Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[thedoc]

There is nothing in religion that excludes evolution, in spite of what some fundamentalists say.

And there is nothing in evolution that excludes spiritual phenomenon, in spite of what some atheists say.

God created the Universe, the Earth, and all life, and evolution is how God did it. And that God could start everything in the beginning and have everything work out just as God intended, seems like an ellagant solution to me.

TheDoc, though I don't believe in a divine creator, I can accept your argument as a legitimate one. Most theists I know would go along similar lines - that god put the wheels of motion in place. It is refreshing to hear this voice. I do not subscribe to evolution ostensibly as an anti-theist stance - it's just that it is overwhelming in its clarity. I can make no claims on whether god precipitated evolution, i.e. god as a first cause - no one can - but it is certainly now a real debate rather than the one that has dominated this thread...

So far it seems that neither religion nor science can prove that God is the first cause. Religion makes the claim and it is accepted on faith, and that is the nature of religion. Science, on the other hand, can only assert what it can observe and measure. The two sides can argue all they want but there will never be agreement, because each is based on a different grounding with different testimony as a basis for the claims. There can be a conversation that can be either pleasant, if both sides are aware of the limits, or contentious, if neither side will acknowledge these same limits. I'm always interested in other peoples ideas, but hostility is a big turn off and the surest way to move me on to another thread.

[thedoc]

Oh, I see. But teaching the “theory” of evolution as the only explanation of the world isn’t dogmatic? Again, given the high statistical improbability of the various evolution theories to account for the complexities of life, and the unanswered question of “where did all the matter in the universe come from?", intelligent design seems a reasonable alternative and should be discussed.

But not in the public schools where 'science' is taught in the science class room.

And I see that you are falling back on the creationists lack of understanding of science, "It's only a Theory." Real ignorance in operation. I pity your students for not getting a real science education.

Actually, unlike the public schools, we teach both theories of cosmology, etc., so if Intelligent Design is so weak a theory, the evolutionists should have nothing to worry about.

In spite of all the criticism The public schools do one thing right, and that is to teach science in science class and religion can be taught in a comparative religion class. Intelligent design is religion and has no place in a science class. If you are teaching ID as biology, that is not real science, and you are doing the students a disservice.

[Harry Baird]

Hold on a minute: am I supposed to accept evolution AND spiritual phenomenon - and if I don't I am closed minded?

You're supposed to accept reasonable evidence: reasonable evidence seems to point to both being true.

How does that make any sense. It's either one or the other. Unlike you I don't go in for a mish-mash of irreconsilable concepts.

As others in this thread have pointed out, many people disagree with you that it's "either one or the other", but be that as it may, the point is to follow the evidence where it leads, and the evidence for NDEs (and other spiritual phenomena) being as much of a reality as evolution is undeniable.

How is it double standards to suggest that you are incorrect in your assumptions and I am not? Double standards requires a conflict. There is no conflict.

The conflict is that you expect others to accept reasonable evidence (for evolution), but you yourself refuse to accept reasonable evidence (for spiritual phenomena).

You believe a patient gets cured of cancer because of a miracle. I believe it is do to with physiology and chemistry. Because one doctor cannot understand it says more about the doctor than it does about god.

I hope that sometime soon you publish your meticulous explanation of the physiology and chemistry behind such miraculous events: explanations that have eluded the entire medical community for quite some time.

See, it seems to me that this view of yours is entirely one of faith. You aren't able to substantiate it, you just *want* it to be true, despite its implausibility. Here, again, is evidence of a double-standard: you accept mainstream scientific consensus on the theory of evolution, but you reject mainstream scientific consensus on the miraculousness of such healings. Why? Because it conflicts with your preconceived notions.

It is possible to invalidate most evidential positions with enough creativity. For you, it's "Miraculous healings are really just physiology and chemistry" (notwithstanding that you would need to account for a *lot* more than that to invalidate NDEs); for the creationist it might be "Fossils were put there by the Devil to deceive the faithful". Hey, I admire creativity, I just think it's better used for more honest pursuits.

How about the bloke who goes to church every day, gets cancer in the prime of his life, and dies a horrible, painful death, leaving behind 8 children? Are you going to put that down to god's mysterious ways...or are you going to admit that you are once again, moving the goalposts?

You seem to assume an awful lot about my views here. Best as I can tell, your assumptions miss the mark widely.

[MMasz]

So far it seems that neither religion nor science can prove that God is the first cause. Religion makes the claim and it is accepted on faith, and that is the nature of religion. Science, on the other hand, can only assert what it can observe and measure. The two sides can argue all they want but there will never be agreement, because each is based on a different grounding with different testimony as a basis for the claims. There can be a conversation that can be either pleasant, if both sides are aware of the limits, or contentious, if neither side will acknowledge these same limits. I'm always interested in other peoples ideas, but hostility is a big turn off and the surest way to move me on to another thread.

I appreciate your comments and think they are pretty much on the mark. You wrote, "Religion makes the claim and it is accepted on faith, and that is the nature of religion."

I would however like you to define "faith" as it can mean many things. If you mean faith as defined by Kirkegaard, i.e., "the blind leap" then I'd disagree. I find many Christians to have blind faith and engage in odd practices which typically are portrayed as normative Christianity when it is in fact, the kook fringe. I don't believe fossils were planted by Satan to confuse people, but I know folks who do.

I also find that the dogmatic atheist typically has a poor understanding of Christianity.

[aiddon]

I also find that the dogmatic atheist typically has a poor understanding of Christianity.

Is it possible to understand Christianity given its vast corruption of the last 2000 years? What not to understand? because as an atheist, it's pretty clear from my point of view. If there are some of who don't understand it, is it possible that that is the way they have been taught it? I suggest to you that it is Christians who understand it least given the thousand or so denominations of it- and the various acts carried out supposedly in the name of Christianity.

[MMasz]

I also find that the dogmatic atheist typically has a poor understanding of Christianity.

Is it possible to understand Christianity given its vast corruption of the last 2000 years? What not to understand? because as an atheist, it's pretty clear from my point of view. If there are some of who don't understand it, is it possible that that is the way they have been taught it? I suggest to you that it is Christians who understand it least given the thousand or so denominations of it- and the various acts carried out supposedly in the name of Christianity.

Sure, there's been plenty of corruption in Christianity, but all of this points to the fallen nature of man. Additionally, the corruptions of which you write are departures from Christ's teachings.

Christianity is in a way a philosophy. A little knowledge can be disastrous. It takes a long time to get a good grip of what it is all about.

I get quite frustrated too as I typically have to clean up a lot of what the kook fringe is promoting.

[thedoc]

I also find that the dogmatic atheist typically has a poor understanding of Christianity.

Is it possible to understand Christianity given its vast corruption of the last 2000 years? What not to understand? because as an atheist, it's pretty clear from my point of view. If there are some of who don't understand it, is it possible that that is the way they have been taught it? I suggest to you that it is Christians who understand it least given the thousand or so denominations of it- and the various acts carried out supposedly in the name of Christianity.

Sure, there's been plenty of corruption in Christianity, but all of this points to the fallen nature of man. Additionally, the corruptions of which you write are departures from Christ's teachings.

Christianity is in a way a philosophy. A little knowledge can be disastrous. It takes a long time to get a good grip of what it is all about.

I get quite frustrated too as I typically have to clean up a lot of what the kook fringe is promoting.

The difficulty comes in trying to separate what Christ taught from what some "Christians" do. This principle can be applied to any religion, how many really believe that terrorism was part of the teachings of Mohamed? I have said that anyone outside the Christian religion, watching a service, will conclude that Christianity is Idolatry, and that is what it appears to be. But that accusation comes out of ignorance of what the Christian symbols mean. A symbol, by itself, is meaningless unless the person seeing the symbol can remember and know what the symbol represents. The cross is just a piece of metal or wood, the alter is just a wooden structure, the building is just a building, but they all represent something else, and if that is forgotten they are meaningless. Christians do not, or at least they shouldn't, bow down in worship of the Cross, they worship what the Cross represents. Certainly many have committed horrendous acts, citing Christianity as the reason, but these acts are outside the teachings of Christ and must be seen in that light. Adding to the difficulty of separating Christs teachings from the acts of "Christians" is the knowledge that much of the Bible does not reflect the teachings of Christ. The Old Testament must be reinterpreted in light of Christ. Much of the New testament was written later for purposes other than to spread the teachings of Christ. To those who would criticize Christianity, be sure you know what is Christianity and what is a corruption of Christs teachings. I would agree with criticism of those deviations and corruptions, but will defend what I believe are the true teachings of Christ, which is basically to Love one another.

[Immanuel Can]

This principle can be applied to any religion, how many really believe that terrorism was part of the teachings of Mohamed?

Well, you can kill infidels and apostates, according to the Koran. Unfortunately, since the Islamic teaching is that we are all *born* Islamic, and thus any disagreement or departure from that state marks us as unbelievers, that makes us all apostates, and thus all fair game.

That is why Islam says you can't "convert" to Islam: you "revert," forsaking your apostasy in favour of [re-]submitting to what you formerly were at birth.

Islam does not have a prohibition on killing, especially infidels (see Sura 2:191, for example). You really should read the book in question before making broad claims that "principles can be applied to any religion" without knowing what they actually say.

Or maybe you were just floating an idea...not making a truth claim?

what I believe are the true teachings of Christ, which is basically to Love one another.

Well, this is certainly *a* saying of Christ. Is it really all He said? How have you discerned what part of what he said you can keep, and which part you can dismiss? How did you discover what was his "authentic" teaching, and what was, in your view, something you could safely dismiss? How do you arrive at His "true" teachings?

I have to wonder if you've even read the words of Christ, just as you have evidently not read the words of Mohammed; and if you have not even read them, then how is it that you are so confident?

Or again, are you just floating an idea to see how people respond?

[thedoc]

This principle can be applied to any religion, how many really believe that terrorism was part of the teachings of Mohamed?

Well, you can kill infidels and apostates, according to the Koran. Unfortunately, since the Islamic teaching is that we are all *born* Islamic, and thus any disagreement or departure from that state marks us as unbelievers, that makes us all apostates, and thus all fair game.

That is why Islam says you can't "convert" to Islam: you "revert," forsaking your apostasy in favour of [re-]submitting to what you formerly were at birth.

Islam does not have a prohibition on killing, especially infidels (see Sura 2:191, for example). You really should read the book in question before making broad claims that "principles can be applied to any religion" without knowing what they actually say.

Or maybe you were just floating an idea...not making a truth claim?

what I believe are the true teachings of Christ, which is basically to Love one another.

Well, this is certainly *a* saying of Christ. Is it really all He said? How have you discerned what part of what he said you can keep, and which part you can dismiss? How did you discover what was his "authentic" teaching, and what was, in your view, something you could safely dismiss? How do you arrive at His "true" teachings?

I have to wonder if you've even read the words of Christ, just as you have evidently not read the words of Mohammed; and if you have not even read them, then how is it that you are so confident?

Or again, are you just floating an idea to see how people respond?

My knowledge of Islam comes from working many years with a Muslem that included many conversations about our respective religions. I realize that there are many interpretations of Islam and this was just his, but I consider it authentic, that plus I had a copy of the Koran and had read parts of it. This man's parents were from India, he was born and grew up in Africa, lived in England before moving to America, so he did not have the typical American background. as a result his questions about Christianity might start by asking "Where does the Easter Bunny fit into the Christian celebration of Easter?" According to this man, the only accepted excuse for killing an infidel was if they were trying to prevent you from practicing your religion. One verse in the Koran states that all people "Of the Book" will be saved in the end, and the "people of the book" are the Jewish and Christians. The Koran is the retelling of the bible to Mohammed by an Angel, if I remember correctly.

I feel that I am familiar enough with the Bible, and as one example of questioning what is written there, there is a verse in one of Paul's letters that my church does not follow,

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
King James Version (KJV)
"34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

We have a woman pastor and my wife in the most frequent assistant pastor, she is also on the church counsel, and for a time we had a woman as president of counsel. Women are certainly not silent in our church. That verse was added much later by the male leadership to suppress women in the church and in society.


"[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque (Masjid), unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
[2:194] During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous."

If appears to me that Muslems may only kill in self defense, perhaps you have a different understanding of it.
Would you like to try again?

Which verse mentions this claim of yours?

"That is why Islam says you can't "convert" to Islam: you "revert," forsaking your apostasy in favour of [re-]submitting to what you formerly were at birth."

[Immanuel Can]

"[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque (Masjid), unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
[2:194] During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous."

If appears to me that Muslems may only kill in self defense, perhaps you have a different understanding of it.
Would you like to try again?

Gladly, since you've proved my point for me very nicely. All I said was that there is no prohibition against killing in Islam. You show that to be true, at the very least.

Not only that, but you claimed the moral equivalency of Islam and Christianity, most particularly the words of Jesus Christ, which you interpreted as "love one another." So according to you, "aggression is permitted against the aggressors," and "you may kill and evict them," as the same thing as "Love one another," as well as, "Pray for your enemies, and do good to those who spitefully use you," and "If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other one." However, I suppose you may avoid the obvious by simply claiming that the parts I've cited are things that are not "true teachings of Jesus."

As for "self-defense," it is notoriously broadly defined by Conservative Islam. Did you insult 'the prophet'? That's an act of aggression. Did you insult a Koran? That's aggression. Did you occupy land that at one time was occupied by Islamists? That is aggression. Were you associated with the 'Great Satan,' the US, or with Israel? That's aggression. Were you guilty of advocating Western media, being associated with a negative report, a cartoon, or speaking contrary to Sharia Law? That's aggression. Were you a modernist, advocating things like the equality of women? Aggression again.

Almost anything can be "aggression," according to them. And since Islamists are free to kill aggressors....So the suggestion that "all Islamic wars are defensive" is simply facile and dishonest. It's simply a manipulation of "aggression" as a concept.


Now, let's refer to a rabidly pro-Islam "answers for infidels" type site:

"For the state of someone’s definite and decisive adoption of another religion, in the language of English, the word conversion is used. However, according to Islamic faith, everybody is born into the religion of Islam. Later on under the influence and guidance of their parents, etc., people become followers of other religions. Thus, conversion is not the proper word to use for somebody who embraces Islam later in life. Since the word reversion is defined as an act or the process of returning (as to a former condition), we call reverts, instead of converts, those who come back to their original faith, Islam, to which they are born."

[Islamanswering.com]

[MMasz]

[quote="thedoc”] In spite of all the criticism The public schools do one thing right, and that is to teach science in science class and religion can be taught in a comparative religion class. Intelligent design is religion and has no place in a science class. If you are teaching ID as biology, that is not real science, and you are doing the students a disservice.[/quote]

I don’t teach in a public school, nor do I teach ID as “science". That would be silly as material science methodology wouldn’t apply in that case. However, probability analysis of evolutionary models are a topic we explore. We do spend a lot of time with evolution since the students need to be knowledgable of this area for SAT/ACT testing, etc. .

[thedoc]

All I said was that there is no prohibition against killing in Islam.

Thankyou for clarifying your position as it relates to truth and honesty.

[thedoc]

I don’t teach in a public school, nor do I teach ID as “science". That would be silly as material science methodology wouldn’t apply in that case. However, probability analysis of evolutionary models are a topic we explore. We do spend a lot of time with evolution since the students need to be knowledgable of this area for SAT/ACT testing, etc. .

That is a good thing, but apparently your school teaches to the test?

[Immanuel Can]

Islam does not have a prohibition on killing, especially infidels (see Sura 2:191, for example).

Direct quotation. Exactly what I said, as you can see.

[thedoc]

Islam does not have a prohibition on killing, especially infidels (see Sura 2:191, for example).

Direct quotation. Exactly what I said, as you can see.

But your interpretation is wrong, there is a definite restriction on when and who they can kill, you are just rationalizing the extremist position and not the beliefs of Islam. The extremes do not prove the mean.