Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

So I guess the question is, why are Creationists not entitled to the same level of free speech as scientists?

I mean, by outright banning the creationist viewpoint, you're setting a precedent for blocking of free speech and free thinking that you might not want to go through with guys.

Disagreeing is one thing but forcing your opinion while blocking opposing opinions isn't right either.



Note: I'm not saying that Creationism is correct - I don't believe it is - just merely commenting on the irony of the comments above.

[Ngati_Grim]

No, I see your point...it's like the censorship question....either you're for censorship or you're against...there is no middle ground.


The issue is the venue. The Science Faculty is not the place to host such things, because....it's unscientific!

They can do it in the student union, fine....they do that here...the issue is the misrepresentation of Science.

Scientific ignorance is our loss.

[philo-sofa]

So I guess the question is, why are Creationists not entitled to the same level of free speech as scientists?

I mean, by outright banning the creationist viewpoint, you're setting a precedent for blocking of free speech and free thinking that you might not want to go through with guys.

Disagreeing is one thing but forcing your opinion while blocking opposing opinions isn't right either.



Note: I'm not saying that Creationism is correct - I don't believe it is - just merely commenting on the irony of the comments above.

I do understand your point, and generally would agree.  But the above held a special place in as much as it was pure creationism, it was incredibly abusive of science and (during that segment that I saw anyway) there was never any argument or debate, just instruction in the correctness of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.  

There's also an element of 'I don't come and poke holes in your church, nor would I be welcome to do so (picture Dawkins in a creationist Church?) so why the fuck are you holding an anti-science, anti-academic abuse fest in my Science faculty? In a pinch, I would accept an I.D. or even creationist even somewhere in the University.  But to hold a creationism doctrine spouting (where "questions will not be accepted from anti-creationists") in the science faculty, when that doctrine at least has absolutely no basis in science, and indeed is actually an affront to science and academia, is insulting and utterly innapropriate IMO.

It's a little like (though admittedly nowhere near as bad as) the difference between holding a holocaust denier lecture in a campus synagogue, as opposed to holding it in the history department. I understand and accept the need for debate, but there is a point wher you have to accept somethign as being untrue.  As it was being presented the point of view that pack of muppets were spouting had as much credibility as that of a flat Earth comference, and as such can be treataed a little differently IMO.

[ThaFleastyler]

Ok, I see what you guys did there, and I agree - science faculty is not a place to hold creationist talks, at least not until it is widely held as a scientific theory (which it simply isn't).

But comments like:

it is worrying that there are campus movements, university should be about free thinking and new ideas, not promoting ignorance

... are blatantly anti-free speech; to me, "free thinking" and "new ideas" can include anything - remember that the only people who think religious or Christian ideas promote ignorance are the people who are decidedly against religious or Christian ideas.

As with anything, ideas can be exploited or taken too far or just seem completely wacky - Creationism is one such idea, but it occurs in scientific fields as well: the "Virtual Particle" causality for the Big Bang is one such crazy scientific idea.

(really, I'm meant to believe that 2 particles that may not even exist caused the birth of the universe by colliding in an environment that we don't even know for sure would allow particles to exist, and that's meant to be less crazy than the idea of God doing it?)

[dirtyape]

(really, I'm meant to believe that 2 particles that may not even exist caused the birth of the universe by colliding in an environment that we don't even know for sure would allow particles to exist, and that's meant to be less crazy than the idea of God doing it?)

Well, yes, it is a much less crazy idea then god doing it.

For one, particles are known to exist. Even if we don't know exactly what they are, we can observe them (albeit indirectly).

Perhaps if the theory was that a particle called Frank met a particle called Sally in the magical land of Dundee and they decided to make a universe together then I would consider that a bit "crazy" - but I don't hear any scientist claiming that.

By the way, we can't prove that Frank and Sally didn't make the universe although common sense says it's pretty unlikely.

And also, the Frank and Sally hypothesis is much closer to the "God did it" hypothesis for this reason - it involves "will" and "intelligence".

[detonator7]

And also, the Frank and Sally hypothesis is much closer to the "God did it" hypothesis for this reason - it involves "will" and "intelligence".

So are you saying that particles colliding into each other involves "will" and "intelligence"? Because I don't think that particles have their own mind and collided into each other knowing that they would create trillions of more particles making up the universe.

[brucewillis2]

Well, yes, it is a much less crazy idea then god doing it.

spot on!!

[Arnifix]

Ok, I see what you guys did there, and I agree - science faculty is not a place to hold creationist talks, at least not until it is widely held as a scientific theory (which it simply isn't).

But comments like:

... are blatantly anti-free speech; to me, "free thinking" and "new ideas" can include anything - remember that the only people who think religious or Christian ideas promote ignorance are the people who are decidedly against religious or Christian ideas.

Two things. One, you agree that until creationism is a scientific theory it shouldn't be discussed in a science facility. I'm glad that you agree that creationism should never be discussed in a building of science.

Second, in my opinion, religion should not be promoted on a university in any form. Discussing it, studying it, that's all good. That's basically sociology. But university's are for learning and creating knowledge and to have lectures not about religion, but promoting religion as a solution, does not encourage either of these things. There is a big difference between indoctrinating people with propaganda and discussing something in a fashion that would make a university an acceptable venue.

Nutjobs do not belong in a university.

[dirtyape]

So are you saying that particles colliding into each other involves "will" and "intelligence"? Because I don't think that particles have their own mind and collided into each other knowing that they would create trillions of more particles making up the universe.

Go and read what I wrote a few times and perhaps you will get it.

Read s l o w l y.

[detonator7]

lol yeah i read it again after a while and was like "oh wait, 'it' refers to 'god did it' " whereas i read it as relating to frank and sally.

[cobra]

Ok, I see what you guys did there, and I agree - science faculty is not a place to hold creationist talks, at least not until it is widely held as a scientific theory (which it simply isn't).

But comments like:

... are blatantly anti-free speech; to me, "free thinking" and "new ideas" can include anything - remember that the only people who think religious or Christian ideas promote ignorance are the people who are decidedly against religious or Christian ideas.

As with anything, ideas can be exploited or taken too far or just seem completely wacky - Creationism is one such idea, but it occurs in scientific fields as well: the "Virtual Particle" causality for the Big Bang is one such crazy scientific idea.

(really, I'm meant to believe that 2 particles that may not even exist caused the birth of the universe by colliding in an environment that we don't even know for sure would allow particles to exist, and that's meant to be less crazy than the idea of God doing it?)

Creationism isn't the idea that god might have cause the big bang, it is that god created the world how it is and Genesis is the literal truth or near literal truth, this promotes a view that needs to ignore evidence and therefore is promoting ignorance - it may surprise you to find out that im not anti christian just anti idiot and anti ignorance (mad respect to anyone who knows the quote) - and that any anti christian views i have come for my distaste for intellectual dishonesty and the promotion of hatred

if you hold a view that god set off the big bang and set up the laws of physics and let nature do its thing, that means you're not a creationist, and good on you for rejecting the ignorance that some christians promote

I am anti this kind of "free speech" as i would be any sort of group with an agenda that is not open for debate, i am also against  skinhead hate speech, anti woman propaganda, anti homosexual propaganda - basically any propaganda - i would have no issues if they invited scientists to come argue the evidence for the big bang and evidence of evolution or even if they confined this to their churches, but using the science facility to claim some sort of legitimacy for plain ignorant, backward and anti science propaganda is sickening

[brucewillis2]

Damn cobra - perfectly said! someone should turn this thread into a book no christian would read it though, too many valid points stacking up against their belief.

[Spork]

Now there is no way I am reading all or even more than a few posts of this thread, as I am sure my views have been posted before.

I am Catholic by birth, not bothered about either side, I accept the fact that a lot of the writings in the bible are false/ fake, and that Christianity has taught so many wrong things in the past and most likely present.

What I don't understand however is how all of these people bash religions? The only religious people who bash evolution and all the other science stuff (yes that is the scientific definition) are complete retards and or rednecks. However it seems that everyone who backs evolution and the rest of it loves to jump on the boat of
'Hey look, there's someone who believes differently to me, lets go blast their ears off about stuff that they most likely won't care about'
What ever happened to live and let live? Sure I'm an idiot for believing in God, what difference does it make? There are a lot worse things in the world than believing in God. Just accept the fact that I do and I quite possibly will always be Catholic, and will always believe that there is a God.

I accept the fact that you believe in evolution, well so do I in fact, I'm fairly sure that the Catholic church has admitted or accepted the fact that the creation storie(s) are fake. I feel no need to run up to everyone and tell them to join my church, sure there are people who do this - all those idiot preachers but they fall under the category that I mentioned before of retards and rednecks, dumber than a doorknob, people who you would not want to believe the same sort of stuff that you believe. On that topic, if you were to convince a religious preacher that all of the bible/ what ever they believe in is false, then wouldn't they then just start preaching about evolution and stand on streets rambling about a different type of crap that no one cares about?

Why does everyone have to believe in the same thing?

[Dr Woomanchu]

So I guess the question is, why are Creationists not entitled to the same level of free speech as scientists?

I mean, by outright banning the creationist viewpoint, you're setting a precedent for blocking of free speech and free thinking that you might not want to go through with guys.

Disagreeing is one thing but forcing your opinion while blocking opposing opinions isn't right either.

Note: I'm not saying that Creationism is correct - I don't believe it is - just merely commenting on the irony of the comments above.

Philosofa was complaining about creationism being in the science building.

I assume he would also object to any non science topic being covered in science. The location of the lecture infers an undeserved credibility to claims of science from creationists.

Personally I would be just as annoyed to see Steiners crackpot homeopathy beliefs, or Hubbards scientology cult presented in a science faculty uncritically as well.

I may not be getting the same thing from these posts you are, but I see no-one suggesting that creationists shouldn't be able to blather on all they like, just that it isn't appropriate for them to be associated with the sciences.

[cobra]

Now there is no way I am reading all or even more than a few posts of this thread, as I am sure my views have been posted before.

I am Catholic by birth, not bothered about either side, I accept the fact that a lot of the writings in the bible are false/ fake, and that Christianity has taught so many wrong things in the past and most likely present.

What I don't understand however is how all of these people bash religions? The only religious people who bash evolution and all the other science stuff (yes that is the scientific definition) are complete retards and or rednecks. However it seems that everyone who backs evolution and the rest of it loves to jump on the boat of
'Hey look, there's someone who believes differently to me, lets go blast their ears off about stuff that they most likely won't care about'
What ever happened to live and let live? Sure I'm an idiot for believing in God, what difference does it make? There are a lot worse things in the world than believing in God. Just accept the fact that I do and I quite possibly will always be Catholic, and will always believe that there is a God.

I accept the fact that you believe in evolution, well so do I in fact, I'm fairly sure that the Catholic church has admitted or accepted the fact that the creation storie(s) are fake. I feel no need to run up to everyone and tell them to join my church, sure there are people who do this - all those idiot preachers but they fall under the category that I mentioned before of retards and rednecks, dumber than a doorknob, people who you would not want to believe the same sort of stuff that you believe. On that topic, if you were to convince a religious preacher that all of the bible/ what ever they believe in is false, then wouldn't they then just start preaching about evolution and stand on streets rambling about a different type of crap that no one cares about?

Why does everyone have to believe in the same thing?

the trouble is those retards and rednecks want their views in science classes and they want want to control others through laws and regulations (it should be legal for be to bash my kids because the bible oks it, prostitues and homosexuals dont deserve equal rights because the bible has some passages i can take out of context)

and sure the catholic church has accepted evolution, but how long did they try to repress it, the catholic church accepted the fact that the world isn't the centre of the universe, but only after some great scientific minds had been persecuted - Churches need to try to repress knowledge as god can only exist in the shadows of ignorance

There is also the social harm - the anti sex and anti contraception views of churches mean that people, who naturally want to have sex, are not give the information they need to make wise choices, STD rates and third world countries where the birth-rates lead to poverty are examples of this

on a personal note, do you have the catholic guilt? - i know quite a few catholics that get brainwash by the dehumanising self loathing that catholicism promote - if not you are lucky, but i know many people who have been cursed with this

My grandfather played the organ in his church for years before he passed away, but his beliefs were his own, important to himself but they were personal and he didn't use them to justify hatred, im fine with that - like im fine with people believing crystals have magical powers and im fine with children believing in Santa Claus as long as they keep it to themselves

[ThaFleastyler]

Well, yes, it is a much less crazy idea then god doing it.

For one, particles are known to exist. Even if we don't know exactly what they are, we can observe them (albeit indirectly).

Well, I think 2 particles that are theorised colliding into each other is crazy. Maybe not crazy on the same order as Creationism, but crazy nonetheless.

Perhaps if the theory was that a particle called Frank met a particle called Sally in the magical land of Dundee and they decided to make a universe together then I would consider that a bit "crazy" - but I don't hear any scientist claiming that.

By the way, we can't prove that Frank and Sally didn't make the universe although common sense says it's pretty unlikely.

And also, the Frank and Sally hypothesis is much closer to the "God did it" hypothesis for this reason - it involves "will" and "intelligence".

This doesn't really help me understand the Virtual Particle Theory.

[ThaFleastyler]

Second, in my opinion, religion should not be promoted on a university in any form. Discussing it, studying it, that's all good. That's basically sociology. But university's are for learning and creating knowledge and to have lectures not about religion, but promoting religion as a solution, does not encourage either of these things. There is a big difference between indoctrinating people with propaganda and discussing something in a fashion that would make a university an acceptable venue.

Nutjobs do not belong in a university.

I am anti this kind of "free speech" as i would be any sort of group with an agenda that is not open for debate, i am also against  skinhead hate speech, anti woman propaganda, anti homosexual propaganda - basically any propaganda - i would have no issues if they invited scientists to come argue the evidence for the big bang and evidence of evolution or even if they confined this to their churches, but using the science facility to claim some sort of legitimacy for plain ignorant, backward and anti science propaganda is sickening

Ok, so we all agree that Creationism should not be discussed or promoted in a science faculty. Good for us. But are you guys actually saying that religious or Christian groups shouldn't be allowed to meet or promote themselves on university grounds, full stop? Or am I reading this wrong?

[Ngati_Grim]

But are you guys actually saying that religious or Christian groups shouldn't be allowed to meet or promote themselves on university grounds, full stop? Or am I reading this wrong?

I think as far as Clubs and Societies go, there is no problem at all.

Second, in my opinion, religion should not be promoted on a university in any form. Discussing it, studying it, that's all good. That's basically sociology. But university's are for learning and creating knowledge and to have lectures not about religion, but promoting religion as a solution, does not encourage either of these things. There is a big difference between indoctrinating people with propaganda and discussing something in a fashion that would make a university an acceptable venue.

I am inclined to agree with Arni here. My brother is senior lecturer in Religious Studies here at Canterbury and his main focus is Christianity.  He is acutely aware of the fine line between teaching it and promoting it. In fact, some students take the course thinking that it is a promotion of Christianity and are disappointed and upset when they find out it is a critique and has taken its rose-tinted glasses off.
But then I suppose it would be disconcerting to find out that you subscribe to something that has been responsible for a lot of grief and is based on the stories of a (early) nomadic and superstitious tribe that staked its claim in an area of the Middle East/Levant, as well as finding out that generally religion is there to placate the people and control them.
Now, this can apply to any religion, not just Christianity. I am just using this example because it is pertinent to this discussion.

So, in short: Yes, I am for the open-dialogue and studying of these philosophies and religions. However, proselytising has no place on Campus, and that is what the latest episode I observed was guilty of.

[ThaFleastyler]

I think as far as Clubs and Societies go, there is no problem at all.

This is what I meant - Clubs and Societies. I think groups with shared religious beliefs should be allowed to meet on campus, and promote their meetings.

[dirtyape]

This doesn't really help me understand the Virtual Particle Theory.

It wasn't meant to, I'm not even familiar with the virtual particle theory. It was meant to assassinate the competing god theory.

[ThaFleastyler]

It wasn't meant to, I'm not even familiar with the virtual particle theory. It was meant to assassinate the competing god theory.

Always with the assassinating ...

[Zarkov]

This is what I meant - Clubs and Societies. I think groups with shared religious beliefs should be allowed to meet on campus, and promote their meetings.

The fascists and Klansmen will be pleased to hear that.

[brucewillis2]

My brother is senior lecturer in Religious Studies here at Canterbury and his main focus is Christianity.  

The brother of a lady at my work studied Christianity at uni and got a degree in it. Went in a Christian came out the other end a non Christian and he loves discussing this stuff. I should get him to sign up since he has a degree in it.

[ThaFleastyler]

The brother of a lady at my work studied Christianity at uni and got a degree in it. Went in a Christian came out the other end a non Christian and he loves discussing this stuff. I should get him to sign up since he has a degree in it.

Why did he come out a nonChristian?

Also, how does one get a degree in Christianity?
Are you sure its not just a degree in Religious Studies?
If so, is he equally dismissive of all religions and Gods?

[dirtyape]

The brother of a lady at my work studied Christianity at uni and got a degree in it. Went in a Christian came out the other end a non Christian and he loves discussing this stuff. I should get him to sign up since he has a degree in it.

Why did he come out a nonChristian?

Also, how does one get a degree in Christianity?
Are you sure its not just a degree in Religious Studies?
If so, is he equally dismissive of all religions and Gods?

Yeah I was thinking about doing some theology papers at one point. Had an iArgument with some people (pretty much an entire forums population actually) that you could be non-religious and still work toward theology degree. They (mostly atheists) seemed to think that theology was strictly the realm of the theist (and tried to make out i was an idiot for suggesting otherwise). Ignorant fools.

You can study mental illnesses without being mentally ill yourself, you can study medicine without being sick, why then can you not study religion without being religious???