Theism v. Atheism in Prog

WinterLight wrote: KeleCableII wrote: WinterLight wrote: Approaching evolution from a non-religious perspective, one also encounters a lot of hypocrisy:  there are those on the "pro-evolution" (since when has science become a political matter?) side of the debate refuse to acknowledge any flaws in the current model.  This attitude, while psychologically understandable, is actually in opposition to the scientific outlook.  To be honest, I find any dogma, even when I agree with its underlying principles, distasteful as it is a hindrance to intellectual and personal growth. I know this is way off-topic but I felt the need to point this out because I feel it's a widespread belief. Most arguments presented by people criticizing evolution are usually based off some kind of misconception or misunderstanding of the theory itself. Any scientist would tell you what areas of the theory we are not quite clear on yet, and they would most likely not match up with what an anti-evolutionist (mistakenly) sees as a problem. Yes, in the scientific community, that's usually the response one will observe.  And you're completely correct in that most "criticisms" targeting evolution are based on (usually severe) misconceptions.  However, it's a different matter altogether in the popular discourse on evolution.  (For clarity, I am not objecting in any way to evolution--although there are some problems with it--but I am only criticizing how some defend it.)

By me posting this, we are both at 42 posts, which is a very special number indeed.  We should never speak again, so as to maintain perfection forever.

WinterLight wrote: Approaching evolution from a non-religious perspective, one also encounters a lot of hypocrisy:  there are those on the "pro-evolution" (since when has science become a political matter?) side of the debate refuse to acknowledge any flaws in the current model.  This attitude, while psychologically understandable, is actually in opposition to the scientific outlook.  To be honest, I find any dogma, even when I agree with its underlying principles, distasteful as it is a hindrance to intellectual and personal growth.

I know this is way off-topic but I felt the need to point this out because I feel it's a widespread belief. Most arguments presented by people criticizing evolution are usually based off some kind of misconception or misunderstanding of the theory itself. Any scientist would tell you what areas of the theory we are not quite clear on yet, and they would most likely not match up with what an anti-evolutionist (mistakenly) sees as a problem.



Edited by KeleCableII - June 12 2008 at 03:44

agProgger wrote: WinterLight wrote: What I meant by "intellectual integrity" is the willingness to question one's own beliefs.  Such willingness is not to be found amongst the faithful (observe that this principle applies not just to theism, but to atheism as well, and also extends to political, philosophical, and ideological beliefs). To the contrary, though it's not common, such willingness does exist.  People often mistake confidence for closed-mindedness, which is a ridiculous association.  Once you've tested something against a particular idea, what use is there of revisiting such ideas with regularity?  That's not intellectual integrity; that's a waste of time.  In science, for example, no one makes any effort to verify that the world is not flat, or that the earth is not the center of the universe.  We've moved on from there.  In the same way, you can apply this to some religious issues, but many people are all too quick to say "we've disproved such and such; let's move on." This is particularly annoying when it comes to older or generally more traditional Christians and evolution.  Now I don't think our modern science of evolution is perfect -- far from it -- but I do believe that at least something similar to it happened.  People who think Genesis is literal immediately believe that this discredits evolution, and thus skip many steps in the intellectual process of examining their own beliefs.  You have to go to the beginning, question whether it was literal or not, and proceed from there.  If you do that and come to the same conclusion, then we'll agree to disagree, but at least you had what we're referring to here as "intellectual integrity."

I agree completely with what you've written (admittedly, I have a tendency toward hyperbole, and you got me on that one).  The only point I should add is that sometimes it is necessary to go back and rethink formerly accepted theories.  Suppose we obtain new data which the current model fails to explain:  then we need to refine the theory.  On the other hand, we may encounter data which contradicts some part of the theory:  in this case, we might need to abandon the theory altogether.  (Two examples:  general relativity and quantum theory subsuming classical mechanics, and Darwinian evolution replacing Lamarckian evolution.)

Approaching evolution from a non-religious perspective, one also encounters a lot of hypocrisy:  there are those on the "pro-evolution" (since when has science become a political matter?) side of the debate refuse to acknowledge any flaws in the current model.  This attitude, while psychologically understandable, is actually in opposition to the scientific outlook.  To be honest, I find any dogma, even when I agree with its underlying principles, distasteful as it is a hindrance to intellectual and personal growth.

I suppose that we've drifted off from the main topic, but it's been interesting.

WinterLight wrote: *frinspar* wrote: WinterLight wrote: To be sure, the promise of financial gain may induce some artists to dissemble their personal beliefs.  However, artistic integrity does not necessarily imply intellectual integrity, which as a rule, remains obscure amongst dogmatists of every ilk. Oh, absolutely, I agree I was speaking more of the honesty of ideas expressed. Intellect wasn't much of a factor in my remark, since I've heard a lot of horribly phrased and pedestrian appeals made in prog lyrics That's much what I assumed.  What I meant by "intellectual integrity" is the willingness to question one's own beliefs.  Such willingness is not to be found amongst the faithful (observe that this principle applies not just to theism, but to atheism as well, and also extends to political, philosophical, and ideological beliefs).

To the contrary, though it's not common, such willingness does exist.  People often mistake confidence for closed-mindedness, which is a ridiculous association.  Once you've tested something against a particular idea, what use is there of revisiting such ideas with regularity?  That's not intellectual integrity; that's a waste of time.  In science, for example, no one makes any effort to verify that the world is not flat, or that the earth is not the center of the universe.  We've moved on from there.  In the same way, you can apply this to some religious issues, but many people are all too quick to say "we've disproved such and such; let's move on."

This is particularly annoying when it comes to older or generally more traditional Christians and evolution.  Now I don't think our modern science of evolution is perfect -- far from it -- but I do believe that at least something similar to it happened.  People who think Genesis is literal immediately believe that this discredits evolution, and thus skip many steps in the intellectual process of examining their own beliefs.  You have to go to the beginning, question whether it was literal or not, and proceed from there.  If you do that and come to the same conclusion, then we'll agree to disagree, but at least you had what we're referring to here as "intellectual integrity."

*frinspar* wrote: WinterLight wrote: To be sure, the promise of financial gain may induce some artists to dissemble their personal beliefs.  However, artistic integrity does not necessarily imply intellectual integrity, which as a rule, remains obscure amongst dogmatists of every ilk. Oh, absolutely, I agree I was speaking more of the honesty of ideas expressed. Intellect wasn't much of a factor in my remark, since I've heard a lot of horribly phrased and pedestrian appeals made in prog lyrics

That's much what I assumed.  What I meant by "intellectual integrity" is the willingness to question one's own beliefs.  Such willingness is not to be found amongst the faithful (observe that this principle applies not just to theism, but to atheism as well, and also extends to political, philosophical, and ideological beliefs).

Well, first and foremost, I'm a Christian, and I'm trying to form a Christian band where I go to school; however, I absolutely detest most Christian music.  For one thing, it's just bad music a lot of the time, but the thing that really gets me, though, is that they run in circles on basic spiritual issues and see that as "ministry".  No, sir, that is called propaganda -- you're just bludgeoning someone over the head with the same idea until they decide they should accept it.  It also causes Christians, who should be growing spiritually, to get stuck in a rut, because they don't expand their mind to think outside the box that they've been told is where God resides.

As for theism in prog specifically, I really haven't seen much; mostly just the opposite.  Dream Theater has some slightly theistic songs.  3 of their members at least claim to be Christian, 2 of them are Jewish (Portnoy is a non-practicing Jew, last I heard), and it has come out in some of the songs to varying degrees.

I can tolerate atheism or demonic themes and such in prog bands, but I draw the line when they start sounding like they're calling religious people stupid, which is blatantly untrue.  There are stupid religious people, just like there are stupid atheists.  Stupidity is a universal trait.  I really like Opeth -- especially their latest album, which finally seems to have an alternative viewpoint present instead of just one person doing stuff with demons.  I wrote one of the 5-star reviews for Watershed, and I'll defend it vigorously... I digress.

One thing that astounded me, though, was that -- of all bands -- Meshuggah sounds Christian on their latest album, especially in the song "Pineal Gland Optics".  They're a little obsessed with hating what the world stands for, though.  Christians are supposed to hate the world (not the people in it, mind you), but that's not supposed to be the focus.  Also on Obzen is an interesting almost certainly intentional typo in the lyrics booklet that I haven't seen on any websites:

"an unquestionable picture - determined, complete
its CHRYSTALLINE lines untouched by doubt
so vivid, so deprived of hesitation
shining in its evil splendor "

I would assume that this is trying to say that the world is like the image of Christ dying, since I don't think any alternative explanations make any sense.  For example, you could say that it's saying that Christ is evil, but a even vast majority of atheists will say that Christ was a good person, though not God.

Fergot, I was drunk the day, mama got out of prison...

*frinspar* wrote: I think the treatment overall in prog is on a more honest level than in typical radio and popular music. Progressive musicians aren't really in it for the money , so they are able to relay in a more complete and direct fashion, either their personal beliefs, or those of a "character" position without having to kowtow to convention or commerce.

To be sure, the promise of financial gain may induce some artists to dissemble their personal beliefs.  However, artistic integrity does not necessarily imply intellectual integrity, which as a rule, remains obscure amongst dogmatists of every ilk.

fuxi wrote: Cesar Inca wrote: Criticizing a particular feature in a particular time of a particular Church doesn't mean a criticism against God or some sort of atheism. Once again, here are Ian Anderson's liner notes from AQUALUNG: 'In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him. 2. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be god all over the earth when it was suited to Man. 3. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.' There is no talk here of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or any other institutionalised religion; just the statement: 'In the beginning' [mind you, NOT in the days of Henry VIII, who founded the Anglican Church] 'Man created God'. In other words: there was no God until Man 'created' him. It seems to me that this is AQUALUNG's message as far as religion is concerned, otherwise these words would not be on the album cover in gothic script, clearly meant to parody 'Biblical' writing. The songs you hear on the album can be considered as illustrations of how certain people have created false gods in their own image. But enough of this! Although I'm a non-believer, I do not want to give you the impression I'm waging a war against religion, when I get some of my greatest kicks out of religious poetry, visual art and music. (Definitely NOT out of 'Christian rock', though. )

It's called satire, which is most effective when its hard to see initially. Ian Anderson did a great job of criticizing the church and conventional religion by using its own traits (gothic writing, rhetoric, etc.), but its not Atheist, sorry.

You can criticize religion and church and yet still have faith, I know.

Ketta wrote: One of the great things about prog is that it has a place for both Neal Morse's christianity and David Gilmours atheism. You don't find that tolerance and diversity in many other genres..... ketta