Kent Hovind vs. a Molecular Biologist (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Thursday, July 14, 2011, 14:36 (4664 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Considering the current modern view, westernized ideology, revolving around materialistic idealism and physical wealth, over the wealth of knowledge or that of a spiritual nature, can you really say that we have produced anything better.-Ironically the current modern westernized ideology is most rife in societies which profess themselves to be Christian. The spiritual values you speak of are to be found in some eastern countries, especially those with Buddhist societies which, as you know, are largely atheistic. Of course the Puritans believed that material prosperity was a sign of God's Grace, but this is yet another example of the subjectivity of what you call "profitable and productive action".
 
TONY: Only a fool believes that there is never a cause for righteous indignation, a personal affront so severe as to warrant violence. If someone came in and murdered your family, would you stand by and uncaringly do nothing, or would you be moved by righteous anger to action in defense of their lives?
-My objection was to the violence CAUSED by religious beliefs, and in this context I can't see the relevance of defending one's life or family. Other animals also defend themselves. What has that to do with religion?-TONY: By comparing the idea of faith to the remarkably few who behave in atrocious ways, you are judging faith. That is my point. If you say that all faithful should be judged by the few who commit attrocities, who are you really judging?-I have not said any such thing, and I am not judging faith. This discussion started with Matt's question concerning "the utility of a creator", to which you responded that belief in a creator helps to focus our thoughts on "profitable, and productive action instead of wasting it chasing misguided ideals." Belief in a creator is neutral (David, for instance, tries to avoid attributing qualities and drawing conclusions), and the complications only begin when people try to interpret the will of that creator. Your three adjectives all involve highly subjective judgements, and while I fully recognize the good works done by many religious people ... though personally I would prioritize direct love of others over the desire to please some vague deity ... your talk of the "remarkably few who behave in atrocious ways" seems to me an underestimation of the damage that is also done by interpretation of God's will. The history of humankind is full of conflicts engendered by different interpretations, and even today there is oppression of women and religious minorities, bloody clashes not only between religions but also between different sects of the same religions, and in Catholicism there is an immense amount of suffering resulting directly from the Pope's "infallible" authority as God's representative on earth. All too clearly belief in a creator does not provide objective criteria for productive, profitable action, or properly guided lives.
 
I would argue that the "utility" of a creator may well lie in bringing comfort to those who have no other source of hope, but that the humanistic principles that you and I share do not require belief in or the presence of a creator.