Theism v. Atheism in Prog

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: 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

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.

I'm an athiest

I'm a christian
 
(thought that might sound good after the last post above from explodingjosh!)

I'm sorry - that must have sounded so so cheesy (apologies - no offence meant)

I did get it  - it's just that the second post kind of arrived while I was writing mine.

D'oh !

It's not fair - I couldn't follow mine up with a second post saying  ....Fan!
(I don't think there's a band called Christian - at least I've not heard of them if there is)

StyLaZyn wrote: agProgger wrote: He's not actually an atheist (or at least he didn't seem to be) -- the point was the delayed "...fan!" part =) /explain_joke off And if he was, good for him. Nothing wrong with that.

Here are a couple of good Christian Prog bands: IONA, KERRY LIVGREN'S solo stuff and also with his band A.D.

yeh  - that would be a good idea - then I would know which ones to get/ try - a bit like my son's friends who deliberately look out and buy those CD's with Offensive language stickers on!

PinkPangolin wrote: I'm sorry - that must have sounded so so cheesy (apologies - no offence meant) I did get it  - it's just that the second post kind of arrived while I was writing mine. D'oh ! It's not fair - I couldn't follow mine up with a second post saying  ....Fan! (I don't think there's a band called Christian - at least I've not heard of them if there is)

You should've put: I'm a Christian