Re: Alliance for Science

I would ask any person on this list who does not know an atheist to get to
know one. One of my best friends, of over thirty years, is an atheist. He
is a scientist, a professor of physics and astronomy. He, a secular
humanist, is one of the sweetest, kindest, most compassionate, faithful,
fair-minded and morally decent persons I know. He respects my religious
convictions and supports my work in bringing religion and science together;
in fact several years ago, he criticised the religious communities for not
getting out front and doing enough to defend good science and good theology
from YEC and ID anti-evolution assaults.

It is so easy to categorize and objectify philosophical and theological
positions; we need to take care that we do not use these labels to assume
any individual we so catagorize is what we imagine them to be. I include
myself in this caveat.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Cc: "American Science Association" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: 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 20:19:11 2006