WinAce

I've been both a YEC and a Dawkins-like militant, later deciding on a comfortable, in-between position that recognizes just how important religious beliefs are to people, as long as they tolerate others. Ultimately, what he writes makes perfect sense to me as an atheist (science continually pushing god into ever-receding gaps), but I can't help but tolerate religion more.

I suppose if I was never a fervent believer myself, my position would be different and I'd be just as intolerant, which technically makes me a hypocrite, just like every other human...

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: WinAce ]</p>

GeoTheo

Well, I think he has his own agenda (evangelical atheism) but I didn't think there would be many on this forum who would agree, though I know some would, and I didn't feel like a debate today since I am reshuffling my brain a lot as it is . He also is fond of hinting that creationists should be locked up in mental institutions which I think any tolerant person should find disturbing.

Clutch

The thing to remember about Dawkins is that because he's a popular writer explaining evolutionary theory, 99.999% of the Christians who get in touch with him are the idiots who read the book that GeoTheo had, or something worse, and then decide to tell Herr Doktor Smartypants Evilutionist just why he's wrong, and stupid, and stuff.

So the theism that he calls incompatible with science and rationality is, really, the kind he sees all the time. I incline to cut the guy a bit of slack on the bitterness and anger front.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

KeithHarwood

Just replace `literal' with `spiritual' and you are home. The `breath of life' bit is when God gives this funny-looking ape a soul. You get to pick the ape. H habilis, H erectus, H neandertalis, H sapiens. There's unlikely to be any archaeological evidence for the event in the near future, so your faith is safe.

scigirl

Or, you could just learn to become a scientific type thinker. Don't worry about whether or not you accept evolution - worry about whether you are even asking the right questions, and then how to answer those questions.

Becoming a critical, rational thinker was the best thing that ever happened to me - and not just as a scientist.

Even when it comes to religion - I think a lot of people would be less likely to be bamboozled by a "700 club" type fundamentalist, or less likely to even feel conflicted between the Bible and their science books, if they just thought about things for a while.

While I do think it is true that the more you learn about issues like biblical criticism, science, history, and all that, you are probably more likely to either 1) become agnostic or 2) at least have doubts that your religion is the ONLY one that works, I still think you will be better off in the long run if you seriously, and objectively (if you can) evaluate the claims of science and religion. Don't be afraid to challenge your beliefs - a lot of people have done so, and they didn't have a heart attack or anything! They are still here, and still happy.

Hope that helps,

scigirl

WinAce

I object to this kind of reasoning. It creates unresolvable paradoxes. A human with a high degree of mental retardation can be 'dumber' than a chimpanzee, however, I've never met a person of any religion who said he doesn't still possess a soul.

Consciousness, i.e. the 'soul', can be present in varying degrees but there is in my mind no question that animals indeed possess it. The logical conclusion is that while humans have a higher degree of consciousness, it's ultimately similar to that of the apes, not fundamentally different.

When I was a Christian, I believed all animals had souls... it just made more sense that Poochie would be in heaven along with the other relatives, as opposed to just dying

NeilUnreal

Well said.

-Neil

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]</p>

Kosh

I think I always believed in an old earth, ever since I was 5, and realized that the rolling hills of central California were actually formed by buried brontosaurus'....

Brontosauruses? Brontasauri? Ah heck, maybe we should give it a new name....

Doubting Didymus

I thinkwe did, but I forget what it was. anyone here remember what the brontosaurus's new name is?

Coragyps

Apatosaurus, or else Barney.... I think.