum section called The Chapel. I can only conclude that you are driven by a deep seated insecurity and a need to validate your position by incessantly demeaning faith and belief. If you truly didn't "believe in a God PERIOD", why would you care?

[Flint]

pop pop:

For the same reason that anthropologists study tribes in the jungle. I don't need to share your beliefs, to be fascinated that anyone can actually believe them, and wonder what sort of experiences you went through and when, that caused them. So you are the object of simple curiosity. Think of religion as a mind-parasite. A parasite needs to alter its host's defenses so that the parasite is not only not recognized as an invader, but is actively defended by the host's immune system. To survive and multiply into new hosts, the religion parasite must first neutralize and then subvert your BS meter. Then it must alter your behavior so that it can be passed on. In this manner, it is amazingly closely analogous to physical parasites, and genuinely interesting.

Also, the "intelligent design" people have been working to get their religious convictions officially designated as science, and taught to children by the state with the full social backing that science has earned and deserves. So it's important to keep this distinction clear. ID is an alternative explanation for life, but it is not a scientific alternative.

[Anita]

I find it ironic that so many people who "don't believe in a God PERIOD" are so compelled to post so frequently in a forum section called The Chapel. I can only conclude that you are driven by a deep seated insecurity and a need to validate your position by incessantly demeaning faith and belief. If you truly didn't "believe in a God PERIOD", why would you care?

I differ from Flint in that I've been studying the various religions and philosophies of the world since childhood. It's an ongoing hobby of mine. MY position needs no validation; it's only for ME to decide what suits ME, and only for YOU to decide what suits you. I have never demeaned ANYONE'S faith or belief system.

Why would we care? We coexist, and I think that knowledge and understanding of differences is important to our coexistence. A great deal of understanding can come from study, but actually discussing differences gives more insight because it includes feedback which leads to an expenditure of more thought and study. Might be worth starting a new thread just to discuss differences in philosophy and how we all reached different positions.

[pop pop]

OK. I wasn't going to respond to anything else here but at least one of you (Anita) presented your position in a way and with words that I found less judgemental, if judgemental at all. Further, I think I understand ... and that's a good thing. One thing you said is, I think, extremely important:

Why would we care? We coexist, and I think that knowledge and understanding of differences is important to our coexistence. A great deal of understanding can come from study, but actually discussing differences gives more insight because it includes feedback which leads to an expenditure of more thought and study.

Understanding, coexistence, and insight ... given those reasons and goals, I salute you and respect what you said and the manner in which you have done so. I contrast the attitude, tone, and perspective of your words with:

For the same reason that anthropologists study tribes in the jungle. Implication: Advanced mind studying the savage in the wild.

you are the object of simple curiosity. Implication: Like examining an insect or a new pimple on your ass.

Think of religion as a mind-parasite. Implication: You are infected and need to be cured.

the religion parasite must first neutralize and then subvert your BS meter. Implication: Obvious.

Flint: Your choice of words reveals much. You see yourself as judge, jury, and executioner. I can see myself continuing to examine these topics with Anita, although I definitely don't agree with her positions, because within the framework of respectful, intelligent discourse I'm sure that I can learn something from her and maybe she from me ... win - win. Given that the implication of your semantics is that you look down on me and my ilk as curious objects and see my belief as a parasitic infection, this bug, this aboriginal jungle dweller, will not be an active particpant in any monologue that you spew forth.

[Flint]

pop pop:

You asked why I enter these discussions, I told you, and you can't take it? Why did you ask? What do you want me to say? I sincerely cannot comprehend how you can believe what you claim to believe. I just can't do it. I am a complete outsider. I am also sincerely curious. I gave a very brief explanation extracted from a knowledge of memetics, which so far is the only suggested explanation that makes any sense to me at all. And I notice you could not find anything wrong with that explanation, so you just rejected it, which you will notice is exactly the reaction the memetic explanation predicted. Should I reject an explanation because it's successful?

Anita wrote "actually discussing differences gives more insight because it includes feedback which leads to an expenditure of more thought and study." So this is what I'm trying to do. To Anita, you complimented her, saying "Understanding, coexistence, and insight ... given those reasons and goals, I salute you and respect what you said." But when I presented my understanding and insight, you run off with your tail between your legs. You're willing to gain all the insights that tell you what you wish to hear, while rejecting the rest with kneejerk reflexiveness.

How can I possibly tell you what your religion looks like to me, without telling you what it looks like to me?

[Anita]

It's gonna take a while for me to stop teasing you about that repugnant line, PP.

Back to the subject matter, USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-11-28-schools-evolution_x.htm) has another article discussing ID and evolution being introduced in schools.

As I discussed elsewhere with AZ yesterday, ID cannot be taught in such a way as to draw conclusions on the "designer", so, this opens up a THIRD "theory" that has been discussed for years, summed up by a blogger:

Demand that the school teach that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens. You could quickly print out lists of hundreds -- if not thousands -- of books, movies and TV specials that bolster this claim and prove it's a valid "scientific theory" that your kids should not be denied hearing in the interest of fairness.

Also propose that your kids be taught humans were put on earth by aliens, the truth about UFO abductions, time travel, how we didn't really travel to the moon (it was faked, you know) and you name it. There are plenty of quack "scientists" with actual degrees who will argue for this bunk. Once your school board has to deal with a whole bunch of junk "science," they might be more willing to dismiss it ALL in favor of accepted scientific fact.

Could be unintended consequences.

[Flint]

Anita:

I somehow doubt it. Education is intended to pass along what we "know" as a shortcut so the next generation doesn't have to learn everything by trial and error. This leads to sometimes interesting questions about what knowledge is, and how we know what we know. Science course curricula are supposed to be based on two things: The method by which science learns anything, and those descriptions of the universe considered most probably correct as a result of applying this method.

It should be pretty obvious that intelligent design, aliens building pyramids, UFO abductions, numerology, astrology, time travel, and a long list of similar nonsense fails both of these requirements totally. Not one of them is even remotely suggested using the scientific method, nor is there any consideration on the part of mainstrain science that any of them are valid. They are all made up, all fantasies.

But of all these nonsensical things, "intelligent design" has an immense quantitative edge in terms of number of believers. Intelligent Design has no better scientific support than aliens building pyramids, but it has often overwhelming *political* support. And scientists only advise about science curricula; the actual contents are determined by elected officials. We only need fear nonsense when too many people WANT it to be true.

As for communication skills, this depends on your purposes. In general, I think it's the case that whoever responds to the absurd with patience and reason becomes absurd oneself. I can take the CAUSE of foolishness seriously, but not the foolishness itself.

[Anita]

Education is intended to...

Science course curricula are supposed to be...

We're talking NINTH graders here...just out of elementary school in the first year of HIGH school. It was MY experience [and the experiences of my kids] that we weren't thought ADULT-enough to be taught FACTS during the first 12 years [beyond the obvious mathematical ones], but introduced to the state-sponsored curricula of our respective eras. It isn't until the University years that we REALLY get into the Scientific Method, the diaries of those involved in our history, and start thinking, IMO. There are NO public Universities that include [or even WILL include] ID.

My PURPOSES [according to a friend with whom I've discussed philosophy and religion for years] is more geared towards sociology than philosophy at this point. I feel as though I'm familiar with the various philosophies incorporated by people, and what's left FOR ME is to understand how so many people made the choices they made.

[Flint]

Anita,

Well, I know what I meant by my words, so when I read them again, they still meet your requirements. Education at 9th grade level really is part of the process of bringing children minimally up to speed so that they can function in their society. And my high school science courses did indeed mention the process of "make a guess, test the guess, learn something, make a better guess." It's not the kind of detail you'll get out of a university course on scientific history or methodology, but it is sufficient to show even 9th graders that science is based on tests and not received wisdom.

As for coming to grips with religious faith, I think you'd be more satisfied with anthropological explanations, and I'd be more satisfied with neurological explanations. But anyway, we keep reading and scratching our heads, right?

[pop pop]

Flint: Obviously, the memes have won. We are Memes. We are one. We must assimilate you. Resistance is futile.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

Flint: Obviously, the memes have won.
Surely, you jest.

We are Memes. We are one. We must assimilate you. Resistance is futile.
Well, there is much truth in jest!

http://www.nobeliefs.com/heaven.htm

[pop pop]

Thanks for the link, PMI. I found it interesting and entertaining. :D

[pop pop]

You know, I'm really beginning to love this site. :love:

[Flint]

Neat political cartoon...

[Robert]

The problem and it is a very dangerous one, is that this ‘drive’ to establish ID has an agenda and that is to establish ‘morality’ based on a religious system. To take the subjectivity out of religious subjectivity and establish it as 'truth'. This is why I wrote the paper on justification of actions. We are not dangerous to society until we use our subjective system to act outwardly. When this happens ALL religious and social freedom stops.
Again, my favorite example is Paul Hill who acted on his belief that his religious system was ‘truth’ and subjected society to it. The inquisition was this same ‘reasoning’ on a larger scale.
If we look back through history we see that whenever a society or empire has biased its action in the direction that this society is going then chaos ensues. The belief that our religious opinion is paramount to all others is probably the most destructive force mankind will ever know.
The problem is that man cannot live in peace, cannot see the other individuals right to his perception of ‘truth’ without seeing it as an attack on his own.
Personally I believe the flaw is in man as a species and like all animals he will run to the limits of his abilities and die off. Let’s hope the planet for those animals that remain, is left intact.

[Flint]

More views of the ID business here (http://evolvethought.blogspot.com/2004/12/comic-evolution.html#comments). Worth checking out, I think.

[Robert]

That can't be right. 86% of the people can't believe in hell. That must mean that 86% ofthe people think they are going to heaven!

[Anita]

That can't be right. 86% of the people can't believe in hell. That must mean that 86% ofthe people think they are going to heaven!

That's what I was "getting at" by the carrot and the stick. The concept of heaven [the carrot] cannot exist if the opposite isn't reinforced by the stick [the concept of hell]. The concept of God cannot exist if the opposite [Satan] isn't reinforced. Same holds true of reincarnation: You develop GOOD KARMA [and move FORWARD on the path to perfection], or you develop BAD KARMA [and move BACKWARD]. Just different "twists" in different belief systems, BOTH of which are designed to influence societal behavior either TOWARD reward after death or AVOIDANCE of punishment based on behavior in life on earth.

[Robert]

That's what I was "getting at" by the carrot and the stick. The concept of heaven [the carrot] cannot exist if the opposite isn't reinforced by the stick [the concept of hell]. The concept of God cannot exist if the opposite [Satan] isn't reinforced. Same holds true of reincarnation: You develop GOOD KARMA [and move FORWARD on the path to perfection], or you develop BAD KARMA [and move BACKWARD]. Just different "twists" in different belief systems, BOTH of which are designed to influence societal behavior either TOWARD reward after death or AVOIDANCE of punishment based on behavior in life on earth.

Ok, this is not how I see it.
First off, there is no good or bad karma and you don’t move forward or backward. That might be the socialized perception but it is not what I have found in my ‘travels’ just as the thought of this one omnipotent fire breathing ‘god’ banishing people to hell is alien to me. It was not what I found. Had it been then this is what I would be saying here
We all have one path and that is to learn unconditional love. We live different life roles to learn to love from different perspectives. Mother, daughter, father, son, gay, straight, warrior, master, slave, etc.
When we die there is no ‘god’ that we literally stand before who judges us. We are often a part of a group and through the learning of the group we decide what lessons we have learned and when we return to the physical life it is usually to experience learning in a different way. For instance we may have cheated someone in a past life for monetary goals. In this life it may be our turn to learn the lesson of dishonesty. We can return because we committed suicide for instance and then we will have to go through the same feelings and emotions that we negated to resolve in the past life.
So it’s not going forward and backward but constantly going forward. Once we no longer need the physical body to learn the lessons of this earthly plane we stop coming here, unless it is to help others along.
We keep moving up the ladder, so to speak and our ability to love, our compassion keeps refining until there is only love. That is, the complete absence of fear.
Those souls that I have encountered on the higher planes still believe they are on a journey to the perfection of love although I could never understand how this could be remotely possible. Just being in their presence is awe inspiring to say the least.
Again, I think anything I can do anyone else can do. Am I wrong in my perceptions? Perhaps but my life and the people that love me might tell you differently.

[Robert]

Just one more thing:
Here is the beauty of it. You don’t need to follow any leaders, read any books, learn any prayers, practice any rituals, celebrate any holidays or believe I have experienced any higher spiritual planes. All you have to do is one thing, Live a loving life.

If we go back and look at the lives of Christ, Krishna, Lao Tse and the Buddha we will see, as far as we can tell, that is exactly what they preached.

[Flint]

Here is another wonderful parody (http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/new_sat_questio.html#more) of the design school (detention hall?) of thought.

NEW YORK, NY—Officials from the College Board, the nonprofit entity that administers the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT, have announced that they are producing a new version of the test for students who live in school districts where creationism rather than evolution is taught in science classes.

Students who take the revised test, which will be introduced in school districts in Kansas and Georgia in the fall of 2005, will no longer be tested on their ability to comprehend passages from scientific texts that are based on the controversial theory of evolution. Instead, they will read excerpts from writings on such creation-related topics as the six days in which God created the earth or the great flood, then answer a series of questions to indicate how well they've understood the passages.

The revision, says College Board spokesman Lester McCue, is a reflection of the changing nature of science content being taught in high schools around the country. "The SAT has to keep up with these changes or risk being left behind. We can't test kids on material that they are not being taught," says McCue. "In the past, we've evaluated students' ability to comprehend passages about historical scientific events, and while we'll continue to do that, the test now assumes that the world is 6,000 years old as opposed to hundreds of millions of years old."

The "example test" linked to at the site is really worth reading. A genuine laff riot.

[Anita]

All you have to do is one thing, Live a loving life.

I already DO, and I'm bashed for being a liberal. I'm PROUD to be a liberal. It's what *I* call "doing the best to be what I CAN be." Doesn't matter TO ME if this results in a higher level of achievement in a next life; matters only TO ME that I do it in THIS life.

Flint: It's just another case of "cultural literacy", IMO. I guess, because I see it that way, it doesn't bother me...not to mention that MY kids won't be affected, nor will THEIR kids [if they ever have any].

[Robert]

I already DO, and I'm bashed for being a liberal. I'm PROUD to be a liberal. It's what *I* call "doing the best to be what I CAN be." Doesn't matter TO ME if this results in a higher level of achievement in a next life; matters only TO ME that I do it in THIS life.

Exactly. And if I’m completely wrong in my observations I still have lived a life that brought some joy to the people I love. Which I would have done anyway regardless if there is a ‘god’ or not.

Simple, no great intellect required just harm nothing.