Re: Fw: Alliance for Science

At 10:08 PM 3/11/2006, Matt \"Fritz\" Bergin wrote:

>This is interesting:
>http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=detail&id=644
>
>Ravi Zacharias kind of touches on what you are saying. There is a
>ton of stuff to listen to in the radio section.
>
>~Matt

@ He's a great Bible teacher. Thanks for the link! ~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:fritziematt@yahoo.com>Matt "Fritz" Bergin ;
><mailto:asa@calvin.edu>American ScienceAssociation
>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:54 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Alliance for Science
>
>At 09:30 PM 3/11/2006, Matt \"Fritz\" Bergin wrote:
>>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
>
>
>@ You can't write enough laws to restrain the lawless - those who
>are a law unto themselves and don't follow an absolute, objective,
>impartial standard of right and wrong.
>
>"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with
>human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution
>was written for a religious and moral people. It is wholly
>inadequate for the government of any other." ~ John
>Adams http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/
>
>~ Janice ... America's government is set up based upon the Biblical
>worldview - that man is not "basically" good. The other religion
>is based on the Arminian worldview that man is basically good and is
>perfectable here and now. Eve was the first to call the shots in
>that religion. I hear that she had a "sweet, kind" disposition, though. :)
>
Received on Sat Mar 11 22:13:19 2006