Vivian on 13/9/2007 at 16:28

---

BR, I have been an anthropologist, I am now an evolutionary biomechanical whatever scientist, I always enjoy discussing questions of religion and evolution. Basically, you are saying that god may have designed DNA (I'm presuming you mean not just dna but the whole hideously hard-to-understand complex of things which determines inheritability) to be the basis of a nice, adaptable system of life that was likely to throw up some interesting consequences for His satisfaction (in whatever sense), is that right?
Well, I don't agree with that, but at this stage that is just a matter of belief. I think that eventually there will be a satisfactory explanation of how dna, rna and all that stuff came about by chance and the laws of physics, but at the moment all science has in that regard is pretty well a stab in the dark based on the belief that it must have happened like that. So if you find it more satisfying to believe that a creator designed and made this self-replicating association of molecules, then fair enough.
All that stuff about 'evolutionary levels', though - that doesn't really mean anything.

Jay, you're right. Bible as literal truth doesn't really hold any water anymore if you accept any of the hard work scientists are doing as plausible, and you are entirely justified in believing its all a big load of balls designed to make people feel better about their inevitable death. But if people want to believe in some unseen owner of the universe, then why not? If there is any hard proof against some kind of deities wafting around out there, lets hear it.

Dia on 13/9/2007 at 18:28

---

One doesn't have to use scientific results, theories, etc. to discount the Bible as being the literal truth. History helps with that discounting quite well (logic also plays a big part). I remember being quite surprised and a tad dismayed (having been raised in a strict Episcopal family) when I first learned about Constantine (no, not the one from TDP) and his Council of Nicaea. And I quote: 'Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[2] With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom'. They didn't teach me that at St. Andrews! Nor did our priests mention that the bishops at the council pretty much picked, chose, or discarded the gospels, passages, etc. that were to be included in the final draft (man! there were hundreds of gospels floating around then!) and decided on the actual dates of the religious holidays (oh shock and dismay! You mean Jesus wasn't actually born on Dec. 25th?). The fact that the Bible was written by men (not God (as I'd been raised to believe), Who allegedly used men as His mouthpiece to write that book), and contradicts itself more often than I change underwear has pretty much led me to discount most of the writings contained within as The Word of God. And then there are the translation discrepancies, which screw things up even further. Take the Bible literally? I don't think so.

After studying up a tad on the Bible, its creation, amendments, translations, etc., I started asking some pretty serious questions of our clergy. (I don't think they like me anymore.) The fact that so many different religions have used that book for centuries to control the writhing masses of humanity didn't wash well with me in the least either. I don't support organized religion anymore, but my faith, though somewhat shaken and bruised in places, is still intact. Call it a crutch or whatever you want, I feel that I've questioned my faith to the point of turning it inside out & upside down and yep; it's still there (though somewhat revised and amended). Yet I also believe in evolution. You can't deny cold, hard, logical scientific facts. At least I can't. Not sure how I reconcile one with the other yet; still working on that one. But there you have it.







Now; about that Big Bang theory ...... :weird:

SD on 13/9/2007 at 20:07

---

They said if it got 50,000 signatures it would be a real religion :(

SD on 13/9/2007 at 22:08

---

There's no need for such an experiment - something similar already happened by accident, but there was nothing divine about it.

They're known as (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) cargo cults and the best-studied of them arose during World War II in the Melanesian islands. The natives, being entirely unacquainted with modern aircraft, were astonished by airdropped military supplies, which contained marvellous modern goods and materials that were totally alien to them.

After the war, when the cargo planes stopped dropping supplies for soldiers, the islanders began to build replica aircraft from straw, carve radios and headphones from wood in imitation of the soldiers they had seen, and to create their own landing strips, all in the hope of getting their precious, "divinely-given" cargo to return. All to no avail.

The amazing thing is that even when it was explained to the islanders where these planes actually came from, that these planes were not divine, but merely mundane transport vessels with very human origins, lots of them still refused to believe it. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many islanders continued to worship, clinging on to their belief that one day the cargo planes would return and start dropping supplies again. Well as Arthur C. Clarke wrote, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It's a story that says more about human attitudes to religion than anything.

Scots Taffer on 14/9/2007 at 00:11

---

I believe I held a semi-conversation with you over a Mount Gay and Coke in San Francisco (lol) and the poundingly awesome DJing at the Tunnel Top that first night which touched on this.
Over the years my view on religion and God has changed somewhat drastically, til now I'm at the stage where I think that your religion is almost entirely geocentric - if I was born in India and came to the belief that there was a higher power at work, I'd be a Hindu, if I was in China, I'd be a Bhuddist, if I was in the Middle East, an Islamist, and so on. The influences that create the differing religious perspectives are purely cultural, in my opinion.
As for the specifics? Mohammed and Jesus and so on... who knows. I could easily accept all of the people being true and the remaining record of their acts as being the warped perspectives of flawed human beings who cannot understand God.
In any case, what I'm getting at is that there's a whole lot of time spent into defining why religions are different and never enough time contemplating the similarities. You'd probably know more about this though, GBM, as you did a stint studying Comparative Religion, I wouldn't be surprised if fett could sensibly weigh in on the discussion too, and my views at this stage are entirely sophomoric.