Fw: Alliance for Science

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt "Fritz" Bergin" <fritziematt@yahoo.com>
To: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Alliance for Science

> Morality isn't just the laws of the land. There are things that are
> considered immoral that aren't against the law. I don't kill or steal
> because its wrong not becuase I will be punished for it by society. People
> break laws and cause war and death because that's human nature.
>
> Whats the difference between saying that there is no absolute truth and
> that we can't know what it is? The outcome is the same...and are you
> saying that your statement is an absolute truth that we do know? or don't
> we know that either? We are still faced with the same problem.
>
> I really don't think that atheists and christians have the same reasons
> for being moral. Sure we obey the laws because we agree to keep the laws
> as part of being citizens. I would be willing to guess that most
> Christians want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus for reasons that don't
> include not wanting to be punished by society. I'm saying that atheists
> have no reaon at all to be moral and no reason to tell other people to do
> the same. I'm not saying that there aren't atheists that aren't good
> people or that follow the law. There are atheists now that are moral
> because they were raised that way in a society that is influenced by
> religion (an observation by my atheist prof.). What about people and
> societies in an atheist future that will be raised on the idea that there
> are no morals or absolute truth or that their existance is just an
> illusion and that other people are just a clump of molecules and
> electrical and chemical signals? You can't really say otherwise if you
> only use science to look at the world or people.
>
> I'm very weary of the atheists that say religion is the cause of every
> problem (Dawkins), that morality is just an illiusion created by our genes
> (Ruse), that people are just a buch of molecules and signals that create
> an illusion of existance (Crick), ect. I don't know about you but I don't
> want anyone who thinks that morality is a genetic illusion working on
> anything that has to do with experimenting with human DNA. Maybe I just
> don't have enough experience in genetics and DNA but I can't help but
> think of the horrors that humanity could create with this also. Science
> can be used for great good...but if we destroy any idea of morality where
> is that going to lead science in the future?
>
> ~Matt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "American Science Association" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:49 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