Religion - this I believe

[awdz]

can you explain how intelligent design taught in science classes as a theory harms others or blatantly contradicts reality? maybe i do not understand it to be the same thing that you do...?

[velveeta]

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist". [1] The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In other words, "reality", as a philosophical category, includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).
In the strict sense of western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom.
Fact
Main article: Fact
A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition 'viewed from most places on Earth, the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from. The Galilean proposition in support of the Copernican theory, that the sun is the center of the solar system is one that states the fact of the natural world. However, during his lifetime Galileo was ridiculed for that factual proposition, because far too few people had a consensus about it in order to accept it as a truth[citation needed]. Fewer propositions are factual in content in the world, as compared to the many truths shared by various communities, which are also fewer than the innumerable individual worldviews. Much of scientific exploration, experimentation, interpretation and analysis is done on this level.
This view of reality is well expressed by Philip K. ****'s statement that "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]
The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[21] Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[22] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.[7]
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District JudgeJohn E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[23]



(all info directly from www.wikipedia.org)

[awdz]

Okay, I get that it is not considered to be a solid scientific theory because it cannot be tested. What I do not get is how it is harmful to mention it.

When I went to high school, the biology teacher made a point at the beginning of the school year to state that there are many different ideas on the origin of life; some believe in creation as being literally what the bible describes (with each day/night being the 24 hours we know), while others theorize that evolution is how life began (over millions of years). Intelligent design fits right in with those as another possibility. After that initial lesson, we did not come back to it during the entire year.

Science describes the what and how. Religion attempts to describe the who and why. It seems to me that trying to keep the two (science & religion) separate is like trying to keep actions and motives separate. There can be focus on one or the other, but in the overall scheme of things, they generally go together.

[Sigi]

They only go together for people who are religious.

[Dremora]

Okay, I get that it is not considered to be a solid scientific theory because it cannot be tested. What I do not get is how it is harmful to mention it.

When I went to high school, the biology teacher made a point at the beginning of the school year to state that there are many different ideas on the origin of life; some believe in creation as being literally what the bible describes (with each day/night being the 24 hours we know), while others theorize that evolution is how life began (over millions of years). Intelligent design fits right in with those as another possibility. After that initial lesson, we did not come back to it during the entire year.

Science describes the what and how. Religion attempts to describe the who and why. It seems to me that trying to keep the two (science & religion) separate is like trying to keep actions and motives separate. There can be focus on one or the other, but in the overall scheme of things, they generally go together.

Everyone is of course free to believe that a god helped evolution along. Ken Miller, for example, is a biologist that accepts evolution but is still religious. However, it does nothing to mention it in science classes as there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. Science class is about teaching testable, falsifiable theories, not beliefs. Beliefs are for churches and mosques and as Velveeta already mentioned about the Dover trials, intelligent design taught in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.

About this bit: When I went to high school, the biology teacher made a point at the beginning of the school year to state that there are many different ideas on the origin of life

Evolution isn't about the origin of life (that's called abiogenisis) but the origin of species.

Religion may attempt to describe the who and why, but IMHO it doesn't describe anything of the sort, because there is no evidence to support it. There is no who or why, it (the universe, life) just is, and I'm fine with that*.

Oh and by the way, I think it's awesome that a thread on religion here is allowed to thrive and has been so civil in the process. I enjoy discussing things like this and of course, no hard feelings (I hope!)

*That doesn't mean that I think life is pointless - far from it. It's pretty darn amazing how this single planet managed to support all of this life. That's what makes life itself so special.

[Zexoin]

I've stumbled upon that journal in DA about evolution and stuff. Thought it might interest some of you. http://jocarra.deviantart.com/journal/21925357/

[awdz]

Thank you Zexoin, I did find that interesting.

Religion may attempt to describe the who and why, but IMHO it doesn't describe anything of the sort, because there is no evidence to support it.

Describing something and proving something are two different things.
I kind of think demanding proof of God by scientific measure is like demanding to see colors by touching them with your fingers. I have no idea how it can be done.

[RuneDragoon]

The world has many things unknown and us humans are things with a linear lifespan. Unfortunately for us we can only begin to understand things we see and are limited by said linear lifespan to understand the rest...

[Dremora]

I've stumbled upon that journal in DA about evolution and stuff. Thought it might interest some of you. http://jocarra.deviantart.com/journal/21925357/

Thanks for this!

Describing something and proving something are two different things.
I kind of think demanding proof of God by scientific measure is like demanding to see colors by touching them with your fingers. I have no idea how it can be done.

Well, I don't think describing and "proving" (I use quotations since proofs are for math only) something are that different since you usually have to have evidence something exists before you describe it... and at least we can see and measure colors.

[awdz]

Wowsers, I just got astounded... I read The Shack by Wm. Paul Young yesterday. The basis for the story is emotionally charged enough to blow away most parents, but what hit me was the whole encounter with God, from start to finish. It was amazing for me to see my whole faith understanding laid out so vividly from a different direction than I came to it.

Any Christian who reads it, prepare to have your heart opened beyond what you could expect. It overturns conventional religious wisdom to bring folks into a better relationship with God - and as a result, with each other. Amen!

I'd be interested in hearing other people's impressions of it, even if you think it's just a corny hoax, but only if you've actually read it.

[Velea]

Some members of our small group read the book a few months back and suggested it to me. I read it, sobbing most of the way through the first time for much of it. Somehow it both turned my world and everything I believe upside down, while more firmly grounding it all at once. And I still can't tell you how exactly. I sent a copy to my mother-in-law and a dear friend, and have thought of suggesting it to others, but I also know that many of my friends simply aren't ready for it, so I hesitate. I agree with what you said, it definitely overturns much of what is taught in church... but if read with an open mind and open heart it also can bring you closer to God and one another. That's a great way to summarize it.

[neva]

Religion is.. a dangerous topic

One I have always strayed far away from the conversations of in public areas.

So, I will keep mine very simple and probably only reply here with only this:

I do believe in God, The Holy Spirit, and The Father.
I believe in c hrist.
I refuse to just say 'j esus' as I find it as disrespectful term to the Son, as his proper title is The C hrist, J esus.. was just the human name given onto him.

I really don't get along with Catholics, mostly because I find they rely to much on Symbolism, which if I remember right, is highly frowned upon by God.
However, this may have changed, I don't keep up with Religious sects.

I do not trust Religion, I trust in Faith and in Belief. I see Religion as a man-made creation as to which to try and take the word of God and turn it into what they want of it.
There is one one word of God, and that word is the only truth, for he is truth and perfection.

God does have the ability to hate. He also can love. Thus he can hate some and love others.
He loves his children, he hates those who are not.
Those who believe he is only loving... you should read some sections where he tells the jews to kill every woman, man, and child--
and what he tells to Jacob's mother about Esau...

I do not celebrate Christimas, Halloween, easter, or many religious holidays due to the fact of there original ties to pagan holidays and constructed by the catholic church in order to attempt to unit others under God.
At least some form a god I suppose...
Many of these days also fall onto the wrong day, and thus any meaning into them is made wrong.
I also believe that if we were to celebrate them, then God when have given us a date to do so.

I hate crosses..
I hate pictures of angels..
and I hate pictures of the human drawings of whom they want to say is this supposed 'J esus C hrist'.

If asked, I call myself a Non-domination Christian.
If asked if I was a Christian.. I say I believe in the ways of, been raised under that light, but I myself have not been called out.

I believe all things in life happen within the grand scheme of things.
I believe we really have no say in our lives, but yet we are actors within a play or a movie, and God is the director, the writer, the artist.

I do believe in other races outside of our own.
I do believe in dimensional beings(such as angels being that).

And I do not believe that Lucifer is a beast, but rather one heck of a good looking man if you were to ever meet him face to face.

I also believe that God may be a being of energy, though this is a theory, and not one I will ever press upon.

So with that all said, flame on me, I guess? XD

PS: Stupid censor lol

[Dragonboy]

Personally I don’t go to church and haven’t read the bible for at least 20 years. The last personal dealing I had with any form of religion apart from the kind were you slam the door in their faces was my grandfathers funeral ceremony in his local church.

The first thing I believe about Religion is that its existence is not the problem, mankind is the whole problem.
Mankind has been known to have greed and a lust for power throughout its history. While believing within the comfort of your own homes has no problems, grouping together in large buildings called churches and cathedrals can pose issues because religious people tend to believe what the speaker says and not what their own hearts tell them.
At the start I spoke of the funeral of my grandfather… Instead of having a “nice� ceremony about the man’s life and his accomplishment we were forced to endure 60 minutes of Hell and Damnation for those that did not believe in God. Only due to the fact that my mother was the eldest daughter I remained seated out of respect for her. For this reason I am a strong believer that Churches are the root of evil within this world and not religion itself.

The second thing I believe about Religion is that sometimes it only allows for so-called tunnel vision.
10-15 years ago I met someone of my own age (I was around 18 years old at the time) who actually believed that babies were brought by a stork… Because for religious reasons she was not allowed to attend biological classes which spoke of the human reproductive system and other classes about reproduction itself.

My thoughts as a non-religious man would be “Live and let live�, respect each others believes and DON’T force them onto others. Many believers (from all religions, not just muslims which some people might think… Jews and Christians are also part of the problem) and non-believers can learn a lot from this and when they do the world would be a lot better place. Maybe even on its way to world peace (as soon as we breed out power lust and greed).

My sincerest apologies if I stepped on someone’s toes with this post, but this thread asked for my opinion about religion and for this reason I try to give it as clearly as I can out of personal experience.

[awdz]

Velea , thank you so much for your perspective on The Shack. It helps me to know I am not the only one hit powerfully by that book.

neva and Dragonboy, thank you for sharing your views. I can relate to much of what you say, though I may not agree with all of it. The points where you see things differently than me is where I tend to ponder a bit, and thus strengthen my own faith by confirming or refining what I understand.