As a lesbian trapped in a man’s body, I gotta say I loved this…
246 comments on “The comedy stylings of George Takei”
PAD, Bobb has it right; the creationists have more or less given up on arguing against microevolution. They just try to claim that it’s macroevolution that’s impossible. When you try to explain to them that macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution added up they act like Mike and put their hands over their ears and throw out big words they saw in a book once like “paradigm”. Usually mispronouncing it as “para-diggum”, which is just all sorts of cute.
Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You get so cute when you know you got your facts wrong. All the TM’s in the world, all the schoolyard “I SO own you!” taunts, all the quotes from your betters (which is to say, all your quotes)–you can’t change the fact, plainly seen by all, that you got your facts wrong. Again.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique — yeah.
Oh now they are “virtually” unique? Well…again, so what? They are all made of water. All water is simply 2 hydrogens and an oxygen. They crystallize in certain ways. This gives them their basic shape. However since the exact same number of atoms will vary from flake to flake and the exact conditions under which every flake–even two that are side by side when formed cannot ever be exactly the same it should be no surprise–to the informed—that they are not exactly the same. It isn’t magic. It isn’t a miracle—except to the easily impressed. You must be the only person on earth who actually has his mind blown by the phenomena of paint drying.
You can go on believing that the existence of snowflakes somehow supports your magical view of the universe. It’s not like anything you could do at this point would make you appear more clownish than your past transgressions.
And keep on insisting that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same. And make sure you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is the stupid one. Just make sure you wear a hat with jingles on it. You’re the resident forum clown, you may as well dress the part.
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Darwin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. There, Mike, now you can go supersize those fries.
Jerry–read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct? Now, as far as Hardaway goes, I couldn’t care less WHAT he thinks about anything. I usually watch basketball with the sound off. I know an awful lot of people who still think just like the old days.
Micha–up above, when you were talking about WASP, I’m gonna assume you weren’t talking about the band. Although that image DID give me a chuckle.
“Mormons and old people didn’t do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain.”
Wonder if that’s because they’d worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? “Okay, I married him first, I’m First, you’re second…” Jem’Hadar by marriage.
“I heard a suggestion the other day that we should amend the constitution to limit us to one president from Texas per century. Now that’s an amendment I could whole-heartedly support.”
Den, change century to millenium, and you’ve got my support.
Now, if I could borrow Bill’s soapbox, here’s my 1.236 cents on the evolution versus intelligent design celebrity deathmatch. First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn’t a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot. If you suddenly find an entire colony in South America of Michigan J. Frogs in top hats, you could theorize as to how this took place, besides a Warner animator with too little sleep. As I understand it, Intelligent Design merely states that there was some, say, intelligence behind all this. In itself, not a bad theory. (Go on, YOU explain how life evolved on this planet, developed homo sapiens who invented Cherry Coke and the Cajun cheesesteak. Go on. I’ll wait.) The problem with Intellegent Design is that it implies there is an end to research. Beyond this point, there be dragons and no answers, so just stop looking. At least, that’s how most people who use the arguement end up speaking. “We can’t know, we’ll never know, so what fits?” There is ALWAYS more to know. Questions don’t just get answered. They lead to more questions. It’s like a five year old who just won’t for the LOVE OF GOD stop asking “Why?” (Sometime remind me to tell you about the time I explained to Brian why the sky is blue and the look my wife had on her face.) Evolution and intelligent design aren’t the End All Be All of the arguements. They CAN’T be. But too many people treat them like they are.
Bill, here’s your soapbox back.
And to go WAY up the thread, Steve Chung, have you checked out the Sulu audio adventures? Should be able to get them from Amazon or eBay if you haven’t. Second one’s my favorite.
“Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions — thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions — sensing or intuiting) as irrational.”
I’m not well-versed on Jung at all.
“As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.”
Ok, fine…are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn’t try to model the world at all…it’s trying to intuit it. When a culture or religion believes that thunder and lightning are the result of the Gods wrestling in Heavan, that’s not a modeling observation, it’s an intuition or guess about what’s happening. When that culture then observes that lightning is the static electricity discharge from a cloud formation, and thunder is the result of the passage of that lightning through the atmosphere, that becomes a modelling function.
Which, unless I’m totally off base here, is exactly what I just said.
Which still leaves me confused as to why you think, at least according to Micha, that evolution and ID are both rational theries. In what way is ID not an intuitive function, and instead a modelling function?
And for the record, you can’t call me Counselor until I renew my inactive registration. Don’t want you to get me in trouble with the Bar. For the moment, I’m just a guy with a law degree. I’ll let you know when you can call me Counselor again.
“Micha, I don’t understand what you mean by this: “Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter.””
I’m sorry. I didn’t explain myself well. I’ll try again.
Suppose that an alien biologist came to earth and abducted a dog in his ship and began studying him. Now, being a rational l=alien, he might assume that dogs are the result of natural selection. However, dogs are not the result of natural selection but artificial selection by humans — intelligent design if you will. An alien scientists who proposed such a theory would have been both rational and correct (in this case. However, if an alien came the scientist and said that dogs are the result of inteligent design because that’s what our ancestors say, or the sacred texts, or faith, and if he would say that because of that dogs are divine, and that therefore there creators should be worshipped in temple (modern orthodox), that would be irrational.
The ancient greeks were responsible for the rational revoltion which meant that gods, their involvement in the world, the world, history, medicine, and traditional social norms, were questioned rationaly using reason. Even if some of the ancient philosophers reasoned that gods exist, or even that traditional piety is important, the fact that they thought about it in a rational critical way was already a challenge to the traditional way of thinking.
“ID is only rational if the idea of the Designer…God in most cases…is rational. But it’s not a rational idea. I’m a fairly spiritual guy, I totally believe in God, but I know it’s not a rational belief, because it’s based on nothing more than my feelings and what I’ve been told. If anything, it’s based more on the things I don’t know than anything.”
“Religion is irrational, because it almost universally deals with the unproven, the unknown, and the unknowable. You take religion on faith, which often contradicts or even replaces rationality”
The distinction between rationality and faith that is common today is the result of the challenge posed to religion by rational thinking. If you look at the bible, you will see that religion was neither unproven, unknown, or unknowable. God proves himself repeatedly with very tangible miracles. He is experienced by mystics. It is said that when Moses went to Mt. Sinai he ‘knew’ god. Although, from early on the knowledge is privilaged, and incomplete. But then again, so is science.
Imagine this: you want to know about the past — how life began. You ask ‘people who have more access to the past, your parents. They tell you what their parents told them, and so on. How can you doubt such direct evidence of tradition (and revelation) and prefer instead the speculations of some guy who claims that he has a methodolgy to know about the past that does not involve tradition? Instead this person examines the evidence he has before him, and he does so critically. He examines the stories of your ancestors with dubiousness. That’s pretty revolutionary.
At this stage tradition needs to defend itself from rationality by saying that the methodology of rationality is wrong — you’re supposed to have faith, experience religion in a different way than thinking about it. One early Christian said: “I believe because it is absurd.” He lived in a society in which greco-roman philosophy was a competeing authority.
However, this compromise is good for both sides. It allows philosophy and science to speculate without having to deal with religion, and religion does not have to argue with philosophers and scientists. But this truce works only if both sides accept the limitations. ID is an attempt by religion to get into science, supposedly claiming to have rational scientific arguments for intelligent design.
Wonder if that’s because they’d worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? “Okay, I married him first, I’m First, you’re second…” Jem’Hadar by marriage.
The funny thing is that of the top 2 Republican frontrunners it’s the Mormon who has only had one wife.
First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn’t a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot.
Sean, I respect your opinion but the scientific meaning of “theory” and “law’ are not the same as how laymen use them. A theory is as good as it gets. A Law is generally something that can be expressed mathematically– double the temperature of a gas and you double the volume, something like that. Evolution by natural Selection can’t become a law, it will always be a theory, like Germ Theory. It will no doubt be modified–our understanding of genetics has solved many of the problems that Darwin struggled with.
Intelligent Design is more of a hypothesis and not a terribly good one since a hypothesis needs to be able to be tested. that doesn’t disqualify it from being true but it does limit it’s usefulness to science.
Man I would love to continue this but the Nevermore Horror film festival is this weekend and I have to go man the table we’ll be selling our movie at (and hopefully doing a makeup demo) so I don’t know if I’ll have access to a computer. everyone have a great weekend, hopefully the forecast doesn’t call for any thermodynamic miracles. Oh and Mike, if there’s an eclipse it’s just the position of the moon and the sun in relation to the Earth. No need to sacrifice virgins to the Corn God or anything.
Sean, the problem with ID is not so much that it implies an end to the process so much as it’s a way of kicking aside anything we don’t currently understand and then declaring that it doesn’t matter if ever do. It’s like that episode of the Simpsons where Lucy Lawless dismissed any continuity errors in Xena by saying “a wizard did it”. Don’t understand how a bacterium developed a flagellum? Just put up a sign that says, “God did it” and move on. Nothing to see here.
While spiritual beliefs may help people make sense of the “why” of the world, it doesn’t do anything to us understand the “how” and in science, you need the “how” if you’re ever to use it to help fight diseases or other problems. The real problem ID is that it doesn’t really explain anything. Now, ID proponents often dance around and say that the intelligent designer doesn’t necessarily have to mean God (although everyone knows that’s what they really mean). It could be aliens, they’ll say.
Well, then, what created the aliens? Who designed the designer? Moving the goal posts back doesn’t mean you’ve prevented your opponent from scoring a touchdown.
“What is troubling is that evolution continues to this day as a sound scientific principle–what else are strains of diseases which mutate to resist various medications if not evolution? Are Godhuggers (if enviornmentalists are treehuggers, then those who substitute God’s work for nature’s should be Godhuggers) going to claim that God is so into micromanaging that he’s actually deciding which diseases should live and die?
PAD “
Yes. Religion has no use for a god who creates the world and then lets inanimate natural laws do all the work while he loafs around, plays golf or embarasses himself in the tabloids. No, god has to earn his keep by micromanaging everything, punishing the wicked, healing the sick, talking to priests. Religion is a business, and everybody has to carry his own weight, including god.
My own theory as to the hatred of gays, which I think essentially boils down to gay men, is the physical penetration aspect of it. There is something aggressive and threatening about the “invasion of space” aspect of it that non-gay men fear. Of course the homophobic mindset seems to assume that the person is so irresistable that a gay person can’t help but try to force themselves upon them.
As for evolution/ID, it has always struck me that the ID argument is really trying to argue for the *intent* of evolution. Which I think can exist beside evolution which is the mechanism. If God wants to get to Humans, isn’t it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just “*poof* there you are”? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. “Evolution is too complicated, it’s like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch”. Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.
Den, the example you use cracks me up–the creationists are telling us to buy the premise that God has cleverly managed to make a universe that works with natural laws but in making bacteria flagellum he screwed up and did it in a way that can only prove there is a God. He must be smacking his head right now over that boner!
Then agin…conasider this: Bacteria were the first life forms on Earth, we think. We are told God create life in his image. the bacteria in a single spoonful of dirt outnumber all the humans on Earth. And now, we are told, the very form of bacteria is such that could not have possibly occured without a divine hand. Are you seeing where this might be going?
Maybe when they said our bodies were temples they meant temples for God’s chosen creatures, the “lowly” monera.
Ðámņ it, Bill, I’m a video guy, not a scientist! Seriously, though, I thought that was one of the things about theories and laws I was taught in my science classes. Also, I always thought, given the wide variety of life forms on the planet, that God created all of them when he WAS them, thereby creating everything in his own image. We are living in God, you could say.
Den, that’s what I was trying to say. Where I would differ from you, though, is in the application. I was trying to say that ID gets used by it’s promoters as the end, not as a “We don’t know” but as “We don’t know and never will.”
I can see it now, Micha. “God went into a hairdresser and shaved His head. The clippings are now on eBay, going for a guaranteed shot of getting into Heaven.” Now, not to go all spiritual here, but if God is supposed to heal the sick, what does that mean for the virus that presumably He created? It means the virus has to get sick and die.
My head hurts now.
Posted by: clatterboot at February 23, 2007 10:56 AM
My own theory as to the hatred of gays, which I think essentially boils down to gay men, is the physical penetration aspect of it.
I think it’s more basic than that. I think hatred of gays is rooted in the human tendency to fear that which is different. This was an adaptive trait at one time, with that fear keeping early humans on their toes in a world filled with very real physical threats. We’ve long since come out of the caves and exist in a very different world, but that survival mechanism still exists. Unfortunately, too few people recognize it for what it is: an adaptive mechanism that has to a degree outlived its usefulness. Instead, people rationalize that their instinctual hatred is in fact some kind of moral stance… when it is in fact just instinctual hatred.
By now, we should be better than this. We have brains capable of higher-order thought. Unforunately, we have to choose to think, whereas our baser instincts are set to “automatic.”
“”Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions — thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions — sensing or intuiting) as irrational.”
I’m not well-versed on Jung at all.
“As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.”
Ok, fine…are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn’t try to model the world at all…it’s trying to intuit it.”
I think that To understand what Jung says, you have to understand the terms rational, thinking, and intuition in the context of jung’s theory. My knowledge of Jung’s theory is limited to a few lines in wikipedia.
The distinction you make between scientific theory and myth, and the distinction made by Jung in his terminology are both valid but different.
“I think it’s more basic than that. I think hatred of gays is rooted in the human tendency to fear that which is different.”
I agree that’s an aspect of it as well, but it does seem to me that when people talk about gays, it is primarily focused on gay men, rather than lesbians. And women kissing/etc. is, I don’t know if I would say accepted, but is demonized like it is for men. Am I alone in sensing that? It’s certainly a complicated subject which speaks to how off-the-mark the view that it is some sort of simple learned behavior is. I have no explantion as to why I find some things attractive or not, and I don’t think homosexuals can explain their attractions in some rational way either.
If I can try to merge the two ideas in this conversation, what does it mean that homosexuality has not evolved out of the human equation (and many other animals for that matter)? Is there an evolutionary possibility that in some disaster it may become possible for some sort of same-sex procreation? I’m no biologist, but is the ability to have children what defines an organism as “female” or is it some other aspect? I’m reminded of the Jurassic Park thing where lizards can switch genders (sexes?). Or does homosexuality exist as an avenue for physical urges to be satisified if the opposite sex is not available? Kind of a mental wellness sort of thing? Or maybe I’m way off base.
er… I meant “ISN’T demonized like it is for men.”
Thanks, Micha. I’m not sure that helped me understand Mike’s contention any more, but thanks.
Let me ‘splain. ID, by itself, is fine. Its unprovable, untestable, and unknowable to us at this point. So saying it’s a rational belief (that some intelligence designed life) is fine. Believing that makes you neither rational nore irrational.
However, using ID as a replacement to evolution, or even claiming that evolution does not happen because all life forms are IDed and remain static, is not rational. It’s the imputing of tradition to trample rational thought and conclusions based on observations.
The ancient Greeks are a good example of a happy medium. To a modern person, thinking Zues causes thunder and lightning is irrational, because we’ve observed what actually creates those phenomenon. But to an ancient Greek, they see lightning, and they hear thunder, and unable to determine what actually caused them, they assign them a divine source, after failing to determine a provable cause. Zeus becomes the Greek version of ID…as the start of something not yet otherwise known.
From that context, both ID and Zeus tossing tunderbolts are rational thoughts.
I was trying to say that ID gets used by it’s promoters as the end, not as a “We don’t know” but as “We don’t know and never will.”
Which is what makes people like Michael Behe so astoundingly arrogant. What he essentially says in his writing amounts to because he can’t figure out how bacterial structures developed, then no one else ever will and therefore, we should just accept that only the direct hand of God could do.
Bill Mulligan hits the nail on the head, for ID to be accepted as science, we have to assume that God created a universe that obeys certain observable, natural laws – except where it doesn’t. To them, God isn’t so much a blind watchmaker as he is an inept one. He has to keep adjusting the mainspring in order to keep the thing working.
“To them, God isn’t so much a blind watchmaker as he is an inept one. He has to keep adjusting the mainspring in order to keep the thing working.”
This is one of the key flaws I have to the most vocal ID proponenets. What is the more impressive feat? That God, like me playing Geotrax with my 16 month old, has to constantly keep things on track because the locals keep messing things up? Or that He can set up the whole universe eons and eons ago, get things spinning, and have Earth develop life hudreds of billions of years later, leading to me banging away on a keyboard at just this moment, knowing all those eons ago that I’d be doing this just at this moment?
To me, it’s far more impressive to have that kind of foresight than it is to keep having to act to maintain things.
This latest debate stems from incorrect assertions about the meaning of the word rational. For the record, according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary the word “rational” has the following definitions:
“1. governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice;
“2. able to think clearly and sensibly, because the mind is not impaired by physical or mental condition, violent emotion, or prejudice;
“3. presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge and are not based on appeals to emotion or, prejudice;
“4. endowed with the ability to reason, as opposed to being governed solely by instinct and appetite;
“5. able to be expressed exactly as the quotient of two whole numbers or polynomials.”
Bigotry is born of prejudice. Prejudice is not rational. Therefore hatred of gays is irrational.
Evolution is a theory developed by using the scientific method. It is rational. “Intelligent Design” is based on unprovable assumptions rooted in religious belief. It is therefore not “rational.”
I do not give a rat’s ášš about Jung’s use of the word, by the way. The word predates Jung’s birth, and as far as I know no one named him the Final Arbiter of the Meaning of All English Words. I’ll stick with definitions taken from reliable sources, like major dictionaries.
Sigh… I didn’t want to mention his name, but in case any of you are wondering, the bit about “incorrect assertions about the meaning of the word rational” applies solely to Mike.
I don’t usually like to acknowledge him because, frankly, he doesn’t deserve it.
What the old saw about no two snowflakes ever matching has to do with any of this is beyond me. (at any rate it is probably virtually impossible for them to be exactly identical–exact same number of atoms? Doubtful.) And as to why snowflakes are not thermodynamically improbable…go talk to the folks in Oswego, now still shoveling 142 inches of improbability off their roofs.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique — yeah.
Oh now they are “virtually” unique?
In as much as it’s Virtually Impossible™ for snowflakes to match — yeah.
Chastising someone for using a word you introduced into the discussion, by the way, is “Totally Normal Psychology.™”
Well…again, so what? They are all made of water. All water is simply 2 hydrogens and an oxygen….
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true.
You were wrong about Nobody™ claiming life blossomed by chance. Your libel of Jimmy Carter libeling was wrong, your rumor campaign of Hillary Clinton passing rumors was wrong, and your comparing the Dixie Chicks challenging George W Bush to “I hate gay people…. I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it” was wrong.
You’re an ášš.
(…don’t want to be accused of taking something out of context)….
And keep on insisting that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same.
Strawman.™
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Darwin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. There, Mike, now you can go supersize those fries.
Words cannot be copyrighted, and I never said they could be. Honoring a trademark is not the same as claiming to own it.
And hey, I can copy and paste dictionary definitions too:
1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
2 : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3 : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers <a rational root of an equation>
ID, though, is boring. If you don’t understand something, just put up a sign that says, “here God intervened” and stop asking questions.
Exactly. The only difference between ID and full-blown creationism is where you put that line. That’s why it’s the opposite of science; if you don’t have an explanation for something in science, you can put forth a theory and see whether it works, or say “we don’t know yet but hope to someday when we know more.” The key is the admission that you may not be correct, and the willingness to explore further. (Individuals may be irrationally attached to one particular theory, but that’s a different matter.)
ID, on the other hand, reaches something that the questioner feels can’t be explained and says, “Well, I don’t have an explanation for it, so I’ll postulate something that can’t be disproven or explored further.” It does so, moreover, by introducing an element which is even more complex than the phenomenon being explained. Evolution works through the accumulation of simple steps that require no intervention by a complex entity; ID simply raises more questions (namely, where did the designer come from? If complex elements require a designer, then who designed the designer? Extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth, similarly, may be an explanation, but ultimately it’s not an answer, just a cop-out).
The great science cartoonist Sidney Harris has a cartoon which shows a scientist writing on a blackboard. Step 1 is a complex formula, as is step 3; step 2 is the phrase “And then a miracle occurs.” Another scientist is saying, “I think you need to be more explicit here in step 2.” That’s ID in a nutshell.
“Evolution works through the accumulation of simple steps that require no intervention by a complex entity”
Just to point out why ID and evolution are not incompatible when used appropriately…while evolutionary theory doesn’t call for any intervention, it likewise doesn’t eliminate the possibility that such intervention takes place.
Micha’s example of the alien biologist is an example of this: The alien could postulate that the dog evovled the way it did on it’s own…or he could postulate that humans intervened to get the dog to evolve a certain way. Technically, both theories are correct, depending on how you view the human intervention. If you just view humans as one more external infuence on the natural evolution of the dog…meaning humans are just a part of the environment…you get the first theory. On the other hand, if you view the humans as some kind of dog Creator, you get the second. But the evolutionary observation itself…that dogs evolved from a distant canine ancestor in common with cats…is unaffected by whichever view you hold.
Behe makes me think of all the other naysayers throughout history. Human flight? NEVER! Humans breaking the sound barrier? IMPOSSIBLE! Man on the moon? NEVER MAKE IT/NEVER HAPPENED! Also makes me think of advice my dad gave me. You might reach the Top today, enjoy it, because someone’s gonna top you tomorrow if you stop now.
And Bill, my wife is thankful that you’re not giving my ášš away.
Mike, ignorant as always, says:
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn’t thermodynamically improbable.
then he tries to backtrack by saying
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true
Poor, poor Mike. So much ignorance in such a little, little man.
You’ve managed to do something once thought almost impossible–argue about evolution and intelligent design in a manner so sloppy that both evolutionists and creationists can share a beer and laugh together at your foolishness. Were that a deliberate effort it would almost be noble.
But hey, nice attempt to change the subject, what with the politics and all. Not gonna bite, sorry to say–it’s too much fun kicking your ášš on the pure facts. Politics is opinion. But thinking that evolution and Hoyle’s argument against abiogenesis are the same thing is just ignorant. Continuing to claim it in the face of all reality makes you stubborn, stupid, or both. An unenviable choice.
And now, as promised, I must go. You have 2 whole days to say stupid things without me being able to point out how stupid they are. You can even pretend that my silence means I’ve thrown in the towel, giving you that sense of self esteem you need so very very much. Others may chose to take up the effort, though at this point it’s obvious you have nothing (nada! zip! zero!) to add and are just blustering about, angry that you’ve been made to look dumb. Er. Dumber.
(And to those who do believe in creationism, while I am 100% in the evolution camp, for all the reasons I’ve given here and in the past, I do not have the same contempt for your opinions that I do for Mr. Leung’s. It’s not his ignorance that galls–it’s the incredible dripping arrogance with which he sneers at people for having the temerity to disagree with him, even when, as is usually the case, the actual facts are on their side. He’s an ášš and it’s always fun to watch them hoisted by their own petard (I don’t actually know what a petard is but I’ll bet it hurts to get hoisted by it)).
Mike, ignorant as always, says:
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn’t thermodynamically improbable….
then he tries to backtrack by saying
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true
Do you not know the difference between a noun and a preposition?
Bill Mulligan,
In case you’re still around, a petard is a form of primitive grenade (like 16th Century). Thus, being hoist by your own petard is having your own arguement/methods/weapon/etc blow up in your face. The line is from Hamlet, but I can’t recall the specific context. I do believe that Hamlet is comparing SOMEONE to a grenadeer who has been hoist by their own petard, but can’t remember who or why.
Sean,
“Jerry–read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct?”
Maybe a bit of both.But I do think that people have gotten better about such stuff as their horizons have been expanded by life in a shrinking world.
Geez… The thread went and turned into Evolution VS ID? What a dumb argument.
I’m of the camp that says that evolution basically is ID. There’s a book out there, I think they call it The Bible, that’s full of stories where God sets events into motion to work up to his final desired outcome. Lots of His most devoted followers praise these stories and talk, at great length, about the greatness of the wisdom learned in taking the journey rather then having God just snap his fingers and having whatever happen. So, why should the idea that the entire journey of our existance is not in some way the same thing be shouted down as the work of the devil? Why not just say that God has a point A and a point B and that evolution is just his way of getting us all there?
There’s one simple question I like to ask creationists, after they’ve finished claiming that all the evidence of a 14-billion-or-so-year-old universe, and the evolution of various life forms on this planet, are all planted by God to “test our faith.”
I like to ask them, “So, you’re calling God a liar?!“
As David Brin asked, if God went to all this effort to make it look as if modern cosmology and evolutionary theory are correct, who are we to contradict Him?
I don’t want to see Bill Mulligan and Bill Myers fall off the Mikeholoic wagon, unless they can take Mike’s posts with the seriousness it merits.
The truth is I have no idea what Mike’s contention is, in this as in most things he writes, nor why he brought up Intelligent Design to begin with. But intelligent design in and of itself is an interesting subject, and people had some interesting things to say about it.
I think it is necessary to distinguish between several levels of the argument.
1) That both evolutionary theory and religious creation myths are rational in the sense that both involve a process of observation of the world and thinking or reasoning about it.
[I think that is the sense of the word rational used by Jung, although I’m no expert of jung. You should also remeber that Jung is probably using the word in a specific meaning in the context of his own theories about the psyche and not providing a dictionary definition.]
2) That evolutionary theory is rational and creation myth is irrational because evolutionary theory involves dispassionate analysis of evidence, critical thinking, using reason to reach conclusions, and so forth, while myth is not critical, involves faith, reverence to traditional authority, worship, emotion, creativity and so forth.
That’s the point I was trying to make. It is mostly historical. The ancient greeks introduced the idea of rational thinking in the sense of questioning traditional seeking explanation in philosophy, history, medicine, biology etc. that were not based on the authority of tradition or faith or the most creative or appealing story, but what seemed dictated by rational thinking. Ultimately their theories were wrong, but it was a different way of thinking.
In this level, Intelligent Design could hypothetically be a rational explanation. we could imagine that before Darwin described the mechanism of evolution, a person looking at the biological complexity could rationaly speculate that species are the result of design the source of which we as of yet do not understand. So long as this person treated the question critically without refering to religious tradition, it would be rational. Similarly, Newton’s gravity theory involved a force that could not be explained until Einstein came along. It was still rational.
3) That between evolution and ID, evolution is a superior scientific theory, and therefore to prefer ID over evolution is irrational, and in fact motivated by religious emotion.
In a similar way we would say that the speculations of ancient greek philosophers were mostly rational at the time, but since our scientific methodology and technique inproved in many respects, to continue holding to such ancient theories would be irrational.
4) That ID is irrational because it is not a real scientific theory, but is in fact a way of sneaking in religion into science, and that its practitioners introduce into their consideration an irrational component, namely their religious beliefs.
I don’t think these approaches are contradictory.
If followers of ID could present a real theory of ID that could compete with evolutionary theory, that theory would be rational. but they can’t because their scientific methodology is faulty, and their process of reasoning is not rational, since it is influenced by religious beliefs.
“If God wants to get to Humans, isn’t it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just “*poof* there you are”? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. “Evolution is too complicated, it’s like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch”. Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.”
The idea that the laws of nature are the manifestation of god, or that god creates and controls the world according to the laws of nature is an old one. The problem with this approach — for religious people — is that it makes god pretty redundant. You don’t need him to explain how the world works, his influence in the world does not seem the result of divine will, prayers are pretty much pointless, and miracles do not really occur. You just let him tag along as nature runs its course. It also runs contrary to the concept of god in scripture as somebody who is involved in the world, as well as the discription in scripture of the creation of the natural world.
Spinoza is the most extreme example of this view. For him god and nature was pretty much the same. The world worked according to unbreakable mathematical laws (his book was built like a geometry book), and there was no way that things could happen differently. There was no divine will. Another philosopher, Leibniz, disliked this idea so much that he proposed the idea that although the world we live in works according to unbreakable laws of nature, god chose to create this world and not another one. Being a good god he created the best of all possible worlds.
Both were extreme rationalists although neither theory is worth much scientifically.
Hi all.
Probably too late to affect this thread but here goes one of my trademark “Posts of Unusual Size”…
Bill Muiligan stated: “A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God’s will.”
There was a smart person like that: Johanes Kepler. He was the astronomer guy that discovered Mars had an eliptical rather than circular orbit. An orbit that went faster as it got closer to the Sun and slower as it was away. His observations were a preview to Newtons Laws of gravity. Kepler felt he failed as a priest and believed he was doing God’s work by showing how things worked in God’s creation.
Clatterboot stated: “As for evolution/ID, it has always struck me that the ID argument is really trying to argue for the *intent* of evolution. Which I think can exist beside evolution which is the mechanism. If God wants to get to Humans, isn’t it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just “*poof* there you are”? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. “Evolution is too complicated, it’s like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch”. Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.”
I agree. As a Christian, I am constantly amazed at the arrogance of my brethren who can’t simply be satified to faithfully believe God’s hand in creation, but feel the need also stomp on anyone’s ideas of HOW God could have done it. They remind me of Job’s friends who are *CONVINCED* that the reason Job’s life sucks is that he did something wrong. Humility is a desperately needed trait in the Church. Myself included.
When I was begining my faith I used to struggle with the evolution vs creation thing until once in astronomy class in college my professor was talking about cosmology. He stated that 150 years ago scientists believed the planets and stars had ALWAYS been like they are in their courses above.
But Edwin Hubble changed all that when he saw that galaxies were all “red shifted”–or moving away from one another. He theorized that at one point the universe was tiny and then universe was suddenly expanding in a big bang. While Hubble was no failed priest, the scientific community thought he was a neo-creationist. The poor guy was just calculating his data! From then on I started thinking maybe both sides are right–but could use some humility.
–Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
But the evolutionary observation itself…that dogs evolved from a distant canine ancestor in common with cats…is unaffected by whichever view you hold.
The difference between the dog example and ID is that the answers “the dog evolved into this form” and “humans made the dog this way” are addressing two different questions, while ID tries to use the second answer for the first question. (To get Aristotelean about it, answer #1 is the efficient cause and #2 is the formal cause.)
The key distinction: Evolutionary theory explains both dogs and humans, so it’s not inherently self-contradictory; humans are one agent in the wide range of factors that led to modern dogs. ID, by its fundamental tenet, can’t explain both the lifeform and its designer.
When I refer to ID, incidentally, I’m specifically referring to the modern movement that proponents are trying to push as an alternative to evolution, not any way that the terms could be applied to historical thought. If proponents of ID had positive evidence–“Here is the evidence of the intelligence that designed life form X”–rather than negative evidence–“I don’t understand how life form X came to be, so somebody must have designed it”–then it would be another kettle of fish entirely, because it wouldn’t be introducing a new factor out of nowhere.
(In other words, Micha, I’m not directly arguing against your broader point but a specific application of the idea. I certainly don’t disagree that intelligence has had an effect on the modern form of certain species, or that they could have more in the future; it’s the specific example of trying to address an unknown by jumping to one conclusion to the exclusion of all other I’m objecting to.)
My god there’s a lot to read here since I last posted.
Micha, thanks for the explanation. We vote for political parties rather than the person we want to see in the Prime Minister’s office in Canada as well, so I think I understand how it works.
As for the evolution vs. creationism vs. ID…I have always said that I just do not know anything for sure, because there’s no way I can.
Creationism seems highly improbable to me, but I don’t feel comfortable ruling it out 100% because it’s still possible.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random. My layman’s understanding of mutations is that they don’t happen all that often, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t evolution require that when organisms mutate they not only do so in a way that’s beneficial rather than harmful, but that the organism with the mutation survives long enough to mate and pass the trait on, and that this happens over and over and over again? I know the planet has been around for a long time, but has it been around long enough for this to happen enough times to get it right, without setbacks such as a promising new species going extinct and the whole process having to start over again?
And on the other other hand, if there was some sort of being like a god guiding the development of life on Earth, the question then becomes where did THAT being come from? Did it evolve from something? Or was it created by yet another being, and if so, who created THAT being? So that makes me believe that even if there is some higher form of life controlling the development of life on Earth, it probably came into being through evolution or something similar to evolution, or the being that created it did, or the being that created the being that created it did, and so forth.
But anyway, the only answer I’m confident in giving when asked whether we evolved or whether we’re the product of divine/supernatural intervention is “I honestly don’t know.”
After all, I can’t prove to anybody that I exist. I mean, *I* know that “I think, therefore I am,” but I can’t prove to anybody else that I’m a thinking entity as opposed to a hallucination. So if we can’t be certain about that, how can we be completely certain about anything? How can we be completely certain about evolution or creationism?
Rob Brown Stated: “And on the other other hand, if there was some sort of being like a god guiding the development of life on Earth, the question then becomes where did THAT being come from? Did it evolve from something? Or was it created by yet another being, and if so, who created THAT being? “
Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they’re a bit arrogant and run Liberty University)
I’m not sayin that’s how its done, but if cosmologists are saying the universe is expanding into something else…well…why not?
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
Rob–when I was in college, I wrote a play along those lines. Woman gets in a car accident, wakes up from the coma, struggles through months of rehab, then wakes up out of the coma again, ffinding that nothing she remembered happened.
For those strict ID adherents, point out the differences in human height now and hundred years ago. In Denmark, I think, a hundred years ago, the population could’ve populated Snow White’s house, Munchkinland, and Moria. (Slight exaggeration, there.) Now they’re among Europe’s tallest. Evolution, for those in a hurry!
Okay, not to drag us allllll the way back to the topic, but I just saw that picture of George Takei at the top of the thread, and my overactive imagination had Excelsior making first contact with a really buttoned-up race, with Sulu saying, “When you least expect it, we will have sex with you.”
I gotta get out more.
“How can we be completely certain about evolution or creationism?”
We can’t be certain. But that’s not the real issue. The real issue is about the method used to ask questions about he world and answer them.
The questions science asks, the methods used to answer them, the answers that are possible and acceptable for science to acheive are completely incompatible with those that religion asks and answers.
For example:
“But Edwin Hubble changed all that when he saw that galaxies were all “red shifted”–or moving away from one another. He theorized that at one point the universe was tiny and then universe was suddenly expanding in a big bang. While Hubble was no failed priest, the scientific community thought he was a neo-creationist. The poor guy was just calculating his data! From then on I started thinking maybe both sides are right–but could use some humility.”
The big bang and the story of the biblical genesis look similar, but Genesis is the result of myth-making or revelation that became tradition, while the big bang is the result of the modern scientific method. Genesis could never be considered a scientific conclusion, while Hubble could not assume in his research not treat his conclusion (the big bang) as supernatural or divine. If he did so he would move from the language of science to that of theology.
Saying that the laws of nature or evolution are simply the manifestation of the god is also not a scientific statement but theological. It is also a poetic statement, and a political statement. It enables science and religion to work at the same time without conflict.
This is hilarious. This debate was touched off by an attempt by Mike to prove that if I’m against bigotry I must be for it, and that if I use the word “rational” properly I must not know what it means.
By the way, I haven’t fallen of the “Mike-o-holic” wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That’s it.
As far as the whole evolution/ID debate, I think ID is an attempt to apply religion to science, which makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Science exists to answer the “what” and the “how.” Religion exists to explore the “why.”
Sean, I think your vision of Takei as Sulu warning aliens that they are about to be… melded with… is hilarious. Don’t get out more. We love you just the way you are.
“By the way, I haven’t fallen of the “Mike-o-holic” wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That’s it.”
The important thing is that your enjoyment in attending this blog is not diminished.
“Religion exists to explore the “why.””
It would probably be morecorrect to say that religion answers the ‘why’.
Apparently not all religious people accept this division of labor. It is rather recent, and its basically a demotion of the role religion had in the past.
“I’m not sayin that’s how its done, but if cosmologists are saying the universe is expanding into something else…well…why not?”
At this stage this is not a scientific question but a theological speculation.
“I think ID is an attempt to apply religion to science, which makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Science exists to answer the “what” and the “how.” Religion exists to explore the “why.””
See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you’re not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.
I tend to gain even more respect for the creations of a creator, divine or human, when I discover how much more there is to it then what I merely see. To see how so many things work, to see the amazing levels of details and the fragile balance of so many things and to see them work so well and with, in some cases, such strength just impresses me all the more with the creation then I was when I was young and being told that, in esence, God just went “snap” and there it was.
Here’s the strangest stretch for an example of the night…
To me, it’s a little like pro wrestling. I grew up watching it when it was “real” and was only a passing fan of it. Then I got older and I learned how much goes into the art of pro wrestling and into doing what those guys do, how much you have to learn, work and treat it as an art to do it well and I just became a huge fan out of respect for what these guys can really do and what they go through. Knowledge of the “fake nature of wrestling made me a bigger fan because I began to learn so much more about what goes into it. Same thing here. Knowledge of what goes into the creation to make it what it is only gives me more respect for it and for it’s creator then keeping the idea that it was all done as easy as the flip of a switch.
But not everybody thiks like me. They’re just not evolved enough yet.
🙂
Captain, I’m not going to go into the maths here, but the question of what the Universe is “expanding into” is an artifact of the imprecision of language. Space is defined by the existence of something in it, even if that “something” is only subatomic particles. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – in its most literal form. Until the Universe has expanded into it, the “space” (not really space yet, but again we’re dealing with the imprecision of language) doesn’t exist as yet. It’s not even really potential – it’s nothing.
If you think that’s hard to comprehend, try contemplating the monobloc…
Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions — thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions — sensing or intuiting) as irrational.
I’m not well-versed on Jung at all.
As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.
Ok, fine…are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn’t try to model the world at all…it’s trying to intuit it.”
I think that To understand what Jung says, you have to understand the terms rational, thinking, and intuition in the context of jung’s theory. My knowledge of Jung’s theory is limited to a few lines in wikipedia.
The distinction you make between scientific theory and myth, and the distinction made by Jung in his terminology are both valid but different.
Understanding Jung’s system is only a little more challenging than understanding a simple graph.
Jung makes the attitudes, extraversion and introversion, his primary axis to systematize personality.
Extraverted types are more conscious externally, and more unconscious internally.
Introverted types are more conscious internally, and more unconscious socially and externally.
The functions are grouped rational (judging), and irrational (perceiving).
Judging functions are thinking and feeling.
Thoughts are judgments formed consciously
Feelings are judgments formed unconsciously.
Perceiving functions are sensing and intuiting.
Sensations are observations made consciously
Intuitions are observations made unconsciously.
The profile a subject fits then depends on his or her tendency to consciously favor a function and, for the opposite rational/irrational duad, then favor another function as secondary.
The complexity in actually applying the system to people lies in the role of the unconscious mind, which adopts the opposite attitude and functions to the degree the conscious mind adopts its attitude and functions. Consider that introverted experience is not externally observable, unconscious experience is not internally observable, and people normally exhibit conscious and unconscious behavior more or less equally. Jung described the unconscious attitude and functions as more observably primitive, and the conscious attitude and functions as more observably refined — definitions dry and vague.
The vague definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness passed around leave the mere existence of such a thing as the unconscious mind controversial. Alan Watts described consciousness as a spotlight-like awareness, and unconsciousness the darkness not receiving the attention of the light — just because you can’t see it, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.
By modeling, I’m referring to iconic representation — like words or pictures or myths or theories — to modularize reality to ease comprehension.
As far as there is some disconnect between ourselves and the world — based on an unconscious connection with either the world or ourselves — we all depend on some form of modeling. This is obvious from our use of language.
Possibilities and potentialities are explored by our irrational functions, and the effectiveness of each possibility is rated by our rational functions.
Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational. Words are not the things they represent, no more than a fingerpointing at the moon is the moon itself, or can draw the moon down. Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.
By the way, I haven’t fallen of the “Mike-o-holic” wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That’s it.
It’s funny how you reserve for yourself the privilege of correcting erroneous statements by me without actually, like, citing one. No, that isn’t needy at all.
“Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational.”
Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of “God” is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.
And no one (to my knowledge) has killed someone for calling an orange an apple, but the millions have been slaughtered in the name of a God, or for practicing a different form of religion.
That comparison is flawed on a fundamental level.
“See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you’re not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.”
Jerry, I don’t think there is a big difference between what you say and what Bill says.
It’s one thing to look at the discoveries of science and say — poetically — that he represent god’s work. It is another thing entirely to try to include god or other teachings of religion as part of the scientific theories. and a third thing is to try to apply the scientific method to god and religion.
In the first case you have an approach that enriches your appreciation of science while enabling you to maintain religious beliefs without giving up on the scientfic method.
In the second case tthe scientific method is compromised by insertion of data that is not scientific.
The third case is more complicated. The methods of natural sciences cannot prove or disprove god or in fact deal with him in any meaningful way. However other sciences and philosophy do treat religion and god in a way that may seem to religious people irreverant. Social sciences, for example, might treat the bible as a myth no better than those of other religions.
———————-
“Understanding Jung’s system is only a little more challenging than understanding a simple graph.”
I don’t want to address the terms of a major theory of a major thinker without having a better understanding of them than Wikipedia. It would be irresponsible. It is also unnecessary. It is probably better to actually present one’s own point of view in the clearest way possible than paraphrasing theories.
“Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.”
We are getting here to complicated and controversial philosophy. It’s connected with post-modernism, post-structuralism, Jacques Derrida, and a lot of other stuff I know almost nothing about.
“Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of “God” is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.”
You are getting here into really complicated philosophy of language I know a little bit about, but very little. Suffice to say things are not that simple, and philosophers have been arguing about them for years. There’s a famous philosophical thought experiement that deals with just this question, namely the relation between words like orange, eater or gold and the things in the world they refer to.
The though experiment is called ‘twin earth’ and it was thought out by a guy named Hilary Putnam. I think it’s in wikipedia.
Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational.
Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of “God” is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.
And no one (to my knowledge) has killed someone for calling an orange an apple, but the millions have been slaughtered in the name of a God, or for practicing a different form of religion.
That comparison is flawed on a fundamental level.
So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?”
My bûllšhìŧ detector just went off.
Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.
We are getting here to complicated and controversial philosophy. It’s connected with post-modernism, post-structuralism, Jacques Derrida, and a lot of other stuff I know almost nothing about.
Do you know of a surviving philosophy that isn’t complicated and has never been controversial?
And, as Jung pre-dates post-modernism, post-structuralism, and Jacques Derrida, comprehension o his work is obviously independent of those issues.
“So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?” “
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.
Language is a construct of the rational mind to communicate ideas and information. It is used to DEFINE. Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational. The same cannot be said of language. Although the terms used to describe an apple will vary from language to language, and even within most languages, the apple itself remains what it is, regardless of the label placed on it. The same cannot be said of religion, for its very nature changes from person to person, belief system to belief system.
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a “predatory agenda,” it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?”
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.
Language is a construct of the rational mind to communicate ideas and information. It is used to DEFINE. Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational.
So “[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another” and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BÙLLSHÍT to me.
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a “predatory agenda,” it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
How does atheism not qualify as “a religion that insists there in no god?”
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word* — irrational?
*As if diversity (“vary from religion to religion”) and adaptibility (“malleable as silly puty”) are irrational.
“So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?” “
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.”
Slight opinion, if I may. The difference between language and religion is that language communicates ideas. Religion is an idea.
Language describes a set of ideas, concepts and terms, and frames them in a communal construct that members of the community can all understand and agree upon.
“Apple”, “apfel”, and “pomme” all describe the same thing in a the communally agreed upon languages of various cultures. They define a general group of similar items.
Religion is an idea that attempts to explain, among other more complex ideas, apples. Also, where the universe came from, the nature of time, and how we got where we are. It also attempts to define morality, right, wrong, sin, sanctity, and create some sort of idealized social framework.
Since religion attempts to adress the nature of the world, organized religions take time that survival level cutures don’t have. As cultures advance, religions become more complex and ritualized.
Religions add philisophical ideas to the linguistic make up, but without language, these ideas cannot be communicated.
The difference between language and religion is that language communicates ideas. Religion is an idea.
Well, saying religion is an idea is like saying language is an idea — they are ideas.
Just as words are not the things they represent, religions are not the gods they revere.
Religions and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable to coontention.
• 
PAD, Bobb has it right; the creationists have more or less given up on arguing against microevolution. They just try to claim that it’s macroevolution that’s impossible. When you try to explain to them that macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution added up they act like Mike and put their hands over their ears and throw out big words they saw in a book once like “paradigm”. Usually mispronouncing it as “para-diggum”, which is just all sorts of cute.
Mike. Mike, Mike, Mike. You get so cute when you know you got your facts wrong. All the TM’s in the world, all the schoolyard “I SO own you!” taunts, all the quotes from your betters (which is to say, all your quotes)–you can’t change the fact, plainly seen by all, that you got your facts wrong. Again.
In as much as the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique — yeah.
Oh now they are “virtually” unique? Well…again, so what? They are all made of water. All water is simply 2 hydrogens and an oxygen. They crystallize in certain ways. This gives them their basic shape. However since the exact same number of atoms will vary from flake to flake and the exact conditions under which every flake–even two that are side by side when formed cannot ever be exactly the same it should be no surprise–to the informed—that they are not exactly the same. It isn’t magic. It isn’t a miracle—except to the easily impressed. You must be the only person on earth who actually has his mind blown by the phenomena of paint drying.
You can go on believing that the existence of snowflakes somehow supports your magical view of the universe. It’s not like anything you could do at this point would make you appear more clownish than your past transgressions.
And keep on insisting that evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same. And make sure you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is the stupid one. Just make sure you wear a hat with jingles on it. You’re the resident forum clown, you may as well dress the part.
Oh, since Mike copyrighted Darwin every time you mention him in class you have to pay royalties.
Darwin, Darwin, Darwin. There, Mike, now you can go supersize those fries.
Jerry–read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct? Now, as far as Hardaway goes, I couldn’t care less WHAT he thinks about anything. I usually watch basketball with the sound off. I know an awful lot of people who still think just like the old days.
Micha–up above, when you were talking about WASP, I’m gonna assume you weren’t talking about the band. Although that image DID give me a chuckle.
“Mormons and old people didn’t do so great either which is possibly bad news for Mitt Romney and John McCain.”
Wonder if that’s because they’d worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? “Okay, I married him first, I’m First, you’re second…” Jem’Hadar by marriage.
“I heard a suggestion the other day that we should amend the constitution to limit us to one president from Texas per century. Now that’s an amendment I could whole-heartedly support.”
Den, change century to millenium, and you’ve got my support.
Now, if I could borrow Bill’s soapbox, here’s my 1.236 cents on the evolution versus intelligent design celebrity deathmatch. First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn’t a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot. If you suddenly find an entire colony in South America of Michigan J. Frogs in top hats, you could theorize as to how this took place, besides a Warner animator with too little sleep. As I understand it, Intelligent Design merely states that there was some, say, intelligence behind all this. In itself, not a bad theory. (Go on, YOU explain how life evolved on this planet, developed homo sapiens who invented Cherry Coke and the Cajun cheesesteak. Go on. I’ll wait.) The problem with Intellegent Design is that it implies there is an end to research. Beyond this point, there be dragons and no answers, so just stop looking. At least, that’s how most people who use the arguement end up speaking. “We can’t know, we’ll never know, so what fits?” There is ALWAYS more to know. Questions don’t just get answered. They lead to more questions. It’s like a five year old who just won’t for the LOVE OF GOD stop asking “Why?” (Sometime remind me to tell you about the time I explained to Brian why the sky is blue and the look my wife had on her face.) Evolution and intelligent design aren’t the End All Be All of the arguements. They CAN’T be. But too many people treat them like they are.
Bill, here’s your soapbox back.
And to go WAY up the thread, Steve Chung, have you checked out the Sulu audio adventures? Should be able to get them from Amazon or eBay if you haven’t. Second one’s my favorite.
“Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions — thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions — sensing or intuiting) as irrational.”
I’m not well-versed on Jung at all.
“As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.”
Ok, fine…are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn’t try to model the world at all…it’s trying to intuit it. When a culture or religion believes that thunder and lightning are the result of the Gods wrestling in Heavan, that’s not a modeling observation, it’s an intuition or guess about what’s happening. When that culture then observes that lightning is the static electricity discharge from a cloud formation, and thunder is the result of the passage of that lightning through the atmosphere, that becomes a modelling function.
Which, unless I’m totally off base here, is exactly what I just said.
Which still leaves me confused as to why you think, at least according to Micha, that evolution and ID are both rational theries. In what way is ID not an intuitive function, and instead a modelling function?
And for the record, you can’t call me Counselor until I renew my inactive registration. Don’t want you to get me in trouble with the Bar. For the moment, I’m just a guy with a law degree. I’ll let you know when you can call me Counselor again.
“Micha, I don’t understand what you mean by this: “Mike is correct that both evolution (and other mechanistic explanations) and intelligent design are equally rational explanations, assuming you adopt a rational attitude for your subject matter.””
I’m sorry. I didn’t explain myself well. I’ll try again.
Suppose that an alien biologist came to earth and abducted a dog in his ship and began studying him. Now, being a rational l=alien, he might assume that dogs are the result of natural selection. However, dogs are not the result of natural selection but artificial selection by humans — intelligent design if you will. An alien scientists who proposed such a theory would have been both rational and correct (in this case. However, if an alien came the scientist and said that dogs are the result of inteligent design because that’s what our ancestors say, or the sacred texts, or faith, and if he would say that because of that dogs are divine, and that therefore there creators should be worshipped in temple (modern orthodox), that would be irrational.
The ancient greeks were responsible for the rational revoltion which meant that gods, their involvement in the world, the world, history, medicine, and traditional social norms, were questioned rationaly using reason. Even if some of the ancient philosophers reasoned that gods exist, or even that traditional piety is important, the fact that they thought about it in a rational critical way was already a challenge to the traditional way of thinking.
“ID is only rational if the idea of the Designer…God in most cases…is rational. But it’s not a rational idea. I’m a fairly spiritual guy, I totally believe in God, but I know it’s not a rational belief, because it’s based on nothing more than my feelings and what I’ve been told. If anything, it’s based more on the things I don’t know than anything.”
“Religion is irrational, because it almost universally deals with the unproven, the unknown, and the unknowable. You take religion on faith, which often contradicts or even replaces rationality”
The distinction between rationality and faith that is common today is the result of the challenge posed to religion by rational thinking. If you look at the bible, you will see that religion was neither unproven, unknown, or unknowable. God proves himself repeatedly with very tangible miracles. He is experienced by mystics. It is said that when Moses went to Mt. Sinai he ‘knew’ god. Although, from early on the knowledge is privilaged, and incomplete. But then again, so is science.
Imagine this: you want to know about the past — how life began. You ask ‘people who have more access to the past, your parents. They tell you what their parents told them, and so on. How can you doubt such direct evidence of tradition (and revelation) and prefer instead the speculations of some guy who claims that he has a methodolgy to know about the past that does not involve tradition? Instead this person examines the evidence he has before him, and he does so critically. He examines the stories of your ancestors with dubiousness. That’s pretty revolutionary.
At this stage tradition needs to defend itself from rationality by saying that the methodology of rationality is wrong — you’re supposed to have faith, experience religion in a different way than thinking about it. One early Christian said: “I believe because it is absurd.” He lived in a society in which greco-roman philosophy was a competeing authority.
However, this compromise is good for both sides. It allows philosophy and science to speculate without having to deal with religion, and religion does not have to argue with philosophers and scientists. But this truce works only if both sides accept the limitations. ID is an attempt by religion to get into science, supposedly claiming to have rational scientific arguments for intelligent design.
Wonder if that’s because they’d worry about too many First Ladies? Gods, could you imagine that? “Okay, I married him first, I’m First, you’re second…” Jem’Hadar by marriage.
The funny thing is that of the top 2 Republican frontrunners it’s the Mormon who has only had one wife.
First, evolution is a THEORY. While widely accepted, it isn’t a scientific LAW. Being a theory, it can be added to in ways that a law cannot.
Sean, I respect your opinion but the scientific meaning of “theory” and “law’ are not the same as how laymen use them. A theory is as good as it gets. A Law is generally something that can be expressed mathematically– double the temperature of a gas and you double the volume, something like that. Evolution by natural Selection can’t become a law, it will always be a theory, like Germ Theory. It will no doubt be modified–our understanding of genetics has solved many of the problems that Darwin struggled with.
Intelligent Design is more of a hypothesis and not a terribly good one since a hypothesis needs to be able to be tested. that doesn’t disqualify it from being true but it does limit it’s usefulness to science.
Man I would love to continue this but the Nevermore Horror film festival is this weekend and I have to go man the table we’ll be selling our movie at (and hopefully doing a makeup demo) so I don’t know if I’ll have access to a computer. everyone have a great weekend, hopefully the forecast doesn’t call for any thermodynamic miracles. Oh and Mike, if there’s an eclipse it’s just the position of the moon and the sun in relation to the Earth. No need to sacrifice virgins to the Corn God or anything.
Sean, the problem with ID is not so much that it implies an end to the process so much as it’s a way of kicking aside anything we don’t currently understand and then declaring that it doesn’t matter if ever do. It’s like that episode of the Simpsons where Lucy Lawless dismissed any continuity errors in Xena by saying “a wizard did it”. Don’t understand how a bacterium developed a flagellum? Just put up a sign that says, “God did it” and move on. Nothing to see here.
While spiritual beliefs may help people make sense of the “why” of the world, it doesn’t do anything to us understand the “how” and in science, you need the “how” if you’re ever to use it to help fight diseases or other problems. The real problem ID is that it doesn’t really explain anything. Now, ID proponents often dance around and say that the intelligent designer doesn’t necessarily have to mean God (although everyone knows that’s what they really mean). It could be aliens, they’ll say.
Well, then, what created the aliens? Who designed the designer? Moving the goal posts back doesn’t mean you’ve prevented your opponent from scoring a touchdown.
“What is troubling is that evolution continues to this day as a sound scientific principle–what else are strains of diseases which mutate to resist various medications if not evolution? Are Godhuggers (if enviornmentalists are treehuggers, then those who substitute God’s work for nature’s should be Godhuggers) going to claim that God is so into micromanaging that he’s actually deciding which diseases should live and die?
PAD “
Yes. Religion has no use for a god who creates the world and then lets inanimate natural laws do all the work while he loafs around, plays golf or embarasses himself in the tabloids. No, god has to earn his keep by micromanaging everything, punishing the wicked, healing the sick, talking to priests. Religion is a business, and everybody has to carry his own weight, including god.
My own theory as to the hatred of gays, which I think essentially boils down to gay men, is the physical penetration aspect of it. There is something aggressive and threatening about the “invasion of space” aspect of it that non-gay men fear. Of course the homophobic mindset seems to assume that the person is so irresistable that a gay person can’t help but try to force themselves upon them.
As for evolution/ID, it has always struck me that the ID argument is really trying to argue for the *intent* of evolution. Which I think can exist beside evolution which is the mechanism. If God wants to get to Humans, isn’t it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just “*poof* there you are”? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. “Evolution is too complicated, it’s like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch”. Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.
Den, the example you use cracks me up–the creationists are telling us to buy the premise that God has cleverly managed to make a universe that works with natural laws but in making bacteria flagellum he screwed up and did it in a way that can only prove there is a God. He must be smacking his head right now over that boner!
Then agin…conasider this: Bacteria were the first life forms on Earth, we think. We are told God create life in his image. the bacteria in a single spoonful of dirt outnumber all the humans on Earth. And now, we are told, the very form of bacteria is such that could not have possibly occured without a divine hand. Are you seeing where this might be going?
Maybe when they said our bodies were temples they meant temples for God’s chosen creatures, the “lowly” monera.
Ðámņ it, Bill, I’m a video guy, not a scientist! Seriously, though, I thought that was one of the things about theories and laws I was taught in my science classes. Also, I always thought, given the wide variety of life forms on the planet, that God created all of them when he WAS them, thereby creating everything in his own image. We are living in God, you could say.
Den, that’s what I was trying to say. Where I would differ from you, though, is in the application. I was trying to say that ID gets used by it’s promoters as the end, not as a “We don’t know” but as “We don’t know and never will.”
I can see it now, Micha. “God went into a hairdresser and shaved His head. The clippings are now on eBay, going for a guaranteed shot of getting into Heaven.” Now, not to go all spiritual here, but if God is supposed to heal the sick, what does that mean for the virus that presumably He created? It means the virus has to get sick and die.
My head hurts now.
Posted by: clatterboot at February 23, 2007 10:56 AM
My own theory as to the hatred of gays, which I think essentially boils down to gay men, is the physical penetration aspect of it.
I think it’s more basic than that. I think hatred of gays is rooted in the human tendency to fear that which is different. This was an adaptive trait at one time, with that fear keeping early humans on their toes in a world filled with very real physical threats. We’ve long since come out of the caves and exist in a very different world, but that survival mechanism still exists. Unfortunately, too few people recognize it for what it is: an adaptive mechanism that has to a degree outlived its usefulness. Instead, people rationalize that their instinctual hatred is in fact some kind of moral stance… when it is in fact just instinctual hatred.
By now, we should be better than this. We have brains capable of higher-order thought. Unforunately, we have to choose to think, whereas our baser instincts are set to “automatic.”
“”Jung distinguished judging functions (functions that model, iconifying functions — thoughts or feelings) as rational, and observing functions (functions that record, empirical functions — sensing or intuiting) as irrational.”
I’m not well-versed on Jung at all.
“As far as all beliefs model the world or an aspect of it, Counselor,™ they are rational.”
Ok, fine…are you suggesting that the Greek Pantheon, as viewed by an ancient Greek, is a modelling function?
Or, maybe a better response by me is to say that a belief doesn’t try to model the world at all…it’s trying to intuit it.”
I think that To understand what Jung says, you have to understand the terms rational, thinking, and intuition in the context of jung’s theory. My knowledge of Jung’s theory is limited to a few lines in wikipedia.
The distinction you make between scientific theory and myth, and the distinction made by Jung in his terminology are both valid but different.
“I think it’s more basic than that. I think hatred of gays is rooted in the human tendency to fear that which is different.”
I agree that’s an aspect of it as well, but it does seem to me that when people talk about gays, it is primarily focused on gay men, rather than lesbians. And women kissing/etc. is, I don’t know if I would say accepted, but is demonized like it is for men. Am I alone in sensing that? It’s certainly a complicated subject which speaks to how off-the-mark the view that it is some sort of simple learned behavior is. I have no explantion as to why I find some things attractive or not, and I don’t think homosexuals can explain their attractions in some rational way either.
If I can try to merge the two ideas in this conversation, what does it mean that homosexuality has not evolved out of the human equation (and many other animals for that matter)? Is there an evolutionary possibility that in some disaster it may become possible for some sort of same-sex procreation? I’m no biologist, but is the ability to have children what defines an organism as “female” or is it some other aspect? I’m reminded of the Jurassic Park thing where lizards can switch genders (sexes?). Or does homosexuality exist as an avenue for physical urges to be satisified if the opposite sex is not available? Kind of a mental wellness sort of thing? Or maybe I’m way off base.
er… I meant “ISN’T demonized like it is for men.”
Thanks, Micha. I’m not sure that helped me understand Mike’s contention any more, but thanks.
Let me ‘splain. ID, by itself, is fine. Its unprovable, untestable, and unknowable to us at this point. So saying it’s a rational belief (that some intelligence designed life) is fine. Believing that makes you neither rational nore irrational.
However, using ID as a replacement to evolution, or even claiming that evolution does not happen because all life forms are IDed and remain static, is not rational. It’s the imputing of tradition to trample rational thought and conclusions based on observations.
The ancient Greeks are a good example of a happy medium. To a modern person, thinking Zues causes thunder and lightning is irrational, because we’ve observed what actually creates those phenomenon. But to an ancient Greek, they see lightning, and they hear thunder, and unable to determine what actually caused them, they assign them a divine source, after failing to determine a provable cause. Zeus becomes the Greek version of ID…as the start of something not yet otherwise known.
From that context, both ID and Zeus tossing tunderbolts are rational thoughts.
I was trying to say that ID gets used by it’s promoters as the end, not as a “We don’t know” but as “We don’t know and never will.”
Which is what makes people like Michael Behe so astoundingly arrogant. What he essentially says in his writing amounts to because he can’t figure out how bacterial structures developed, then no one else ever will and therefore, we should just accept that only the direct hand of God could do.
Bill Mulligan hits the nail on the head, for ID to be accepted as science, we have to assume that God created a universe that obeys certain observable, natural laws – except where it doesn’t. To them, God isn’t so much a blind watchmaker as he is an inept one. He has to keep adjusting the mainspring in order to keep the thing working.
“To them, God isn’t so much a blind watchmaker as he is an inept one. He has to keep adjusting the mainspring in order to keep the thing working.”
This is one of the key flaws I have to the most vocal ID proponenets. What is the more impressive feat? That God, like me playing Geotrax with my 16 month old, has to constantly keep things on track because the locals keep messing things up? Or that He can set up the whole universe eons and eons ago, get things spinning, and have Earth develop life hudreds of billions of years later, leading to me banging away on a keyboard at just this moment, knowing all those eons ago that I’d be doing this just at this moment?
To me, it’s far more impressive to have that kind of foresight than it is to keep having to act to maintain things.
This latest debate stems from incorrect assertions about the meaning of the word rational. For the record, according to the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary the word “rational” has the following definitions:
“1. governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice;
“2. able to think clearly and sensibly, because the mind is not impaired by physical or mental condition, violent emotion, or prejudice;
“3. presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge and are not based on appeals to emotion or, prejudice;
“4. endowed with the ability to reason, as opposed to being governed solely by instinct and appetite;
“5. able to be expressed exactly as the quotient of two whole numbers or polynomials.”
Bigotry is born of prejudice. Prejudice is not rational. Therefore hatred of gays is irrational.
Evolution is a theory developed by using the scientific method. It is rational. “Intelligent Design” is based on unprovable assumptions rooted in religious belief. It is therefore not “rational.”
I do not give a rat’s ášš about Jung’s use of the word, by the way. The word predates Jung’s birth, and as far as I know no one named him the Final Arbiter of the Meaning of All English Words. I’ll stick with definitions taken from reliable sources, like major dictionaries.
Sigh… I didn’t want to mention his name, but in case any of you are wondering, the bit about “incorrect assertions about the meaning of the word rational” applies solely to Mike.
I don’t usually like to acknowledge him because, frankly, he doesn’t deserve it.
In as much as it’s Virtually Impossible™ for snowflakes to match — yeah.
Chastising someone for using a word you introduced into the discussion, by the way, is “Totally Normal Psychology.™”
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true.
You were wrong about Nobody™ claiming life blossomed by chance. Your libel of Jimmy Carter libeling was wrong, your rumor campaign of Hillary Clinton passing rumors was wrong, and your comparing the Dixie Chicks challenging George W Bush to “I hate gay people…. I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it” was wrong.
You’re an ášš.
Strawman.™
Words cannot be copyrighted, and I never said they could be. Honoring a trademark is not the same as claiming to own it.
And hey, I can copy and paste dictionary definitions too:
ID, though, is boring. If you don’t understand something, just put up a sign that says, “here God intervened” and stop asking questions.
Exactly. The only difference between ID and full-blown creationism is where you put that line. That’s why it’s the opposite of science; if you don’t have an explanation for something in science, you can put forth a theory and see whether it works, or say “we don’t know yet but hope to someday when we know more.” The key is the admission that you may not be correct, and the willingness to explore further. (Individuals may be irrationally attached to one particular theory, but that’s a different matter.)
ID, on the other hand, reaches something that the questioner feels can’t be explained and says, “Well, I don’t have an explanation for it, so I’ll postulate something that can’t be disproven or explored further.” It does so, moreover, by introducing an element which is even more complex than the phenomenon being explained. Evolution works through the accumulation of simple steps that require no intervention by a complex entity; ID simply raises more questions (namely, where did the designer come from? If complex elements require a designer, then who designed the designer? Extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth, similarly, may be an explanation, but ultimately it’s not an answer, just a cop-out).
The great science cartoonist Sidney Harris has a cartoon which shows a scientist writing on a blackboard. Step 1 is a complex formula, as is step 3; step 2 is the phrase “And then a miracle occurs.” Another scientist is saying, “I think you need to be more explicit here in step 2.” That’s ID in a nutshell.
“Evolution works through the accumulation of simple steps that require no intervention by a complex entity”
Just to point out why ID and evolution are not incompatible when used appropriately…while evolutionary theory doesn’t call for any intervention, it likewise doesn’t eliminate the possibility that such intervention takes place.
Micha’s example of the alien biologist is an example of this: The alien could postulate that the dog evovled the way it did on it’s own…or he could postulate that humans intervened to get the dog to evolve a certain way. Technically, both theories are correct, depending on how you view the human intervention. If you just view humans as one more external infuence on the natural evolution of the dog…meaning humans are just a part of the environment…you get the first theory. On the other hand, if you view the humans as some kind of dog Creator, you get the second. But the evolutionary observation itself…that dogs evolved from a distant canine ancestor in common with cats…is unaffected by whichever view you hold.
Behe makes me think of all the other naysayers throughout history. Human flight? NEVER! Humans breaking the sound barrier? IMPOSSIBLE! Man on the moon? NEVER MAKE IT/NEVER HAPPENED! Also makes me think of advice my dad gave me. You might reach the Top today, enjoy it, because someone’s gonna top you tomorrow if you stop now.
And Bill, my wife is thankful that you’re not giving my ášš away.
Mike, ignorant as always, says:
Also, considering only one pair of matching snowflakes has ever been verified, you may want to clue us all in on how the shape assumed by every snowflake isn’t thermodynamically improbable.
then he tries to backtrack by saying
I never said the existence of snow was improbable, and saying the shape of each snowflake is virtually unique is factually true
Poor, poor Mike. So much ignorance in such a little, little man.
You’ve managed to do something once thought almost impossible–argue about evolution and intelligent design in a manner so sloppy that both evolutionists and creationists can share a beer and laugh together at your foolishness. Were that a deliberate effort it would almost be noble.
But hey, nice attempt to change the subject, what with the politics and all. Not gonna bite, sorry to say–it’s too much fun kicking your ášš on the pure facts. Politics is opinion. But thinking that evolution and Hoyle’s argument against abiogenesis are the same thing is just ignorant. Continuing to claim it in the face of all reality makes you stubborn, stupid, or both. An unenviable choice.
And now, as promised, I must go. You have 2 whole days to say stupid things without me being able to point out how stupid they are. You can even pretend that my silence means I’ve thrown in the towel, giving you that sense of self esteem you need so very very much. Others may chose to take up the effort, though at this point it’s obvious you have nothing (nada! zip! zero!) to add and are just blustering about, angry that you’ve been made to look dumb. Er. Dumber.
(And to those who do believe in creationism, while I am 100% in the evolution camp, for all the reasons I’ve given here and in the past, I do not have the same contempt for your opinions that I do for Mr. Leung’s. It’s not his ignorance that galls–it’s the incredible dripping arrogance with which he sneers at people for having the temerity to disagree with him, even when, as is usually the case, the actual facts are on their side. He’s an ášš and it’s always fun to watch them hoisted by their own petard (I don’t actually know what a petard is but I’ll bet it hurts to get hoisted by it)).
Do you not know the difference between a noun and a preposition?
Bill Mulligan,
In case you’re still around, a petard is a form of primitive grenade (like 16th Century). Thus, being hoist by your own petard is having your own arguement/methods/weapon/etc blow up in your face. The line is from Hamlet, but I can’t recall the specific context. I do believe that Hamlet is comparing SOMEONE to a grenadeer who has been hoist by their own petard, but can’t remember who or why.
Sean,
“Jerry–read your post up there, talking about where you grew up and what would happen if Boss Hogg there called for a lynching. and it hit me. IS society actually changing, or have the media types just gotten too politcally correct?”
Maybe a bit of both.But I do think that people have gotten better about such stuff as their horizons have been expanded by life in a shrinking world.
Geez… The thread went and turned into Evolution VS ID? What a dumb argument.
I’m of the camp that says that evolution basically is ID. There’s a book out there, I think they call it The Bible, that’s full of stories where God sets events into motion to work up to his final desired outcome. Lots of His most devoted followers praise these stories and talk, at great length, about the greatness of the wisdom learned in taking the journey rather then having God just snap his fingers and having whatever happen. So, why should the idea that the entire journey of our existance is not in some way the same thing be shouted down as the work of the devil? Why not just say that God has a point A and a point B and that evolution is just his way of getting us all there?
There’s one simple question I like to ask creationists, after they’ve finished claiming that all the evidence of a 14-billion-or-so-year-old universe, and the evolution of various life forms on this planet, are all planted by God to “test our faith.”
I like to ask them, “So, you’re calling God a liar?!“
As David Brin asked, if God went to all this effort to make it look as if modern cosmology and evolutionary theory are correct, who are we to contradict Him?
I don’t want to see Bill Mulligan and Bill Myers fall off the Mikeholoic wagon, unless they can take Mike’s posts with the seriousness it merits.
The truth is I have no idea what Mike’s contention is, in this as in most things he writes, nor why he brought up Intelligent Design to begin with. But intelligent design in and of itself is an interesting subject, and people had some interesting things to say about it.
I think it is necessary to distinguish between several levels of the argument.
1) That both evolutionary theory and religious creation myths are rational in the sense that both involve a process of observation of the world and thinking or reasoning about it.
[I think that is the sense of the word rational used by Jung, although I’m no expert of jung. You should also remeber that Jung is probably using the word in a specific meaning in the context of his own theories about the psyche and not providing a dictionary definition.]
2) That evolutionary theory is rational and creation myth is irrational because evolutionary theory involves dispassionate analysis of evidence, critical thinking, using reason to reach conclusions, and so forth, while myth is not critical, involves faith, reverence to traditional authority, worship, emotion, creativity and so forth.
That’s the point I was trying to make. It is mostly historical. The ancient greeks introduced the idea of rational thinking in the sense of questioning traditional seeking explanation in philosophy, history, medicine, biology etc. that were not based on the authority of tradition or faith or the most creative or appealing story, but what seemed dictated by rational thinking. Ultimately their theories were wrong, but it was a different way of thinking.
In this level, Intelligent Design could hypothetically be a rational explanation. we could imagine that before Darwin described the mechanism of evolution, a person looking at the biological complexity could rationaly speculate that species are the result of design the source of which we as of yet do not understand. So long as this person treated the question critically without refering to religious tradition, it would be rational. Similarly, Newton’s gravity theory involved a force that could not be explained until Einstein came along. It was still rational.
3) That between evolution and ID, evolution is a superior scientific theory, and therefore to prefer ID over evolution is irrational, and in fact motivated by religious emotion.
In a similar way we would say that the speculations of ancient greek philosophers were mostly rational at the time, but since our scientific methodology and technique inproved in many respects, to continue holding to such ancient theories would be irrational.
4) That ID is irrational because it is not a real scientific theory, but is in fact a way of sneaking in religion into science, and that its practitioners introduce into their consideration an irrational component, namely their religious beliefs.
I don’t think these approaches are contradictory.
If followers of ID could present a real theory of ID that could compete with evolutionary theory, that theory would be rational. but they can’t because their scientific methodology is faulty, and their process of reasoning is not rational, since it is influenced by religious beliefs.
“If God wants to get to Humans, isn’t it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just “*poof* there you are”? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. “Evolution is too complicated, it’s like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch”. Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.”
The idea that the laws of nature are the manifestation of god, or that god creates and controls the world according to the laws of nature is an old one. The problem with this approach — for religious people — is that it makes god pretty redundant. You don’t need him to explain how the world works, his influence in the world does not seem the result of divine will, prayers are pretty much pointless, and miracles do not really occur. You just let him tag along as nature runs its course. It also runs contrary to the concept of god in scripture as somebody who is involved in the world, as well as the discription in scripture of the creation of the natural world.
Spinoza is the most extreme example of this view. For him god and nature was pretty much the same. The world worked according to unbreakable mathematical laws (his book was built like a geometry book), and there was no way that things could happen differently. There was no divine will. Another philosopher, Leibniz, disliked this idea so much that he proposed the idea that although the world we live in works according to unbreakable laws of nature, god chose to create this world and not another one. Being a good god he created the best of all possible worlds.
Both were extreme rationalists although neither theory is worth much scientifically.
Hi all.
Probably too late to affect this thread but here goes one of my trademark “Posts of Unusual Size”…
Bill Muiligan stated: “A smart person of a religious nature should welcome science in its search to find the means by which God does His handiwork. Indeed, one could argue that those who try to supress such knowledge are working contrary to God’s will.”
There was a smart person like that: Johanes Kepler. He was the astronomer guy that discovered Mars had an eliptical rather than circular orbit. An orbit that went faster as it got closer to the Sun and slower as it was away. His observations were a preview to Newtons Laws of gravity. Kepler felt he failed as a priest and believed he was doing God’s work by showing how things worked in God’s creation.
Clatterboot stated: “As for evolution/ID, it has always struck me that the ID argument is really trying to argue for the *intent* of evolution. Which I think can exist beside evolution which is the mechanism. If God wants to get to Humans, isn’t it more mighty and God-like if you take 4.5 billion years of intricate small changes than just “*poof* there you are”? The ID argument seems to kind of belittle what is supposed to be an all-powerful entity. “Evolution is too complicated, it’s like dropping a bunch of parts and getting it to land together as a watch”. Okay, that should be no problem for a god that is supposed to be infinately smarter and more powerful than anything any human can imagine.”
I agree. As a Christian, I am constantly amazed at the arrogance of my brethren who can’t simply be satified to faithfully believe God’s hand in creation, but feel the need also stomp on anyone’s ideas of HOW God could have done it. They remind me of Job’s friends who are *CONVINCED* that the reason Job’s life sucks is that he did something wrong. Humility is a desperately needed trait in the Church. Myself included.
When I was begining my faith I used to struggle with the evolution vs creation thing until once in astronomy class in college my professor was talking about cosmology. He stated that 150 years ago scientists believed the planets and stars had ALWAYS been like they are in their courses above.
But Edwin Hubble changed all that when he saw that galaxies were all “red shifted”–or moving away from one another. He theorized that at one point the universe was tiny and then universe was suddenly expanding in a big bang. While Hubble was no failed priest, the scientific community thought he was a neo-creationist. The poor guy was just calculating his data! From then on I started thinking maybe both sides are right–but could use some humility.
–Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
But the evolutionary observation itself…that dogs evolved from a distant canine ancestor in common with cats…is unaffected by whichever view you hold.
The difference between the dog example and ID is that the answers “the dog evolved into this form” and “humans made the dog this way” are addressing two different questions, while ID tries to use the second answer for the first question. (To get Aristotelean about it, answer #1 is the efficient cause and #2 is the formal cause.)
The key distinction: Evolutionary theory explains both dogs and humans, so it’s not inherently self-contradictory; humans are one agent in the wide range of factors that led to modern dogs. ID, by its fundamental tenet, can’t explain both the lifeform and its designer.
When I refer to ID, incidentally, I’m specifically referring to the modern movement that proponents are trying to push as an alternative to evolution, not any way that the terms could be applied to historical thought. If proponents of ID had positive evidence–“Here is the evidence of the intelligence that designed life form X”–rather than negative evidence–“I don’t understand how life form X came to be, so somebody must have designed it”–then it would be another kettle of fish entirely, because it wouldn’t be introducing a new factor out of nowhere.
(In other words, Micha, I’m not directly arguing against your broader point but a specific application of the idea. I certainly don’t disagree that intelligence has had an effect on the modern form of certain species, or that they could have more in the future; it’s the specific example of trying to address an unknown by jumping to one conclusion to the exclusion of all other I’m objecting to.)
My god there’s a lot to read here since I last posted.
Micha, thanks for the explanation. We vote for political parties rather than the person we want to see in the Prime Minister’s office in Canada as well, so I think I understand how it works.
As for the evolution vs. creationism vs. ID…I have always said that I just do not know anything for sure, because there’s no way I can.
Creationism seems highly improbable to me, but I don’t feel comfortable ruling it out 100% because it’s still possible.
On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining everything on the planet evolving completely at random. My layman’s understanding of mutations is that they don’t happen all that often, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t evolution require that when organisms mutate they not only do so in a way that’s beneficial rather than harmful, but that the organism with the mutation survives long enough to mate and pass the trait on, and that this happens over and over and over again? I know the planet has been around for a long time, but has it been around long enough for this to happen enough times to get it right, without setbacks such as a promising new species going extinct and the whole process having to start over again?
And on the other other hand, if there was some sort of being like a god guiding the development of life on Earth, the question then becomes where did THAT being come from? Did it evolve from something? Or was it created by yet another being, and if so, who created THAT being? So that makes me believe that even if there is some higher form of life controlling the development of life on Earth, it probably came into being through evolution or something similar to evolution, or the being that created it did, or the being that created the being that created it did, and so forth.
But anyway, the only answer I’m confident in giving when asked whether we evolved or whether we’re the product of divine/supernatural intervention is “I honestly don’t know.”
After all, I can’t prove to anybody that I exist. I mean, *I* know that “I think, therefore I am,” but I can’t prove to anybody else that I’m a thinking entity as opposed to a hallucination. So if we can’t be certain about that, how can we be completely certain about anything? How can we be completely certain about evolution or creationism?
Rob Brown Stated: “And on the other other hand, if there was some sort of being like a god guiding the development of life on Earth, the question then becomes where did THAT being come from? Did it evolve from something? Or was it created by yet another being, and if so, who created THAT being? “
Again back to cosmology. Scientists are debating that if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding *into*? Another dimension? One could postulate it contains an intelligence or liveform(s) too complex for concepts like evolution or even birth. An entity too complex for modern human minds to grasp, perhaps. (Unless they’re a bit arrogant and run Liberty University)
I’m not sayin that’s how its done, but if cosmologists are saying the universe is expanding into something else…well…why not?
Captain Naraht
(Ray in NH)
Rob–when I was in college, I wrote a play along those lines. Woman gets in a car accident, wakes up from the coma, struggles through months of rehab, then wakes up out of the coma again, ffinding that nothing she remembered happened.
For those strict ID adherents, point out the differences in human height now and hundred years ago. In Denmark, I think, a hundred years ago, the population could’ve populated Snow White’s house, Munchkinland, and Moria. (Slight exaggeration, there.) Now they’re among Europe’s tallest. Evolution, for those in a hurry!
Okay, not to drag us allllll the way back to the topic, but I just saw that picture of George Takei at the top of the thread, and my overactive imagination had Excelsior making first contact with a really buttoned-up race, with Sulu saying, “When you least expect it, we will have sex with you.”
I gotta get out more.
“How can we be completely certain about evolution or creationism?”
We can’t be certain. But that’s not the real issue. The real issue is about the method used to ask questions about he world and answer them.
The questions science asks, the methods used to answer them, the answers that are possible and acceptable for science to acheive are completely incompatible with those that religion asks and answers.
For example:
“But Edwin Hubble changed all that when he saw that galaxies were all “red shifted”–or moving away from one another. He theorized that at one point the universe was tiny and then universe was suddenly expanding in a big bang. While Hubble was no failed priest, the scientific community thought he was a neo-creationist. The poor guy was just calculating his data! From then on I started thinking maybe both sides are right–but could use some humility.”
The big bang and the story of the biblical genesis look similar, but Genesis is the result of myth-making or revelation that became tradition, while the big bang is the result of the modern scientific method. Genesis could never be considered a scientific conclusion, while Hubble could not assume in his research not treat his conclusion (the big bang) as supernatural or divine. If he did so he would move from the language of science to that of theology.
Saying that the laws of nature or evolution are simply the manifestation of the god is also not a scientific statement but theological. It is also a poetic statement, and a political statement. It enables science and religion to work at the same time without conflict.
This is hilarious. This debate was touched off by an attempt by Mike to prove that if I’m against bigotry I must be for it, and that if I use the word “rational” properly I must not know what it means.
By the way, I haven’t fallen of the “Mike-o-holic” wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That’s it.
As far as the whole evolution/ID debate, I think ID is an attempt to apply religion to science, which makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Science exists to answer the “what” and the “how.” Religion exists to explore the “why.”
Sean, I think your vision of Takei as Sulu warning aliens that they are about to be… melded with… is hilarious. Don’t get out more. We love you just the way you are.
“By the way, I haven’t fallen of the “Mike-o-holic” wagon, Micha. He made some erroneous statements and I pointed that out. That’s it.”
The important thing is that your enjoyment in attending this blog is not diminished.
“Religion exists to explore the “why.””
It would probably be morecorrect to say that religion answers the ‘why’.
Apparently not all religious people accept this division of labor. It is rather recent, and its basically a demotion of the role religion had in the past.
“I’m not sayin that’s how its done, but if cosmologists are saying the universe is expanding into something else…well…why not?”
At this stage this is not a scientific question but a theological speculation.
“I think ID is an attempt to apply religion to science, which makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Science exists to answer the “what” and the “how.” Religion exists to explore the “why.””
See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you’re not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.
I tend to gain even more respect for the creations of a creator, divine or human, when I discover how much more there is to it then what I merely see. To see how so many things work, to see the amazing levels of details and the fragile balance of so many things and to see them work so well and with, in some cases, such strength just impresses me all the more with the creation then I was when I was young and being told that, in esence, God just went “snap” and there it was.
Here’s the strangest stretch for an example of the night…
To me, it’s a little like pro wrestling. I grew up watching it when it was “real” and was only a passing fan of it. Then I got older and I learned how much goes into the art of pro wrestling and into doing what those guys do, how much you have to learn, work and treat it as an art to do it well and I just became a huge fan out of respect for what these guys can really do and what they go through. Knowledge of the “fake nature of wrestling made me a bigger fan because I began to learn so much more about what goes into it. Same thing here. Knowledge of what goes into the creation to make it what it is only gives me more respect for it and for it’s creator then keeping the idea that it was all done as easy as the flip of a switch.
But not everybody thiks like me. They’re just not evolved enough yet.
🙂
Captain, I’m not going to go into the maths here, but the question of what the Universe is “expanding into” is an artifact of the imprecision of language. Space is defined by the existence of something in it, even if that “something” is only subatomic particles. Beyond the “edge” of the Universe is nothing – in its most literal form. Until the Universe has expanded into it, the “space” (not really space yet, but again we’re dealing with the imprecision of language) doesn’t exist as yet. It’s not even really potential – it’s nothing.
If you think that’s hard to comprehend, try contemplating the monobloc…
Understanding Jung’s system is only a little more challenging than understanding a simple graph.
Jung makes the attitudes, extraversion and introversion, his primary axis to systematize personality.
The functions are grouped rational (judging), and irrational (perceiving).
The profile a subject fits then depends on his or her tendency to consciously favor a function and, for the opposite rational/irrational duad, then favor another function as secondary.
The complexity in actually applying the system to people lies in the role of the unconscious mind, which adopts the opposite attitude and functions to the degree the conscious mind adopts its attitude and functions. Consider that introverted experience is not externally observable, unconscious experience is not internally observable, and people normally exhibit conscious and unconscious behavior more or less equally. Jung described the unconscious attitude and functions as more observably primitive, and the conscious attitude and functions as more observably refined — definitions dry and vague.
The vague definitions of consciousness and unconsciousness passed around leave the mere existence of such a thing as the unconscious mind controversial. Alan Watts described consciousness as a spotlight-like awareness, and unconsciousness the darkness not receiving the attention of the light — just because you can’t see it, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.
By modeling, I’m referring to iconic representation — like words or pictures or myths or theories — to modularize reality to ease comprehension.
As far as there is some disconnect between ourselves and the world — based on an unconscious connection with either the world or ourselves — we all depend on some form of modeling. This is obvious from our use of language.
Possibilities and potentialities are explored by our irrational functions, and the effectiveness of each possibility is rated by our rational functions.
Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational. Words are not the things they represent, no more than a fingerpointing at the moon is the moon itself, or can draw the moon down. Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.
It’s funny how you reserve for yourself the privilege of correcting erroneous statements by me without actually, like, citing one. No, that isn’t needy at all.
“Saying religion is irrational is like saying language is irrational.”
Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of “God” is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.
And no one (to my knowledge) has killed someone for calling an orange an apple, but the millions have been slaughtered in the name of a God, or for practicing a different form of religion.
That comparison is flawed on a fundamental level.
“See, this is where I disagree with most folks. I think that science and religion work very well together when you’re not trying to disprove one with the other or sticking to the belief that every single word in a book is THE WORD with no wiggle room left in there for common sense and the idea of the one can give strength to the other.”
Jerry, I don’t think there is a big difference between what you say and what Bill says.
It’s one thing to look at the discoveries of science and say — poetically — that he represent god’s work. It is another thing entirely to try to include god or other teachings of religion as part of the scientific theories. and a third thing is to try to apply the scientific method to god and religion.
In the first case you have an approach that enriches your appreciation of science while enabling you to maintain religious beliefs without giving up on the scientfic method.
In the second case tthe scientific method is compromised by insertion of data that is not scientific.
The third case is more complicated. The methods of natural sciences cannot prove or disprove god or in fact deal with him in any meaningful way. However other sciences and philosophy do treat religion and god in a way that may seem to religious people irreverant. Social sciences, for example, might treat the bible as a myth no better than those of other religions.
———————-
“Understanding Jung’s system is only a little more challenging than understanding a simple graph.”
I don’t want to address the terms of a major theory of a major thinker without having a better understanding of them than Wikipedia. It would be irresponsible. It is also unnecessary. It is probably better to actually present one’s own point of view in the clearest way possible than paraphrasing theories.
“Religion and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable.”
We are getting here to complicated and controversial philosophy. It’s connected with post-modernism, post-structuralism, Jacques Derrida, and a lot of other stuff I know almost nothing about.
“Whoa. My BS detector just went off. While languages may be constructs used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another, religion is an entirely different kettle. What we call an orange is a constant, no matter what it might be called in another a language or culture. But the nature of “God” is far from constant from culture to culture, or religion to religion.”
You are getting here into really complicated philosophy of language I know a little bit about, but very little. Suffice to say things are not that simple, and philosophers have been arguing about them for years. There’s a famous philosophical thought experiement that deals with just this question, namely the relation between words like orange, eater or gold and the things in the world they refer to.
The though experiment is called ‘twin earth’ and it was thought out by a guy named Hilary Putnam. I think it’s in wikipedia.
So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?”
My bûllšhìŧ detector just went off.
Do you know of a surviving philosophy that isn’t complicated and has never been controversial?
And, as Jung pre-dates post-modernism, post-structuralism, and Jacques Derrida, comprehension o his work is obviously independent of those issues.
“So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?” “
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.
Language is a construct of the rational mind to communicate ideas and information. It is used to DEFINE. Religion, on the other hand, is used to EXPLAIN and, I need to point out, the explanations vary from religion to religion, from doctrine to doctrine, from church to church, and person to person. Religion is as malleable as silly puty, because it is irrational. The same cannot be said of language. Although the terms used to describe an apple will vary from language to language, and even within most languages, the apple itself remains what it is, regardless of the label placed on it. The same cannot be said of religion, for its very nature changes from person to person, belief system to belief system.
Being a former evangelical Christian turned atheist, I am of the opinion that Religion does not shelter a “predatory agenda,” it IS a predatory agenda. More often than not, it brings out the worst in people.
So “[communication of] ideas and information from one person to another” and EXPLANATION are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? That still sounds like BÙLLSHÍT to me.
How does atheism not qualify as “a religion that insists there in no god?”
How does introducing yet another paradigm no one has any hope of verifying standardize our model of reality?
By sabotaging a stable paradigm of reality in this manner, how isn’t atheism — in your crude application of the word* — irrational?
*As if diversity (“vary from religion to religion”) and adaptibility (“malleable as silly puty”) are irrational.
“So, because religious pretense can be used to shelter a predatory agenda, it can’t be a “[construct] used to communicate ideas and information from one person to another?” “
No, it cannot. Because the purpose of language and that of religion are two very different and unrelated things.”
Slight opinion, if I may. The difference between language and religion is that language communicates ideas. Religion is an idea.
Language describes a set of ideas, concepts and terms, and frames them in a communal construct that members of the community can all understand and agree upon.
“Apple”, “apfel”, and “pomme” all describe the same thing in a the communally agreed upon languages of various cultures. They define a general group of similar items.
Religion is an idea that attempts to explain, among other more complex ideas, apples. Also, where the universe came from, the nature of time, and how we got where we are. It also attempts to define morality, right, wrong, sin, sanctity, and create some sort of idealized social framework.
Since religion attempts to adress the nature of the world, organized religions take time that survival level cutures don’t have. As cultures advance, religions become more complex and ritualized.
Religions add philisophical ideas to the linguistic make up, but without language, these ideas cannot be communicated.
Well, saying religion is an idea is like saying language is an idea — they are ideas.
Just as words are not the things they represent, religions are not the gods they revere.
Religions and languages are both canonized by consensus. Building consensus in religion is merely more vulnerable to coontention.