Korean Job Discussion Forums

[BreakfastInBed]

It certainly isn�t evolution. The same arguments have been trotted out for 150 years. Questions are asked, holes are poked, questions get answered, gaps get filled, no one is convinced by anyone, and a new round begins. So what is it?

An 80 year old Jesuit professor told me he thinks the real bone of contention is over science�s haughty assumption that it is the only way of �knowing.� His argument was that scientific truth appears to preclude the possibility of any other kind of truth or way of knowing. Scientists themselves may not actually make this assumption, he said, but that is the perception that has permeated our culture, and it is a cultural battle which is being fought not a scientific one. That is why scientific arguments cannot and will not put this issue to bed. So what kind of arguments need to be made? What kind of debates must we have?

Is a society or individual that subscribes solely to scientific truth impoverished in some way? I have a friend at home, a staunch atheist, who would sneer at the notion, and another who would argue that the act of sneering is symbolic of spiritual impoverishment. How on Earth can they be reconciled?

[laogaiguk]

What other way of finding information is there? The scientific method isn't something spectacularly difficult.

Think of an idea (hypothesis) -- test it -- see if it is true or not (and then make it a theory).

How else do you propose we check information?

[laogaiguk]

[KirbyMagnus]

A lot of Atheists have very entrenched positions. Their view point is rigid. The irony being that the way they conduct themselves in debate is no different to the religious nutjobs. Evolution is the truth, Science is the truth and anyone who disagrees is ignorant.

What the atheists need to remember is that only religion is rigid and aggressive towards those who oppose it. Often in these debates they display the same aggressive conduct as those they oppose.

Science is mutable and subject to change. New facts can readjust the scientific view point of the world. Many atheists need to remember this. Science is not the truth, the truth is unknowable. The beauty of Science is the admission that it is not all powerful and all knowing. It is not a monolithic entity like a church. It is merely a method. Any idea or belief has to be tested and evidence must be provied to support it.

The belief in god is a philosophical debate. There is no evidence to support the existence of god, but the belief in a god or gods has influenced all of human civilization. Even if god does not exist without the belief in god our civilization would not exist. But religion has had its time and now secularism and science must lead mankind forward.

I believe Evolution explains the origin of man, and that there was no involvement from extraterrestrial or supernatural entities. I believe that ID should not be taught in schools.

I also believe that many atheists are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Remember that the creationism debate is about maintaining the purity of the scientific method in schools and not allowing it to be undermined by the interests of religious groups. It is about maintaining a secular society and the seperation of church and state. It is not about attacking other peoples beliefs because that makes us no better than the religious nutjobs.

[skinhead]

Science is susceptible
Nothing is invinvicible.

~ The Police

[Stormy]

[Kuros]

[Justin Hale]

Atheists are rigid on only one issue. The existence of God, the Biblical and Koranic God in particular usually but certainly any superintending, supernatural deity, is only one topic. It's a big topic, yes, but a single, solitary topic nevertheless. It's excessive to say that atheists are rigid just because of their rigidity over this one topic. And we are rigid only because religions posit entities and states of affairs that are superfluous at best and contrary to sanity and decency at worst. There are plenty of other topics out there where one's lack of subscription to celestial totalitarianism is of total irrelevance - abstract entities, ethics, epistemology, music, art, literature, politics, economics. So I rather feel you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here, KirbyMagnus.

I have toleration for theists, but they must satisfy the following conditions:

(1) Believe that evolution is a demonstrable fact and believe that natural selection is a powerful theory explaining said facts
(2) Not posit lay, base discourse in opposition to an international consensus of scientific expertise on any matter whatsoever
(3) Not posit religious conservatism-inspired discourse in opposition to consensus on climate change (Christians hate science so much, they even baselessly attack climate science expertise)
(4) Not believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes
(5) Not advocate any religious influence at all on politics, society and science

John McCain is a Christian, yet he satisfies 1, 2 and 3 (but not 4 and 5) so McCain's okay, but he needs to wire his head and his ass together a bit. Basically, any theist who satisfies 1-5 I have the utmost toleration and respect for. Theists who fail to satisfy all are dangerous and should be dealt with as we deal with the mentally sick.

Finally.....

[Ya-ta Boy]

[KirbyMagnus]

[Gopher]

What do those who argue about "evolution" really argue about?

Worldviews. Or more appropriately, universeviews.

[Justin Hale]

[BreakfastInBed]

[Kuros]

[Gopher]