Left & Right Wing Preoccupation

[yychobbyist]

I'm not saying that religious people or Christians can't think. I am spiritual person and I have no problems with spiritual people

I do, however, question the reasoning ability and the critical thinking skills of people who believe the world was created in six days, that a guy built a boat and sailed the high seas with a bunch of animals for a month and half, and that some guy parted seas so that a bunch of people could be saved.

I have a problem with people whose beliefs fly in the face of science. Science tells me how the earth was created, it tells me that the great flood never happened and that a person can't part water.

 

[langeweile]

The thing with faith is, that you either believe or you don't. That's why they call it faith.
I don't want to get in to a long discussion on faith, like politics it is a very personal issue.
Let me just say that poking fun at people for their believes is very intolerant. Intolerance is not a virtue of the religous right.
Many of those people that say they believe in those stories, are also very clear, that those beliefs have a limited place in poltics.

I judge a person by what they do and not by what they believe in. If you a good and stand up person and you need the bible to give you that strength..who am I to judge? I rather have you live by the word of God, than be lost in life with nothing to hold on to.

Tolerance and acceptance go a long way.

 

[happygrump]

Tolerance and acceptance go a long way.

Amen to that (no pun intended).

 

[someone]

I can’t believe that OTB and Lang don’t think there is a problem with half the population does not even have a very basic knowledge of science in today’s world. We are not talking about religion so much as ignorance. There are plenty of religious people in other developed countries that profess to believe in some kind of God. However, even the Vatican no longer takes the story of creation literally.

I really thought people would try to attack the figures (which I find hard to believe myself) rather than try to say there is nothing wrong with them. For example, one of my friends argues that the numbers are exaggerated. He argues that many Americans think that the more religious they seem the more they look like nice people. Thus, they pretend to have these believes when they are asked. I am doubtful that people would really want to pretend to be dumber than they are but at least he is not saying that if these figures are true, it would not be a bad sign.

If these figures really do reflect American’s knowledge of science, it is surely a sign of a society in decay.

 

[langeweile]

I can’t believe that OTB and Lang don’t think there is a problem with half the population does not even have a very basic knowledge of science in today’s world. We are not talking about religion so much as ignorance. There are plenty of religious people in other developed countries that profess to believe in some kind of God. However, even the Vatican no longer takes the story of creation literally.

I really thought people would try to attack the figures (which I find hard to believe myself) rather than try to say there is nothing wrong with them. For example, one of my friends argues that the numbers are exaggerated. He argues that many Americans think that the more religious they seem the more they look like nice people. Thus, they pretend to have these believes when they are asked. I am doubtful that people would really want to pretend to be dumber than they are but at least he is not saying that if these figures are true, it would not be a bad sign.

If these figures really do reflect American’s knowledge of science, it is surely a sign of a society in decay.

Here we go again.
There is no conflict in my mind between believing the stories from the bible(with the exception of creationism) and the believe and support of certain scientific theories.
You can believe in them, but don't take them literally, those two are very compatible thoughts.
Let's don't forget that these stories have been written by people, who claim to have seen something. Did it all happened as described i highly doubt it. Is there some underlying truth? Who really knows? It is a question of believe.

Why do people that believe in the bible, have a lack of scientific knowledge? and why is it witness to a society in decay?
Again I get the feeling that you just wrote this as a cheap shot against Americans.
You implied a couple times that the religous right is somehow intolerant, you have shown the same intolerance, and you claim to be a man of science?

Why does it bother you, that people have such strong believes? Does it question your own believe system? Does it in any way bother your serenity?
Why can't you just accept those peoples believes?
You don't know any of those people, you have never sat down with either one of them. You are taking a "scientific poll" to make a judgement on somebodies faith. Isn't that a bit black and white?
We all know how accurate and indepth polls are?

There is a certain under educated fringe that actually have a literally believe. My experience with faith is, that people don't like to talk openly about it. Usually those who do are trying to sell you something anyway. Good believers live their faith and don't talk about it.

 

[onthebottom]

YYC, Someone,

I think you are making a leap that because 60% of the population (and I think that's high but it doesn't change the argument) believes the bible that they don't believe in science. While one could argue that the two are irreconcilable - what you gentlemen are arguing - I don't know that everyone tries to reconcile these.

Think about this, how many religious people do you KNOW that are stupid or don't believe in science. I can't think of any myself.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

DQ,
FINALLY...thanks for the post.

 

[Peeping Tom]

I'm wondering why you don't back this up. Just how does half the population not have a clue about science?

I can’t believe that OTB and Lang don’t think there is a problem with half the population does not even have a very basic knowledge of science in today’s world.

So, if its not religion, then Americans are ignorant?

We are not talking about religion so much as ignorance.

I suppose you are the Vatican's point man. Maybe you should check the numbers - the Vatican does not represent the majority of Americans who declare themselves religious.

However, even the Vatican no longer takes the story of creation literally.

Nobody is bothering to attack the figures because they are meaningless. There is nothing wrong with them because the question is unqualified, any answer would be equally valid. Next time choose something you can correlate to your arguments (something you have been very shy at doing).

I really thought people would try to attack the figures (which I find hard to believe myself) rather than try to say there is nothing wrong with them.

See above, next time try to interpret what it says before postulating your stereotype.

If these figures really do reflect American’s knowledge of science

This last line is what is expected of a religious zealot. It seems the true believer is you.

it is surely a sign of a society in decay.

 

[someone]

Here we go again.
There is no conflict in my mind between believing the stories from the bible(with the exception of creationism) and the believe and support of certain scientific theories.
You can believe in them, but don't take them literally, those two are very compatible thoughts.

The point is that 60%+ of the American populatin did claim to take them literally.

 

[langeweile]

The point is that 60%+ of the American populatin did claim to take them literally.

Read the rest of the post....it is a poll..answers to questions of faith are never black and white..

 

[someone]

There are many rational people, scientists included,
that hold there is a unity of science and religion.

That may very well be true but those are not people who believe that the world was made in 7 days (Given that Newton lived before Darwin, he may be an exception but if he lived today, I am sure he would not take the story of creation seriously.

 

[someone]

I'm wondering why you don't back this up. Just how does half the population not have a clue about science?

Are you serious in asking this question? The answer is because all the evidence of modern science is that the world was not made in 7 days. Please attend a grade 7 class in a country with real highs schools if you need more elaboration on this answer

So, if its not religion, then Americans are ignorant?

See the answer above.

I suppose you are the Vatican's point man. Maybe you should check the numbers - the Vatican does not represent the majority of Americans who declare themselves religious.

Those Americans are also not represented by the majority of theologians

Nobody is bothering to attack the figures because they are meaningless. There is nothing wrong with them because the question is unqualified, any answer would be equally valid.

You can't be serious can you?

 

[someone]

YYC, Someone,

Think about this, how many religious people do you KNOW that are stupid or don't believe in science. I can't think of any myself.

OTB

I can know think of 60% of the population in a certain country.

More seriously, I can't think of any other developed country in the world were there would not be serious concerns if the education system produced results like this. Indeed, I can't think of any developed country where the number would even come close. I challenge you to find one were the people are this uneducated.

 

[someone]

Read the rest of the post....it is a poll..answers to questions of faith are never black and white..

You really want me to take the time to pick apart everything in your post? Maybe when I have more time but right now I have to get ready to teach a class in a nonevolutionary science.

The fact that the American posters on this board don't even find the results surprising says a lot. When I used to hear reports about groups in the U.S. who wanted planned designed (or whatever the term they have started using for creationism is) taught in schools, I used to think it was just a few crackpots in the bible belt. Now, I am really beginning to wonder. Perhaps my impression of American culture was very wrong.

 

[slowpoke]

Slowpoke,


....In addition to the left/right labels I'm also annoyed at the freedom some feel to criticize US policy with no need to suggest an alternative, something I'm going to start calling Monday morning Canucking. Don't like Iraq, Iran, North Korea US policy, great, what would you do differently (let's just ignore the point about Canada actually doing something - that's not very realistic).

OTB

Let me make sure I've got this straight. I hear that a big stong guy has just beaten the crap out of a much weaker person or I learn that a very rich and powerful group has recently bombed and invaded a poor and helpless group. I also learn that the helpless group posed no plausible threat to the powerful one.

But, according to you, I should have worked out an alternative strategy for the above aggressors before I can express my outrage. Why should I? I just want them to be punished and made to stop. That's it. I would be perfectly willing to discuss why it was wrong for the aggressors to behave this way but that should be self evident.

If I was forced to suggest an alternative strategy for the above aggressors, it would be to stop immediately and turn the bully / ringleader over to the authorities in the [world] court to be prosecuted like any other [war] criminal. This isn't a left / right thing and you can call it Monday morning Canucking if it makes you feel better. BTW, we Canucks aren't the only group that feels this way so you might want to expand the "Canucking" to something a little more global.

 

[onthebottom]

I can know think of 60% of the population in a certain country.

More seriously, I can't think of any other developed country in the world were there would not be serious concerns if the education system produced results like this. Indeed, I can't think of any developed country where the number would even come close. I challenge you to find one were the people are this uneducated.

You are confusing a belief in the bible (example you used) with ignorance or the rejection of science. My point remains, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think it is very easy to believe in the big bang and creation at the same time (one sounds like an explanation of the other to me). You are reading this as too black and white.

You must know Americans. How many of them seem this "uneducated". I'm guessing none. That should tell you something.

And to answer your comparative question, UK has some of the same test score issues that we have. (if that's what you meant).

I didn't get the first line, maybe you're too cleaver for me.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Let me make sure I've got this straight. I hear that a big stong guy has just beaten the crap out of a much weaker person or I learn that a very rich and powerful group has recently bombed and invaded a poor and helpless group. I also learn that the helpless group posed no plausible threat to the powerful one.

But, according to you, I should have worked out an alternative strategy for the above aggressors before I can express my outrage. Why should I? I just want them to be punished and made to stop. That's it. I would be perfectly willing to discuss why it was wrong for the aggressors to behave this way but that should be self evident.

If I was forced to suggest an alternative strategy for the above aggressors, it would be to stop immediately and turn the bully / ringleader over to the authorities in the [world] court to be prosecuted like any other [war] criminal. This isn't a left / right thing and you can call it Monday morning Canucking if it makes you feel better. BTW, we Canucks aren't the only group that feels this way so you might want to expand the "Canucking" to something a little more global.

I just used Canuck because, well there are many Canucks here and Canada isn't as action oriented as many other Western countries. Never mind that last part, it'll just start a flame war I'm not interested in.

So, in your Iraq example (gee, that was hard to read into), you could disagree with the approach the US and UK have taken and suggested continued sanctions (a solution), ending sanctions (containment) ...... Taking this approach would require you live in the real world where there are a fixed number of potential solutions, sometimes all of them with flaws. You would then have to defend your solution as being better than the solution being pursued by the US and UK.

That was the only point I was trying to make - not a hard one to understand.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

You really want me to take the time to pick apart everything in your post? Maybe when I have more time but right now I have to get ready to teach a class in a nonevolutionary science.

The fact that the American posters on this board don't even find the results surprising says a lot. When I used to hear reports about groups in the U.S. who wanted planned designed (or whatever the term they have started using for creationism is) taught in schools, I used to think it was just a few crackpots in the bible belt. Now, I am really beginning to wonder. Perhaps my impression of American culture was very wrong.

Again..a very much expected response. A typical Euro response I might add.

Why do guys like you always talk down to us, and consistently belittle us? One of many questions I have asked you, without ever getting an explanation.
In the end that is fine with me. Having lived in Europe, Canada and the USA I pretty much know, what makes you guys tick.
It is fascinating to me, on how much I see of me in you, in my past attitudes on the USA. Truly fascinating. Thanks for reminding me on where I came from.
Cheers.

 

[someone]

I was raised Catholic. Sixteen years of parochial education. I attended a Jesuit university
and most of my instructors were Jesuits. I may not be representative of other Catholics
education in our tradition. But the Jesuits taught me to think critically when reading not
only scripture but all other matters. My theology professors [all Jesuits] read the Bible,
and Genesis in particular, as metaphores since our language is limited to the dimensions
of the physical universe. Points of interest:

1. Six days of Creation in Genesis were understood to be six of God's days and not six
of man's days. It is pure foolishness to think God measures His actions in the same time
frame as it takes for our planet to make one spin on it's axis. Six days, but whose six
days and measured from whose perspective. Six of Gods days could be 6 million or 6
billion of you and my days.

2. Adam. Was there one Adam or is Adam a generic term for mankind. There is the Adam of the creation of man, there is the Adam of the Garden of Eden and there is the
Adam of the fall from grace father to Cain and Abel. My understanding is that there are
three Adams. One at the creation of mankind, one who is the hunter and gatherer and
one who is the farmer.

3. Teachings of Jesus. Most of Jesus's teachings are in the form of parables. He does
not speak in concrete terms but in metaphores. No better example is The Sermon on the
Mount. The entire Sermon is metaphorical and cannot possibly be taken literally.

As for evolution, God can do and act in ways that God chooses. If God chooses to use
evolution as His design then so be it. How can you and I, finite minds, understand God's
mind, God's plan?

There is but one Truth, one Reality. We may not know, we may not ever understand how
this Single Truth and Reality has been designed by the Divine Architect of the universe.

I do not believe there is a contradiction between Scripture and Science.

Don

If you read my posts you will see that I did not pass any judgment about people who treat those stories as "metaphores" and "parables" to use your terms. That is a whole other issue and not one I am prepared to devote time discussing now. My point was the surprising number of Americans that take those stories literally as the polls results indicate. Right now I am only discussing the more clear cut case of people who take those stories literally. As I said before, I am amassed that Americans don’t find the results very weird.

 

[slowpoke]

I just used Canuck because, well there are many Canucks here and Canada isn't as action oriented as many other Western countries. Never mind that last part, it'll just start a flame war I'm not interested in.

So, in your Iraq example (gee, that was hard to read into), you could disagree with the approach the US and UK have taken and suggested continued sanctions (a solution), ending sanctions (containment) ...... Taking this approach would require you live in the real world where there are a fixed number of potential solutions, sometimes all of them with flaws. You would then have to defend your solution as being better than the solution being pursued by the US and UK.

That was the only point I was trying to make - not a hard one to understand.

OTB

Just prior to the invasion, I was very clearly on the side of continued inspections. We know now that the inspectors wouldn't have ever found anything so, with that knowledge, it is obvious that the inspections would have gone on for a year or two longer, then the UN could have gradually lifted the sanctions in exchange for permanent UN inspectors and monitors in Iraq etc. Bush was just far too impatient.

If Bush had put as much effort and expense into helping reform the UN as he did into invading Iraq, we'd have supported him, we'd have shared the cost and so would most western democracies. Martin has spoken out strongly for a reformed UN so he'd have been very much in favour of this, including a UN controlled permanent force. If the US really wanted it, the UN could have become the policeman the US is always pretending to be. I would have supported a UN force in Iraq, but only after the inspections had been given more time to assess the threat of WMD. Hans Blix would have eventually ruled out WMD and none of this bloodshed would have been necessary.

I knew the war in Iraq would be bloody and costly and I have been proven right in spades. I never believed Dubya's WMD pretence, especially when the wheels started falling off his "facts" during the pre-invasion WMD promo. It was quite evident that the neocons preferred their doctored evidence of WMD because they kept touting it long after it had been discredited. With Korea, India, Pakistan, Isreal and probably a few others all being rogue members of the nuclear club, I couldn't see the urgency of invading Iraq with all the inspections, sanctions and surveillance being directed its way. Saddam couldn't scratch his ass without everyone knowing yet the US insisted that he presented the greatest threat. What nonsense!