There is a basic assumption over here; that one has to accept either evolution or religion. But I say why not both?How does one replace a multi generational tradition with a theory that can't be fully explained and in fact demands you shift away from your own paradigm and accept it first before you can begin to comprehend?
You invoke Dawkins again and he's stated he justified his atheism with evolution. That is quite extreme to some ears. How can one win hearts and minds with such absolutes at the meet and greet?
And yet am I supposed to believe that there is a small man sitting inside everything I see? According to the Indian Scriptures, The universe was made by Brahma, one of the principal gods. Then should I believe than an old man with 4 heads and 4 hands sitting on a lotus flower created everything? NO! Because these are supposed to have metaphorical meaning and not literal ones. The lotus, the four hands and heads; they are there to symbolize things. The lotus for example represents that one can attain peace and happiness even when one is surrounded by dirty elements just as a lotus flower emerges from the muddy waters.Some basic information:
Hindus have one God. They also have 330 million Gods. Male Gods, Female Gods, Family Gods, Household Gods, Personal God, Village God, Fertility God, Forest God, Sun God, Moon God and what not. You name it, there is a God for it. For Hindus, everything is divine and there is nothing that can be ignored.
I totally agree with that Ken.I would warrant that much serious biological research is underpinned by a knowledge and understanding of evolution and of phylogeny that the biologists involved are not even terribly conscious of applying, so basic and fundamental is that knowledge to the very idea of the research.
After a lot of effort , Warren is just beginning to seriously ask questions so let us not fire him up again.So do I think that Warren is really that naïve? No, of course he isn’t Warren knows exactly what he is doing. What he is doing is in no way original. Not one thing he has said isn’t wearingly familiar and very tedious. And you are falling right into his trap.
On the contrary KenBelieve me Fredrik, never for one moment was I suggesting that you were playing any games. And genuinely, I hope you manage to retain your enjoyment of the exchange and avoid the fall into the level of cynicism of which I am perhaps guilty. But I have to suspect that Warren and his ilk will wear you down in the end. Already, can you possibly still have any expectation of persuading him of anything?
You always have the best short answers!After a lot of effort , Warren is just beginning to seriously ask questions so let us not fire him up again.
Excellent idea!I don't want to interfere with the sidetrack but how about if we just for the sake of reflection turn the question of the OP around.
People are having trouble reconciling your claim that you are not a creationist with your continued use of creationist arguments, language and tactics. As you yourself said: you sound like a creationist.You always have the best short answers!
Once again I don't understand the compulsion to continue if one feels I am dealing dishonestly. I have surmised this from several posters and exercised the ignore option.
Now you ask what good is religion and tradition in our lives? Just like Fra said, having faith in something gives one the mental strength to achieve things.
People are having trouble reconciling your claim that you are not a creationist with your continued use of creationist arguments, language and tactics. As you yourself said: you sound like a creationist.
Discussion of religion is prohibited by PF guidelines.Excellent idea!
How about this. What are the bad things about religion?
It really doesn't matter how many times you say you are not a YEC. If you continue to talk like one, people will beleive you are one. Or, more to the point, people will respond to your YEC arguments with anti-YEC arguments.Russ,
You could simply ask me.
Are you saying your religious baggage or lack thereof comes directly from the Vatican? Did you flip-flop your beliefs without any thought in 2002 after the Vatican flip-flopped its position on these scientific issues?It certain goes on from there to deal with "Gods plan" but certainly illustrates even on a religious front I have little baggage that would prevent us from agreeing on much more than you imagine.
If your goal here is to dig into what you see as an attitude problem among scientists, that is also not a scientific discussion.Once again check yourself, this isn't about the science, we agree on that. It's about the prevailing attitude that I have seen expressed and observe a pattern that is hypocritical.