Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MilitantModerate · 09-01-2002, 06:01 PM

Sent this in to the wire but thought it might also be of interest in this forum:

<a href="http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id={5A3A861C-8478-4D9A-BB31-09C0B2C09883}" target="_blank">http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id={5A3A861C-8478-4D9A-BB31-09C0B2C098 83}</a>

(Hmmm some how and extra '\' crept into my cut 'n past, should work now)

{scigirl attempts to fix link}

---
Everyone needs to believe in something...
...I believe I will have another beer!

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: MilitantModerate ]

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 09-01-2002, 06:02 PM

Your link doesn't work. Please try again.

MilitantModerate · 09-01-2002, 06:15 PM

I was just about to complain that the system seemed to be mangling it when it was automagically fixed. Thanks scigirl!

scigirl · 09-01-2002, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MilitantModerate:
when it was automagically fixed.

Heh, see there IS a god. Or in this case, a Goddess!

scigirl · 09-01-2002, 06:22 PM

Interesting class, to say the least.

Quote:

Lamoureux went back to school to earn a PhD in theology. He also studied science with the somewhat immodest belief he could debunk evolution.

Instead, the overwhelming "and staggering" scientific evidence chipped away at his conservative religious beliefs to the point where he became convinced Charles Darwin and his theories were irrefutable.

That story was reassuring.

I found this quote disturbing, however:

Quote:

Science, he says, is a fabulous method for measuring the complexity and majesty of the natural world. But it can't measure things which many people believe to be real -- love, kindness, the human spirit.

So? Does he really think that his religion measures these things any better?

As I said in that thread to Vander, why must people insist on first stating that science can't do certain things, but then later insist that their religion is the only way???? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

scigirl

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-01-2002, 06:27 PM

Well, he is correct that science cannot measure such quantities. In fact, there simply is no way to measure any of them--they are so completely subjective, the only way to measure them is by using another subjective standard. And religion works for most people.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with this, so long as religion is solely used to measure the indefinable. It's when people attempt to use it to measure the defined that we get problems.

Lizard · 09-01-2002, 06:30 PM

I attended Lamoreaux's concurrent session at "DDD III" in Kansas City in July and saw him on the panel at the same event. He is remarkably well-informed about the context of the Bible, why it was written, how to interpret it in the context of the times in which it was written, etc.

He is an evangelical Christian. I don't know if it's a necessary part of his faith that only that particular brand of faith is valid. I didn't get that out of his lecture or the article.

wade-w · 09-01-2002, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Christ:
<strong>
I don't think that there is anything wrong with this, so long as religion is solely used to measure the indefinable. It's when people attempt to use it to measure the defined that we get problems.</strong>

That and when people say: "You must accept my measurements, or I'll burn you at the stake."

Albion · 09-01-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

U of A science professor Mike Caldwell says the public would likely be surprised at the number of students entering university who reject evolution because of their religious upbringing.

isn't that sad? I wonder how many reject evolution on grounds OTHER than their religious upbringing. My suspicion is that it'd be negligible to zero.

Quote:

"Science is a wonderful method, but a suspect world view," says Lamoureux. "As a scientist, I see God reflected in nature -- in the beauty and complexity of nature -- and in people, who are capable of such glorious things."

Science isn't any sort of world view, suspect or otherwise. It's the creationists who pin that label on it by pretending that evolution is a religion. The world view in question is ontological naturalism, and science isn't into that, however badly the likes of Phillip Johnson want to pretend otherwise.

MilitantModerate · 09-01-2002, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Jordan LaRue, one of Lamoureux's former students, and a self-described "born-again evangelical believer," says he took the class hoping to justify his beliefs in creation. His eyes opened wide when Lamoureux dismissed the Bible's version of events.

"I was shocked that a proclaimed believer in Christ would take such a blasphemous scientific position," says LaRue. "But I was beyond the dropout date, and so I decided to test my mettle, and satisfy my curiosity about the enemy."

What happened, he says, was that his eyes were opened. Not only could he no longer hold his six-day creation beliefs, but he became much more tolerant of secular views. Another evolutionary creationist was born.

Speaking of reassuring; I find the above refreshing as the thin end of the wedge in terms of understanding and moderation, if not complete rationality. Anything that brings a raving 7/6000 funnymentalist looney a little bit closer to reality is a good thing. I realize it is still creationism lite, but one step at a time.

09-01-2002, 06:01 PM	#1
MilitantModerate Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 603	Darwin and God at the U Sent this in to the wire but thought it might also be of interest in this forum: <a href="http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id={5A3A861C-8478-4D9A-BB31-09C0B2C09883}" target="_blank">http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id={5A3A861C-8478-4D9A-BB31-09C0B2C098 83}</a> (Hmmm some how and extra '\' crept into my cut 'n past, should work now) {scigirl attempts to fix link} --- Everyone needs to believe in something... ...I believe I will have another beer! [ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: MilitantModerate ] [ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2002, 06:02 PM	#2
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Your link doesn't work. Please try again.

09-01-2002, 06:15 PM	#3
MilitantModerate Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Edmonton, AB Posts: 603	I was just about to complain that the system seemed to be mangling it when it was automagically fixed. Thanks scigirl!

09-01-2002, 06:27 PM	#6
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Well, he is correct that science cannot measure such quantities. In fact, there simply is no way to measure any of them--they are so completely subjective, the only way to measure them is by using another subjective standard. And religion works for most people. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this, so long as religion is solely used to measure the indefinable. It's when people attempt to use it to measure the defined that we get problems.

09-01-2002, 06:30 PM	#7
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	I attended Lamoreaux's concurrent session at "DDD III" in Kansas City in July and saw him on the panel at the same event. He is remarkably well-informed about the context of the Bible, why it was written, how to interpret it in the context of the times in which it was written, etc. He is an evangelical Christian. I don't know if it's a necessary part of his faith that only that particular brand of faith is valid. I didn't get that out of his lecture or the article.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.