Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, February 21, 2014, 20:34 (3929 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Much as I sympathize with the attack on bad science, this correspondence is now bordering on the fundamentalism you both deplore in people like Dawkins. The claim that atheists have no basis in ethical living is almost libellous. We needn't go into the basis of ethics here (I will later if you want me to), but it will suffice to say that I've never heard of Dawkins exhorting his followers to go out and kill those who do not share his disbelief. I don't think either of you would want all religions to be tarnished by the actions of the fundamentalists, and although unquestionably there are bad scientists who deliberately ignore or suppress evidence that goes against their theories, they are no different from theists who have continued to do the same throughout history. -
Did I say anything about atheists? Did I make any comment about one particular group of people at all?-
> 
>DHW: You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. However, just like Dawkins and yourselves, in order to embrace such convictions he had to brush aside those areas of his belief that were not based on available scientific evidence (and was honest enough to acknowledge it). That is the nature of all beliefs, because science itself is not equipped to cover every aspect of life and its history. At least agnostics do not have to resort to faith, but atheists and theists do, and that means ignoring the gaps in the scientific evidence. 
> -The difference with Darwin was that he admitted, repeatedly, the flaws with his theory. Modern evolutionist do not, touting it as fact rather than theory. The same is true with fundamentalist YEC's, who don't even acknowledge what the bible says, much less science.-
>DHW: Our hope is always that successive generations will put right the errors of their bad or mistaken predecessors. This is happening now with Darwin, but we can be quite certain that future generations will also find errors in the work of our current scientists, even the best of them. That is how science works and progresses. It is right to attack deliberate falsification, but scientists on both sides of the fence may also have sincere beliefs and disbeliefs that influence their judgement. -Which is precisely what I have said and done. I even stated sincere belief as the least offensive reason for not acknowledging the evidence stacked against a theory. ->DHW:That is why we have so many books that deal with the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The discussion on the reliability of scientific evidence is genuinely enlightening. I also share the fears David and Tony are expressing about current trends in the academic world, which of course denote a pendulum swing against the equally iniquitous bias when religion held the upper hand. (Tony complains that education no longer "teaches how to think, but rather what to think". Is it or was it ever any different in religious societies?) But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.-I do not think I have ever said that ethics were the province of the godly. In fact, that wouldn't even be in line with my faith or what the bible teaches(contrary to popular belief).-I am speaking about a certain subset of a particular group; namely, scientist who simultaneously espouse science's openness to correction and new evidence that falsify it's claims while turning a blind eye from the evidence that would falsify their theories for the sake of financial or social gain.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.