Gunnar wrote:Jo, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about
Charles Darwin. Contrary to what you and other creationists insist on claiming, he did not start out with a predisposition to believe in evolution and common descent of life forms, nor did he ever characterize himself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic. When he embarked on his fateful voyage with the H.M.S Beagle, he was a divinity student on sabbatical with every intention of resuming his divinity studies upon return and taking up a career as a professional, country Vicar in the Church of England. He was greatly surprised and disturbed by the evidence he collected during that epic voyage--so disturbed that it took him nearly 30 years to bring himself to publish the conclusions forced upon him by his honesty and the sheer weight of the enormous body of evidence he had collected.
I would offer that much of what he saw belied the beliefs he had been taught about religion. One of those would have been that the earth was NOT as young as religion taught. Once one aspect of a belief system comes under question, it is easier to let go of everything taught by religion. The irony is, that while he allowed for something other than what he was taught by religion, he managed to get involved with another belief system with rules and laws. I believe he wound up throwing out the baby with the bath water. By so doing, he threw out messages from True Messengers. I see the same thing happening with posters on this board who have walked away from the Church in disgust. In an effort to quell their own participation in allowing themselves to be deceived by religion, they now grab onto yet another belief system which also has rules and laws and leaders to whom they look to guide them. Both systems effectively have closed their minds. Both, at one time, satisfied their curiosity in their search for truth. Both can only offer shifting truth. Both have caused them to treat those who don't agree with them with disdain.
You greatly and unfairly malign one of the most decent, kindest, most honest and honorable men in the history of science when you claim that he only arrived at his conclusions because he was predisposed to believe them because he was an atheist who hated God.
I never said he hated God. That is YOUR perception. In the traditional sense, I am now an "atheist". I don't hate "God" either. Whatever people want to believe is great. It's just that I also observe the effects of belief systems upon our humanity.
You obviously have a very minimal and distorted understanding of Darwin and what he was about. In addition, your comments about evolution in this forum and the evidence supporting it belie your claim that you have ever extensively studied it and carefully evaluated its implications.
Again, that is your perception. See how easily you deceived yourself about how you thought I said that Darwin hated God. I am tired of arguing the same things over and over again...so I don't. I have tried to show how it is that the belief system itself holds great power over our minds. It is our belief systems that cause us to treat each other poorly.
And I still think you have a distorted understanding of what Einstein actually said and thought about God and religion.
Yet science believers on this very website deny over and over again that there is a force greater than man going on. The religiosity of Einstein was NOT a belief in the "God" of religion. It was a belief in "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man,”.
I also repeat what I said previously that once one decides that one has achieved "real" or absolute truth that no longer needs any adjusting or reexamination, no matter what new evidence becomes available, one is in danger of stagnating, perpetuating error and becoming intolerant of honest differences of opinion. This is what makes possible such abominations as religious inquisitions, jihads, tyrannies and the holocaust.
Have you studied the real truth? If not, then how is it you feel justified in making ANY claims about it? Real truth doesn't keep anyone in a stagnate condition....it actually frees up your mind to even greater possibilities of how to apply it. However, unless you are willing to free up your mind, you have no other choice than to wait for science to tell you what you should believe.
In addition, no one is less likely to be in actual possession of "Real Truth" than someone who rejects the necessity and the efficacy of hard, objective (scientific) evidence and dismisses such evidence whenever it conflicts with what they already believe, as you and Franktalk seem to be advocating.
The likelihood of Real Truth cannot be proven. That's part of the challenge of being here. Part of the challenge is also to test our humanity. Real Truth allows us to see each other differently; thus, we have a better chance of treating each other humanely. OTOH, by nature of how it is that science functions with shifting truth, also proves that her truth isn't the real truth. So, we come to an impasse. The bottom line is then to measure which type of truth allows us to treat each other more humanely; real truth, or truth. Real truth does more, though....it answers the very questions concerning truth which still need to be shifted in accordance with science's rules and laws IF you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
I have never maligned Darwin. I HAVE noted that he placed limitations upon what he allowed himself to see. While he made a good start against the beliefs of religion, he also threw out the baby...thus limiting what he was able to see. Science has been huffing and puffing that evolution is the real truth; but none of it has been proven without necessarily making leaps of faith in order to maintain it. None of us can see beyond the limitations we place upon our minds UNLESS we are willing to let go of what the world teaches. If what she discovers was Real Truth (truth which requires no more shifting or adjusting), then she would never have to change her truth. It's a very simple concept; if "truth" changes, it wasn't real truth. It was only the amount of truth which science allowed at any given time.
The "truth" of science while I was in school is NOT the "truth" of science today. In order to be able to get good grades on tests and to pass science classes while trying to maintain a high grade point average, I had to give the "truth" answers which science dictated. At that time, I had no idea that the truth of science was going to change....I believed her; I believed that her truth was accurate. But I was deceived. If I were to use the same answers to the same questions today, I would fail the tests and the course. Real truth would never have changed.
Inasmuch as it is possible to find the real truth, and no longer need to keep adjusting "truth", why is it that science types won't even consider studying real truth? It's because they have closed their minds and accepted that the shifting truth of science is fine with them. They will wait until the leaders of science (the learned ones) tell them it is okay to consider something not being currently taught or supported by science. ANY belief system which uses its own rules and laws to hold on to its followers will also close the minds of its followers against other belief system believers. Those followers, in an effort to hang on to the value they gain from being a believer in a belief system, will point to those they can't convince to agree with them, and degrade them. It is the only way they can justify themselves....by making others look like the fools. This is normal; but it also causes us to treat each other poorly.
I see posters who believe in science insisting that a belief in something unseen equates to a belief in religion. Yet, I also see that science DOES have things she believes in which are unseen; but she conveniently attaches all types of side-stepping to those particular beliefs in an effort to make that belief NOT appear to be religious. In that way, she can then claim that her belief is not religious. The battle appears to be religion vs science. But there is at least one other possibility. Neither religion nor science will entertain it because it threatens their current beliefs.
as usual, you said it better than I could! What comments do you have about the paragraph I added before you replied to my last post?