Fw: Alliance for Science

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt "Fritz" Bergin" <fritziematt@yahoo.com>
To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Alliance for Science

> My professor is an athiest and is a nice guy and cares about people also.
> I have also heard him say outside of class that religious people are
> stupid and really had nothing but bad things to say. The rest of my
> experience with atheists is that they are angry, self-centered, and
> condesending. They basically live to debate and cause doubt in other
> people. I think the article posted earlier shows that some see this as a
> problem for their cause. Also note that they don't want to be positive
> becuase they want to be nice people...they only want to do it to advance
> their cause. I have no problem with an atheist that can respect my
> religious beliefs. I know that there are atheists out there that are open
> to religious ideas but just can't believe for whatever reason. I still
> think my questions about morality are something that they should be able
> to answer if they are going to destroy religion and replace it with
> materialism and a philosophy for everything based on the scientific
> method.
>
> ~Matt
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "American Science Association" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:16 PM
> Subject: 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 21:30:59 2006