Comments on The Pensive Quill: Christians must fight atheist giant: Causeway furo...

An e mail came through this morn from Michael Dowd...

2012-07-29T07:32:54.069+01:00

An e mail came through this morn from Michael Dowd at EvoChristian recommending this book.

Itsjustmacker ‘I didn't know the Earth wasn&...

2012-07-27T16:29:30.616+01:00

Itsjustmacker

‘I didn't know the Earth wasn't flat? Are Unicorns not real?’
As real as biblical truths, mermaids and fairies.

I don’t have a problem with religion being taught in schools so long as a religion is taught about and not taught as truth. It should be taught in the sense of ‘there are people who believe this ....’

another perspective

John, This is an interesting point. I don’t know ...

2012-07-25T18:38:07.567+01:00

John,

This is an interesting point. I don’t know if the guy was sacked but would not doubt it. I know he denied it and I don’t think the Vatican confirmed it. But that all might be a diplomatic veneer. Freethinkers have always been attacked by the Church hierarchy which is shameful.

But where Ratzinger disagreed with Coyne is not on the question of evolution or the age of the earth. It is about the role of god in that evolution. And the disagreement was wrongly presented as Ratzinger supporting Intelligent Design. ID is a religious movement in the US that fell out with the Thomists because they refused to support Intelligent Design. The Thomists felt it was not the scientific body of thought it claimed to be. ID is hugely discredited because of its pseudo scientific claims. But the Thomists were certainly not rejecting a creator god.
The difference between Ratzinger and Coyne is not one of religion versus science, but the role of god within the scientific narrative.

I think the debate would have been better described not as one using the term Intelligent Design but one arising from differences over Intelligent Intervention. Both Coyne and Ratzinger believe in evolution, that god created the evolutionary forces – they seem to differ on god’s role once the process of evolution began. A does god intervene or does he not? type of thing.

But even to call the guy a freethinking apostate for refusing to behave in an intellectually servile manner is to take us back to the days of persecution of Gallileo and Copernicus.

AM, http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/...

2012-07-25T18:05:02.641+01:00

AM,

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405245.htm

Even Ratzinger had to sack this freethinking apostate.

Old Earth Ministries...

2012-07-25T16:22:08.497+01:00

Old Earth Ministries

Creative tension: omnipotence of God vs. dynamism of a universe

Creationism in the classroom

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

Nuala, no, a meeting of minds is unlikely. I am o...

2012-07-24T11:32:31.394+01:00

Nuala,

no, a meeting of minds is unlikely. I am one of those science illiterates who nevertheless loves to learn from it and view it as unrivalled in terms of the knowledge it has to offer.

My kids believe in Santa and I would never destroy that. They have the tooth fairy as well. But I would never want them growing up thinkig that rain was Mary weeping.

Mythology has its place. I would no more burn the bible than I would Robert Ludlum books. As books I would have an equal regard for both but in terms of the truth status of their contents they both go into the same fiction category.

Mackers, I don't think we will ever have a me...

2012-07-24T11:05:57.270+01:00

Mackers,
I don't think we will ever have a meeting of minds on this.
But I am great believer that children should be just that.
I think their lives should be packed with myths and magic because reality and life kicks in too quick.
As for witches on broomsticks, I think my son is a firm believer thats how I have always gotten around.

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope

Nuala, forgot about the dictionary. I haven't...

2012-07-23T23:47:33.814+01:00

Nuala,

forgot about the dictionary. I haven't checked it so have no idea what it says.

In my views myths that deceive are lies.

If creationism is explained outright as myth then it would not constitute a deception. It would be just like the tooth fairy myth rather than the tooth fairy lie. The problem is that Nelson and the gang want this presented as something other than a myth, as a real alternative explanation.

It has the same explanatory power as say big Percy going up to the Causeway and arguing that the peace process caused the earth to come into being in 1969. It is an alternative explanation to the scientific one; he is more than capable of trying it. But who would argue for it to be there?

Nuala, as a temporary thing, like Santa, I guess...

2012-07-23T23:39:37.616+01:00

Nuala,

as a temporary thing, like Santa, I guess there is not much wrong with it. I would not want them taught it in a science class at school however.

I see nothing ridiculous about the scientific argument. I might see a lot of ridiculous scientists but that is another matter. Watch a guy like Brian Cox who explains things with such compelling logic, separating fact from speculation, explaining why we have to be speculative on some things - the grounds for being anything else not having the evidence - delving into the universe and how it is dated at around 16 billion years. Then listen to Nelson McCausland explain how it is only 6000 years old and it all began in a magical garden with a talking snake.

I want my kids to learn from people like Brian Cox. They can question him and reject what he is saying and perhaps through their own investigation come up with something stronger. I don't want them being told that Nelson McCausland's myth is on a par with the science of Brian Cox.

The rest of the para equates very well with creationism because it is on a par with creationism. A flat earth etc is the intellectual equal of a 6000 year old earth.

Mackers, I think in relation to children a bit of...

2012-07-23T23:19:34.626+01:00

Mackers,
I think in relation to children a bit of myth and magic is what its all about.
What is so wrong with children believing that witches fly?
This is where I have the problem, this is where it becomes problematic and heavy.
This is where both sides of the argument appear equally ridiculous.

I am confounded as to where the rest of the paragraph fits with Creationism?

Myths and lies the oxford dictionary seems to have a different take on what constitutes myths and lies?

Creating ‘debate’ after science proved there’s none

interesting piece somebody sent me on FB

Fionnchú, that was one great waste of human effor...

2012-07-23T08:27:26.368+01:00

Fionnchú,

that was one great waste of human effort by Usher. Imagine all the things he could have done for humanity and he frittered his time away with that.

Nuala, ‘We were all treated to bible stories, myt...

2012-07-23T01:22:17.834+01:00

Nuala,

‘We were all treated to bible stories, myths if you like and I don't think we ended up dysfunctional people.’

If we ended up believing they explained the world we live in we could not possibly be functional.

‘In this day and age people-children can make up their own minds what they choose to believe, I think to choose for them is control.’

We want them to know what we know to be true and what we know to be myth presented to them as such. I don’t want my children thinking that witches fly and planes don’t. Nor will anybody fill their heads with nonsense that if they are ill they should do a magical dance, sprinkle holy water over themselves, or attend a witch doctor rather than a health professional. I don’t mind my kids knowing that there are people out there who believe that that the sun orbits the earth, that people can survive their own death, that women and black people are inferior, that there was no holocaust against the Jews, that the Israeli state does not murder Palestinian children. I don’t want them being told that such rubbish is true or that it is on a par with the view that it is nonsense.

‘I don't think myths can be equated with lies.’

They can if they demand equal status with what we know to be true like what the Caleb crew is demanding at the Causeway. We know the earth is older than 6000 years, that it is not geocentric, that it is not flat, that it does not rest on the back of a giant turtle. Any assertion - purporting to be true rather than a myth - to the contrary is a lie.

Mackers, We were all treated to bible stories, myt...

2012-07-22T23:46:35.090+01:00

Mackers,
We were all treated to bible stories, myths if you like and I don't think we ended up dysfunctional people.
In this day and age people-children can make up their own minds what they choose to believe, I think to choose for them is control.
I don't think myths can be equated with lies.
Religion has a lot to answer for, but again I don't believe creationism for all its faults is one of them.

Nuala, ‘I think Creationists are entitled to thei...

2012-07-22T23:20:14.966+01:00

Nuala,

‘I think Creationists are entitled to their beliefs bottom line.’

No argument against that.

‘Nothing in this world is value free or objective not even science.’

Science is by far the best system of knowledge we have. We know so much as a result of it.
‘I don't think it is right for people to be pilloried because they chose to believe God created the world.’

A completely different argument from what is being addressed here. The best advocates for belief in a creator are those creators who are able to blend science in their theology. A believer arguing that the universe is about 16 billion years old and the earth about 4 billion and that behind it all is a creative intelligence which has fine tuned the lot can be a formidable Advocate in a way that somebody who ignores science and argues that the world was created after the Sumerians invented glue is most definitely not.

‘As I asked in an earlier post, if they are so insane and illogical why are people so bothered about them?’

As you were answered in an earlier post when they try to pollute knowledge, present their myths as fact, demand parity, want to bunk in without the credentials, and develop the power to coerce, then it is a problem. These people used to tie up the swings in parks on Sunday because of their bonkers beliefs. Do you not have a problem with children being taught as fact what clowns like Edwin Poots, Nelson McCausland and Mervyn Storey hold to be true? My children will never have that inflicted upon them.

I thought Tommy’s article was refreshing but I suppose that’s neither here nor there.

‘I don't get the connection between Sinn Fein lies and betrayal and religious myths.’

The connection is very clear. When you challenge their myths you legitimise myth challenging and cannot restrict it only to the myths you don’t like.

Young Earth Creationism is a falsehood and is used for political purposes. Irish myths and legends as myths and legends are fine. YEC likewise. But if somebody wants a truth status afforded to Finn McCool and his exploits that is a falsehood greater than any produced by the peace process.

Mackers, I think Creationists are entitled to thei...

2012-07-22T22:21:13.221+01:00

Mackers,
I think Creationists are entitled to their beliefs bottom line.
If people choose to believe otherwise that is their entitlement also.
Nothing in this world is value free or objective not even science, therefore I don't think it is right for people to be pilloried because they chose to believe God created the world.
As I asked in an earlier post, if they are so insane and illogical why are people so bothered about them?
The point I was trying to make in relation to Tommy Mc Kearney's article was, although I did not agree with the bulk of what he said I did not feeled peeved by it.
I did however feel that way when read the first comments on Creationism which I thought were scathing and elitist.
I don't get the connection between Sinn Fein lies and betrayal and religious myths.
Irish folklore and some religious bunkum maybe but not political lies and spin. I think if anything that theory of similarity minimizes what sinn fein have done in Republican terms and I think to reduce it to the odd myth and spoof lets them off the hook.

Alfie, Kenneth Miller has been particularly effec...

2012-07-22T18:30:58.347+01:00

Alfie,

Kenneth Miller has been particularly effective

Nuala, Some of the most scathing critiques of You...

2012-07-22T18:28:02.736+01:00

Nuala,

Some of the most scathing critiques of Young Earth Creationism have come from Christian scientists like Brown University's Ken Miller and UCC's William Reville.

Nuala, ‘I think free inquiry is a very inviting t...

2012-07-22T18:18:04.051+01:00

Nuala,

‘I think free inquiry is a very inviting term. It lends itself to the idea, that opinions whether they are perceived mythical or otherwise are valued.’

Not as such. It lends itself to the idea that opinions are permissible not necessarily valuable. This is why I think there should be respect for a person’s right to hold an opinion, but not automatic respect for the opinion held. Why should you or I respect an opinion that thinks nationalists are second class citizens?

Where did it ever come across that there might be no right to comment? Has any comment on this matter been suppressed? John Coulter or John McGirr don’t claim (as far as I know) to be ‘scienced up.’ They have never been denied the right to comment. To the credit of John McGirr he acknowledges that he has been given more latitude to comment than he would give to others.

‘those writers who were being scathing of creationism had lost the arguments because their comments were so off putting.’

What argument – about the age of the earth? There is no argument about that. It has been as comprehensively settled as the shape of the earth. There are other arguments to be had about censorship and the status of myth etc and I guess readers have to make their own mind up about that.

‘The Peace Process for me is very different it is current it is happening.’

As is the earth and scientific exploration and discovery.

‘therefore I know the myths because they unfold around me daily.’

As do others the creationist myths. It can hardly be appropriate for you to label big Percy a mythomaniac (which he is) and insist on YEC types being spared the description. Myths are myths whatever their genre.

‘I did not agree with so much of Tommy Mc Kearney's article, but I did not feel that it was condescending in the way some of the anti-religion articles come across.’

That is a different issue and may or may not have merit. I haven’t thought about it deeply enough.
Nobody gets spared on this blog, neither me nor anybody else. No opinions are sacred and afforded protection.