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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 22:26 (4867 days ago) @ dhw

dhw & Tony
> 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".
> -I interject here because this conversation is interesting...-My reading of Dostoevsky over the holiday had me focus heavily of the character of Father Zossima. He was an Orthodox monk who was an elder of his monastery. His discussions of "perfect love" and holding firm to Christian Love (as in love of the neighbor) directly contrasts with Calvinism of the Puritans dhw discusses here. Zossima (and all the monks in the novel) eschewed all earthly things, attempted to eat nothing but bread and water, and in general worked to cultivate compassion and grace towards other people. This conviction was bred from the same source as Calvinism, which welcomes wealth and earthly things "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." (Matthew 13:12) Of course the mystic truth buried in this is exactly that subjective notion dhw discusses later. As a Buddhist I would read this as discussing Karmic wealth; Carmelite Christians would view this as Christ's love. -My (and if I may presuppose dhw) question of utility, is what is the use of all of this subjectivity? There is no objective truth contained in the Bible or in any religious text. Even the Buddhist article of faith, "All suffering comes from craving" has its chinks. What happens if a meteor falls and hits my foot? What craving of mine (or anyone else) caused THAT suffering? -> 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?
> -If you truly adhere to Christ or Buddhism, the very point of altruism demands that you do NOT answer an eye for an eye. The separation of man and animal according to Christianity is that man receives God's love and redemption; if you truly wish to be devotional, you must adhere to the higher ideal of love and self-sacrifice. That's what it means to love God first, and before everything else.-> 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 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.-I agree with dhw here. To all of my Christian friends I continuously point to Buddhist countries, where their essential Atheism has certainly NOT degraded their life and culture into the dustbin of atrophy and death. A creator isn't necessary for moral nor material life--it simply isn't. The only thing necessary is devotion to each other as living beings, and for me this increasingly has meant animals too.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"