> >>SC>Isn't he the guy who recommended lying about belief in God
>just to appease
>>>>God just in case he existed so you wouldn't go to hell?
>
>>SJ>I am not aware of it, but if he did, he would be wrong on that point.
>>>
>>>Perhaps Susan can post where exactly it is that Pascal "recommended lying
>>>about belief in God just to appease God"?
>
>SC>this is from a philosophy of religion site:
>>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
>>
>>"Wagering for God superdominates wagering against God: the worst outcome
>>associated with wagering for God (status quo) is at least as good as the
>>best outcome associated with wagering against God (status quo); and if God
>>exists, the result of wagering for God is strictly better that the result
>>of wagering against God. (The fact that the result is much better does not
>>matter yet.) Pascal draws the conclusion at this point that rationality
>>requires you to wager for God. "
>
>Where does this "recommend ... lying about belief in God just to appease
>God"?
I do not believe that any of the gods exist. If I were to "wager
that there is a God" in order to do that I would have to *pretend*
God exists. An omniscient being would figure that out in a quarter of
a nanosecond. My belief or non-belief does not impinge on the reality
of the gods. So my choices boil down to 1. live a lie and 2. live
honestly.
I occurs to me that the underlying assumption in Pascal's wager is
that you have to believe in a God in order to live a good life. If
you don't believe in God then you will have no reason to be good.
That is hogwash. A good life is intrinsically satisfying. If that
*is* the underlying assumption, though, then Pascal's wager makes a
lot more sense. If you live a good life *as if God is watching and
exists* then if there is a God you get a big pay off in the end.
>
>SC>I don't think Christianity is any different from any of the many hundreds
>>(perhaps thousands) of religions that humans have involved themselves in. I
>>think my point above was that the evidence for the reality of the Hindu
>>gods isn't any more compelling that the evidence for the reality of the
>>Christian gods.
>
>How does Susan know? Has she personally studied "the evidence for the
>reality of the Hindu gods" and "the evidence for the reality of the Christian"
>God?
they are about the same. There's a book. The book says the gods
exist. There are millions of believers. The believers say the gods
exist. And yes, I've studied a lot of world religions over my
lifetime.
>
>>>>>>ideas-called neo- Darwinism-seems inadequate in many respects."
> >>>>(Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin..." 1982, p.10)
>
>>>SC>Interesting. I did searches with several search engines and found
>>>>literally *dozens* of pages of creationist sites stuffed with the
>>>>usual out of
>>>>context quotes including this one, but no hint of who this guy is. . . .
>
>That's funny because I just did a search on AltaVista for the words "Leith"
>AND "Descent of Darwin" AND "inadequate in many respects" and it did
>not turn up *one* site where this was quoted. It isn't yet on my own site
>BTW.
I just did another search for "Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin" cut
and pasted from your quote above and got this as the first hit
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/philoevolquotes.htm
> >SJ>I am pleased that Susan finally admits that these are my own quotes from
>>>books I have read, and not from one of those mythical quotes sites she is
>>>always talking about but never providing their URLs!
>
>Thanks to Susan for these URLs below, which apart from one of them (see
>below) I didn't know about. I have checked them out (see below) but they
>seem pretty limited.
well, you at least seem to have gone from "they don't exist" to "they
are limited."
>
>>SJ>Why? Does Susan after all doubt that I own the book? Or does she
>>have a quote
>>>that is does start before my quote? Whatever, Susan's wish is my command!
>>>Here is the entire Chapter up to the words quoted:
>
>SJ>thank you! No, I didn't believe that you had a copy of it.
>
>Why does Susan need to believe that I am a liar? Is her position so shaky it
>can't stand on its own but must depend on liquidating any opposition?
I have seen that so many of your quotes are identical to other
creationist quotes AND I have seen that they are often out of
context. I like to think that if you actually read the context, then
your morals would not allow you to deceive us as to whether or not
the author has actually said something that supports your position.
Therefore I like to think you pick up a lot of your quotes from
secondary sources. That leaves the professional creationists as
liars, not you.
>SC>BTW, in "Finding Darwin's God" Miller does a job on the people who think
>>evolution explains *everything*. I think it explains the wide ranging
>>flexibility of human behavior but not the details of that behavior.
>
>I haven't got that book yet. But the title sounds misleading. Darwin didn't
>have a God:
>
> "I suspect that most of Miller's materialist colleagues ... may also
> wonder what Miller could possibly mean by his quest to "find
> Darwin's God," when it is so widely known in the scholarly world
> (and even to Miller himself) that Darwin in his later years was an
> agnostic... In his biology textbook Miller makes the preposterous
> claim that Darwin "remained a devout Christian all his life" ... On
> the contrary, Darwin was never more than a lukewarm believer, and
> by the time of his death described himself as an agnostic." (Johnson
> P.E., "The Wedge of Truth, 2000, pp.91,182n).
Johnson (and you) should read the book. Darwin's God is the god that
created the universe *and* evolution.
>
>
>That might be true of the USA but Unitarianism goes back further than
>that, to at least the 16th century:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,117349+5+109455,00.html
>
>[...]
>
>ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
>
>Unitarianism and Universalism
>
>Transylvanian Unitarianism
>
>Blandrata encouraged Ferenc David (1510-79), a Transylvanian theologian,
>to deliver anti-Trinitarian sermons. Study at Wittenberg had led David to
>convert from Roman Catholicism to Lutheranism. As superintendent of
>Transylvanian Lutheran churches David had engaged in debates with Peter
>Melius, leader of the Transylvanian Reformed Church, with the result that
>David had joined the Reformed Church, of which he soon became
>superintendent. Cooperation between David and Blandrata led to the
>publication of two Unitarian books, De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris (1567;
>"On the False and True Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit")
>and De regno Christi . . . (1569; "On the Reign of Christ"), which showed
>the influences of Servetus and Laelius Socinus.
Servetus is considered to be a sort of "patron saint" of modern
Unitarianism. He was burned at the stake by your guys.
>Darwin himself came from a long line of Unitarians on his mother's
>(Wedgewood) side.
yes, he was Church of England or we would proudly claim him!
>SC>The Pilgrims came here to escape religious oppression. Then, in fine
>>Christian style, they turned around and oppressed anyone who disagreed with
>>them.
>
>That is regrettable. But does Susan think that Christians have a monopoly
>on oppression? What about the atheists in Russia, China, Cambodia, and
>Nazi Germany-in this century?
The Nazis were not atheists and neither are the Cambodians, but what
the heck, eh?
>
>
>But then that's *different*. The people who agree with Susan are OK. They
>wouldn't oppress anyone. Only those nasty Christians - but they *deserve*
>to be oppressed!
not allowing a conservative branch of Christianity to use the force
of government to proselytize is not the same thing as oppressing them.
>
>SC>the "public life" thing is propaganda and is a lie. No body has ever tried
>>to ban religion in public life. What is banned is religion in government
>>institutions where citizens are *compelled* to participate in Christian
>>religious life. That includes prayer in school, prayer before
>>school-sponsored events, and of course, creationism in science classes.
>
>That sounds like banning it in public life! I agree that citizens
>should not be
>"compelled to participate in Christian religious life" but I can't understand
>why a compromise can't be reached.
this is the compromise
>Here in Australia non-Christian school Principals are *asking* for Christian
>chaplains to come back into their schools.
you don't have a separation of Church and state rule. We do.
>In the USA this could not happen even if most people wanted it to happen.
>This is straight out oppression by those on Susan's side riding roughshod
>by force over the wishes of the majority. Even on " creationism in science
>classes" polls show that most people want *both* to be taught in schools.
>Of course Susan does not *see* it as oppression. Those doing the
>oppression never do.
the 10 Amendments to the Constitution were put in place to prevent
oppression of minorities by majorities. Christianity is the majority
religion, but it is far from the *only* religion in the US. Buddhist
parents don't want their children to get Christian "pastoral care."
Neither do the Moslem parents. If parents can't see that their
children get pastoral care outside the public school system then they
are hopelessly stupid. No, it's just a way to force your religion on
other people's children.
>
>SC>the states cannot pass a law that contradicts the federal constitution. Nor
>>can they engage in behavior that violates the constitution.
>
>That is not what the Constitution says. It says that "Congress shall make no
>law ...". I repeat that "in none of those cases AFAIK had *Congress* made
>any law." It seems to me that what has happened is that Susan's crowd
>have *usurped* the Constitution. This seems to this outsider as straight-out
>judicial oppression worthy of a banana republic.
>
>One day hopefully the people will wake up that they were better off when
>Christian teaching was allowed in schools and Christianity was the
>unofficial State religion rather than scientific naturalism.
oh, yeah. We were better off. Racism, lynchings, wife beating and
child beating perfectly legal. Slavery legal. No voting for women,
etc. etc. We were *much* better off!
>SC>Because it would get the *real*
>>evolution out there and not the false creationist version which is almost
>>all that the poorly educated public knows about.
>
>Great! But the evolutionists have had a monopoly on teaching "*real*
>evolution" for over 40 years and the creationist have lost every court battle
>and have been almost completely marginalised. So why does the public
>only know what Susan calls "the false creationist version" of evolution?
creationists can and do intimidate textbook publishers, science
teachers and school boards. There was exactly *one page* in my
daughter's biology text book pertaining to evolution and it was
mostly just a bio of Darwin.
>How is this "*real* evolution" going to be different from the `unreal'
creationists have a strawman version of evolution that they flog and
"refute" because there's no real evidence against the real thing.
Whenever a creationists says "evolution requires" or "evolutionists
maintain" you can brace yourself, they are almost always about to say
something that is not true.
Susan
-- ----------I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 15:37:40 EST