Is religion inherently dangerous?

[_EAllusion]

Droopy -

Oppenheimer presents several facts, that if true, point to Flew being in serious mental decline. Oppenheimer stops short of explicitly saying it, but he is portraying a case of people like Varghese using Flew in mental decline to their own ends. All I said is either he is lying or Varghese is lying, which wouldn't be in conflict with someone who would behave in this manner.

Flew's response to Richard Carrier referenced in the NY Times article is so poor, it's flabbergasting. He blamed Dawkins for not mentioning presentable theories in the field of abiogenesis that can account for it naturally despite, 1) Dawkins actually having discussed this in publications, 2) it not being remotely reasonable to wait on a single evolutionary biologist to mention something about the field of abiogenic study in order to not accept that it is impossible, and 3) the lack of a natural account of abiogenesis not evidencing a design inference. That's an argument from ignorance. It's a reply that's so moronic, it's hard to explain, which is part of why speculation about mental decline enters the picture.

Kevin, incidentally, keeps denying ID and creationism, while simultaneously endorsing the same reasons as Flew, which are ID/creationism in the classic sense. Flew supposedly bought into the origin of life unlikely, therefore God argument. That's ID. Heck, he references Gerald Schroeder as a chief persuader. His arguments were known explicitly as an old-earth creationism until the great relabeling occured.

[_Droopy]

There is no such thing as ID/Creationism unless a creationist also subscribes to ID. ID can be completely separate from the specific creationist template.

Flew isn't the first one to realize that without an overarching, intelligent, controlling agency, the origin of life on earth, as well as its coherent development, is indeed, very, very unlikely (indeed, incomprehensibly so).

It surprises me not at all that you think Flew deranged because he has come to believe in God.

[_EAllusion]

Actually, I've already explained the origin of life on earth in a cinch. In the universe, there exists an object called a flibberflabber. One of the properties of flibberflabber is that it can cause the origin of life to happen, as it did on earth, in some mysterious way. It's a natural object in the sense that it lacks personhood. The existence of this natural object - flibberflabber - explains the origin of life on earth nicely. Therefore, I've accounted for it.

I know what you are thinking. I have no evidence flibberblabber exists. That's not true. Clearly life developed on earth. Flibberflabber explains it. I propose that without flibberflabber existing, the origin of life on earth would be incomprehensibly unlikely. Therefore, I have powerful evidence of flibberflabber's existence.

Problem solved.

[_Thama]

There is no such thing as ID/Creationism unless a creationist also subscribes to ID. ID can be completely separate from the specific creationist template.

And while this may be true, the blame for this misconception has to rest with those who have promoted, through publicity and legal means, the teaching of ID in science classrooms as an equal to and alternative to evolution.

Flew isn't the first one to realize that without an overarching, intelligent, controlling agency, the origin of life on earth, as well as its coherent development, is indeed, very, very unlikely (indeed, incomprehensibly so).

When the number of end results is virtually infinite, then any end result will be fantastically unlikely. And yet I agree with you as to the probability of life's origin, and will say that it is largely my studies of fundamental cellular processes that has caused me to continue to lean toward the existence of a God of some unknown definition.

[_Some Schmo]

Actually, I've already explained the origin of life on earth in a cinch. In the universe, there exists an object called a flibberflabber. One of the properties of flibberflabber is that it can cause the origin of life to happen, as it did on earth, in some mysterious way. It's a natural object in the sense that it lacks personhood. The existence of this natural object - flibberflabber - explains the origin of life on earth nicely. Therefore, I've accounted for it.

I know what you are thinking. I have no evidence flibberblabber exists. That's not true. Clearly life developed on earth. Flibberflabber explains it. I propose that without flibberflabber existing, the origin of life on earth would be incomprehensibly unlikely. Therefore, I have powerful evidence of flibberflabber's existence.

Problem solved.

And now that we have proven that flibberflabber exists, it's important to describe him. I mean, isn't that the next logical step?

Of course, flibberflabber, due to his incredible greatness, demands we all worship him (since... you know, with incredible greatness comes incredible insecurity). He doesn't tell us how to do it; he just expects us to know based on our instincts, or perhaps the instincts of others who are better talkers. We obviously should ignore the fact that our individual instincts tell us all something different, or that we keep hearing conflicting things about flibberflabber. Just get to worshipping flibberflabber or you will be punished for eternity.

Certainly, there is nothing inherantly dangerous from this line of thinking, is there?

[_EAllusion]

Flibberflabber is an inanimate object. I suppose people could worship it like one might an unexploded nuclear warhead under the surface of the earth, but there's no theology here. Just an air-tight account of the origin of life.

[_EAllusion]

And while this may be true, the blame for this misconception has to rest with those who have promoted, through publicity and legal means, the teaching of ID in science classrooms as an equal to and alternative to evolution.

Droopy is just BSing here, as is his wont. Intelligent Design, as used in common parlance, is pretty much what you thought it was. The term wasn't coopted by the ID movement. It was coined by them. You see the term on occasion appear in writings prior to this, but it is rare and in isolation to any reference to a broader set of ideas. This changed when the ID movement comes along with Charles Thaxton and others after creationism suffered some legal defeats in the '80's, prompting the need for the name change. Versions of fine-tuning arguments have always been part of creationist arguments going back to the 1920's and before, but I understand the association between creationism and biological design arguments, especially those that take the explicit or implied form "not evolution, therefore design." So I sympathize with Kevin on that limited point. But that doesn't change the fact that the IDists, as part of their cultural battle, are attempting to get across fine-tuning arguments. Check out out their efforts to weasel in "The Privileged Planet" onto public television so people see it as a NOVA type documentary.

For further information on the history of creationism, I strongly recommend Ronald Numbers' The Creationists.

[_Some Schmo]

Flibberflabber is an inanimate object. I suppose people could worship it like one might an unexploded nuclear warhead under the surface of the earth, but there's no theology here. Just an air-tight account of the origin of life.

I don't think you understand. If it explains the origin of life, it must lead to a theology. That's just the way it goes. It's only when you say that you don't know yet (or at least, feel it in every fiber of your being) that you can avoid a theology.

[_antishock8]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

Is religion inherently dangerous? Well just ask this woman who was bound, gagged, tied to a log, and then set on fire.

Oh. Wait. You can't. She's dead.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Actually, I've already explained the origin of life on earth in a cinch. In the universe, there exists an object called a flibberflabber. One of the properties of flibberflabber is that it can cause the origin of life to happen, as it did on earth, in some mysterious way. It's a natural object in the sense that it lacks personhood. The existence of this natural object - flibberflabber - explains the origin of life on earth nicely. Therefore, I've accounted for it.

I know what you are thinking. I have no evidence flibberblabber exists. That's not true. Clearly life developed on earth. Flibberflabber explains it. I propose that without flibberflabber existing, the origin of life on earth would be incomprehensibly unlikely. Therefore, I have powerful evidence of flibberflabber's existence.

Problem solved.

This is wickedly funny satire, EAllusion. Kudos.

Kevin Graham: does flibberflabber exist?