Re: Alliance for Science

Matt "Fritz" Bergin wrote:

> I don't think that ID is science or that we need to mix anything with
> science to show how things work. I don't have to mix a philosophy into
> my explanation of how my car works. I think the ID and creationists
> are responding to the athiest philosophy (that has been feeding off of
> science for a long time) by attacking science and not the naturalist
> philosophy. Thats my opinion.
>
And that is regrettable because it is affecting science rather than the
naturalist philosophy

> So if there is no absolute truth then I can believe that there is an
> absolute truth and still be right...so there is an absolute
> truth...either that or the idea that there is no absolute truth is an
> absolute truth...and then the idea defeats itself. You have to love
> westernized eastern philosophy...but to paraphrase Ravi Zacharias even
> in india people look both ways before they cross the street...its
> either them or the car.

I care little for philosophy in this sense. When I state that there is
no such thing as absolute truth, I mean that even if it were to exist,
we would never be able to know that it did.

>
> What morals do athiests have? Do they have to follow them? Can they
> change them if they feel like it at the moment? Why should anyone else
> follow their morals? If they believe that we should help preserve the
> Earth for later generations why should I? because they say so? Who are
> they to tell me what to do? Why should I not steal? or kill? Just
> because society says I shouldn't doesn't make it wrong becuase there
> is no right or wrong just opinions of different people as to what we
> should and shouldn't do. Why should the majority oppose its oppinions
> on me? Why were the Nazis wrong to kill the Jews and others? They were
> using science to try to better society and their laws said it was a
> good thing to do...so what right did we have to impose our views on
> them? Why did we put them on trial after the war? Why didn't we use
> their laws for the trial?

Atheists have very similar morals to you and I and often for very
similar reasons because society has agreed upon certain rules and
threatens to punish with jail time or fines. But merely having rules
does not prevent people from breaking them. In that aspect atheists and
Christians are not very different. All try to obey the laws as best as
they can because of the punishment which awaits them and the amount of
relevance they attach to said punishment.

The reason we put the Nazis on trial is because we won. You seldomly see
the winner being dragged into court to defend its actions (point in case
Iraq). Why should the majority impose their opinions on you? They don't
they just have ways to punish you for not following laws and morality.
Why should we accept that just because we may interpret the bible to
oppose certain behaviors that such interpretation is even correct let
alone enforcable?
Christians and atheists are not much different both have a long history
in which morality and laws have evolved. Neither has done a good job at
showing that their are absolute morals. How else do we explain the many
atrocities in history in name of science, patriotism, religion etc?

Of course, most cultures agree that killing is in most circumstances
against the law and that such behavior should be judged. In the end
morality is as fluid as the people who interpret it. And even if there
were absolute laws and morality, we will never know them in our
lifetime. What do you suggest would be examples of absolutes? Though
shall not kill? Even that one is not absolute it seems as under certain
circumstances killing another human being is allowed. Though shall not
steal? Even if one is poor and your children are dying? Personally I see
absolutes as being as temporary as society's interests. Over time
certain interests have 'survived' as the fittest and societies have
found that enforcing them benefits society as well as most individuals
within said society.

That's why we cannot see the constitution as 'absolute' as it was
written in a time with many limitations of knowledge, situations and
social and ethical beliefs. And that's why in many cases the
constitution has to be amended or its interpretation extended.

>
> Do you think that athiests want to live in harmony with any idea of
> religion?
>
Yes. Do you think that Christians want to live in harmony with other
philosophies and or religions? I'd say the answer is not going to be
very different from what many atheists would answer.

> ~Matt
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pim van Meurs"
> <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "American Science Association" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Alliance for Science
>
>
>> Yes, you can always find some who will abuse science to perpetuate
>> their philosophical or religious beliefs.
>> I wonder if you hold similar opinions about Christians who are trying
>> to mix their faith in with science in a (not so) subtle manner? I'd
>> say that much of the ID movement and certainly those at the
>> forefront, are doing exactly this.
>> So yes, lets oppose the mixing of philosophies and science.
>> I have found the whole 'atheists have no morals" a totally flawed
>> argument as it is based not only on the untenable concept of absolute
>> truths but also ignores how morals and laws are fluid in many aspects
>> and serve mostly a societal 'survival' function.
>> So how does this compare to 'Christian' morals? I could find similar
>> sites with similar problems. So lets not trivialize the discussion by
>> pointing out the obvious that some on all sides are abusing in some
>> manner faith, science etc for their own goals.
>> Whenever we make choices, we make ourselves a 'threat' to others. The
>> real solution is not to threaten but to comprehend this obvious fact
>> and search for ways to work and live together in a most harmonious
>> manner. Them against us 'thinking' is what has caused us and is
>> presently causing us much harm and pain.
>>
>> Do we all agree that those who abuse science to further their
>> religious, or political goals are doing a disservice?
>>
>> Matt "Fritz" Bergin wrote:
>>
>>> I think we have to look at their intentions...if they just want to
>>> teach science and thats it I have no problem learning from an
>>> atheist (if they teach good science and that only). Unfortunately I
>>> never have had an atheist teach science without their philosophy
>>> mixed in. This guy is trying to be a subtle atheist in his goals of
>>> changing society so I don't see why any Christians should support
>>> this. I think its interesting that reading the link that atheism
>>> seems to be mostly political...do you think that its roots are
>>> political and thats why it is today? I really doubt that atheist
>>> will be successful in convincing most people the illusion that they
>>> have any morals. I've read the humanist idea of morals...it a
>>> rambling bunch of nonsense IMO...but of course they did include a
>>> principle of sex and death and also experimenting to find good
>>> "morals". Heres a atheist website (I find their views on
>>> Christianity very funny...they really have no clue) that doesn't
>>> support the humanist morals or "principles":
>>> *http://usabig.com/autonomist/humanism.html* it seems that atheists
>>> can't even agree on what morals to support. Also note that humanists
>>> principles are all political once they deal with the God issue in
>>> the first two or so.
>>> ~Matt
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 11 19:51:28 2006