[Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith

Wed Jan 11 13:32:46 PST 2006

Richard:

Assuming you're not being facetious, of course I agree.  Indeed, even Darwin 
believed this, despite attempts to turn him into some anti-God zealot.

However, you're gonna have a hard time getting most of the Civic membership 
to agree!

Peace.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "richard haase" <hotprojects at nyc.rr.com>
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith

> of course both god/the bible and darwin work together
> you just havent figured it out right
>
> the pts of unexplainable biological change eg mutation in there is the 
> hand
> of god
> very simple
> darwin and intelligent design all work together
> by grace of jesus
> ?
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ian" <ialterman at nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Patrick Hunter" <hunter at sopris.net>; <mb-civic at islandlists.com>;
> "Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith
>
>
>> Pat:
>>
>> With all due respect, this is absurd.  The search for a "God gene" has
> gone
>> exactly nowhere, providing even less data than the search for a "gay
> gene."
>> Thus, your assumption that faith and belief are simply "human behaviors"
> is
>> based on zero empirical or even quasi-scientific evidence.
>>
>> And although you may be somewhat correct re faith and religion playing a
>> role in "survival of the species" - in as much as it provides a strong
>> "tribal" bond that might allow one tribe to survive while another does
> not -
>> this argument falls apart completely once the notion of "individuality"
>> enters the picture, sometime around 10,000 years ago.  Thus, like any
>> eventually useless (or at least unnecessary) "survival" trait, based on
>> Darwinian theory we would have expected it to be "weeded out" once it no
>> longer played a role in survival.  That it remains the strongest bond on
> the
>> planet belies your position entirely.
>>
>> Let me suggest another possibility.
>>
>> I believe that faith is something like a "sixth sense" - not in the way
> that
>> term is bandied about re "psi powers," but rather in a very real, human
> way.
>> Sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste.  We call each of these "senses"
> because
>> they "capture" "hard data" which our brains then turn into useful
>> information.  Yet consider.  If you tried explaining sight to a person 
>> who
>> was blind from birth, s/he would never "get it."  Sure, you could put a
>> piece of paper in his/her hands and say, "this is a piece of paper," or
>> "this is a square."  But you would not be explaining "sight," you would
>> simply be noting "solidity" and "form," which are both "touch"-based. 
>> And
>> forget entirely about trying to explain "color" - s/he would think you 
>> are
>> daft.  Similarly, if you tried explaining hearing to a person who was 
>> born
>> deaf, they would never "get it."  You might be able to do so
>> intellectually - i.e., by having them read about it, even to the most
>> technical degree - but, again, the limits of language would preclude the
>> ability to truly explain "hearing" in a way in which they would
>> "experience" - and thus "understand" - that particular sense.
>>
>> It is in this context that I see faith as a "sense": because if someone
>> lacks that sense, then there is no way in which a person who has it can
>> adequately explain it.  This is not a simple matter of "proof" of one's
>> belief.  After all (to sidebar relatedly here), one cannot "prove"
>> "feelings," one can only describe the thoughts, actions and related
> feelings
>> associated with them.  That is, one cannot "prove" the existence of love,
>> anger, joy, sadness, etc.  One can only express those feelings via
> thought,
>> word and action.  [Indeed, it occurs to me that describing feelings is
>> exactly similar to describing faith.  After all, non-believers accuse
>> faith-based people of "talking in circles"; e.g., "I have faith because I
>> believe.  I believe because I have faith."  Even I can see the difficulty
>> that non-believers have with such circular logic.  However, describe
> "love."
>> Or "anger."  Or "joy."  I believe that, in doing so, you will find
> yourself
>> using the same sort of circular logic inherent in a description of 
>> faith.]
>>
>> Similarly, one cannot "prove" faith.  One can only describe the thoughts,
>> actions and feelings associated with it.  This is because, just as
> language
>> is limited in its ability to describe a particular "sense" to a person 
>> who
>
>> has never had that sense, language is limited in its ability to describe
>> "faith" to a person who lacks that "sense."  Thus, your inference that
> faith
>> is "not rational" only holds water if you are also willing to say the 
>> same
>> thing about love, anger, joy, sadness, etc.
>>
>> Peace.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Patrick Hunter" <hunter at sopris.net>
>> To: "Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:54 PM
>> Subject: [Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith
>>
>>
>> > Hi Michael,
>> >
>> > Human behaviors, such as religion and worship, are rooted in our 
>> > genetic
>> > make-up.  Our genes are the result of thousands of years of evolution
> and
>> > adaptation to the realities of existence.  Humans that followed
> religions
>> > proved to be successful and passed on their genes.  Humans with these
>> > traits persevered because groups succeeded where individuals could not.
>> > Thinking beings were more successful when they could point to reasons
> for
>> > the otherwise unexplainable world they found themselves in. (Less
> anxiety
>> > and stress, therefore better health and longevity.)
>> >
>> > Religious obediance and support of your group's political leadership
> have
>> > a lot in common.  Going it alone is very hard, and not as successful.
>> > Better to fit in with the group and to follow your leaders.
>> >
>> > If science could ever truly discover the "meaning of life", things 
>> > might
>> > evolve.  (Will that be allowed?)  There may someday be an option to
>> > deactivate the religion genes.  What a battle that will be.
>> >
>> > Debating religion is trading one theory of the supernatural for 
>> > another.
>> > None of it is rational or factional.  It may be useful for mental
>> > exercise, but so are crossword puzzles.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Pat Hunter
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
>> > To: "SPECIAL from Michael Butler" <michael at michaelbutler.com>
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 11:26 PM
>> > Subject: Debate Over Faith
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Michael Butler's Blog
>> >>
>> >> http://www.michaelbutler.com/mbblog.html
>> >>
>> >> http://www.michaelbutler.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mb-civic mailing list
>> > Mb-civic at islandlists.com
>> > http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mb-civic mailing list
>> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
>> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-civic mailing list
> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
> 