This is the stuff that makes me totally out of synch with religious people. If you assume that there is something out there (God) that created all of this, penned the laws of gravity and created matter and such, this thing is so far outside of our comprehension that even describing it is futile. And yet we have all these guys running around purporting to know what this thing is up to and what this thing wants of us. Pardon me if I'm unimpressed with fantastic claims such as this, any goofball can make fantastic claims. But it is curious that the people who claim to understand the guy who penned the laws of gravity somehow forgot to tell us what those laws are. Isaac Newton had to figure that out for us several centuries later.
Most people in this world are blissfully unconcerned about philosophy and the meaning of the universe. I applaud those who are, but have no intention of forcing this search on those who are not.
It's not about forcing, it's about exposure. We expose children to Math. Why? because it is the basis for many careers. We expose children to English Lit, not because it's the basis for many careers (writing skills are more important), but because it enriches your life and should give you critical thinking skills when you dissect all of that symbolic crap. The same reason students should have a short (2 month) introduction to philiosophy. I wish I had one before I took a philosophy class in college and bombed out on it. It was facinating, but amazingly hard.
You made my point for me much better than I did. Why would God provide us with this wonderfully powerful brain if we were not to use it? I have faith that God intended mankind to use it. Science and the understanding of the universe is the good fight, not the work of evil.
Philosophy is not a basis for many careers. Its is something most people gravitate to on their own. And most people simply are NOT interested in these questions.
Yes, but now you are talking about evolution as a biological mechanism, not a belief. Indeed, Sachin and you are correct; evolution can be studied from a purely scientific perspective without the philosophical assumptions. However, belief in evolution, exclusively athiestic evolution, necessarilly assumes those three incorrect philosophical assumptions. There is a difference between the study of evolution and belief in it. And that difference is the difference between "intelligent design" and "Creationism". The claims of "intelligent design" can be examined logically and scientifically without any philosophical assumptions. Study of a theory is different from belief in it. Therefore, "intelligent design" does not equal "Creationism" and warrants consideration in the public classrooms.
OK, as I said, I'm trying to listen and not talk, just like my Mom told me you should do when you want to learn something. But I have to ask someone - anyone: The role of faith is a great thing, and one which is crucial in my life. The problem with guys like Maher is that they lack the ability to conceive something in the universe greater than themselves and call it stupidity when they observe this quality in people who can. Indeed, faith is the whole idea: if Jesus showed up in your back yard and turned your swimming pool into Dom Perignon and then walked across it on his tip-toes, almost anyone would admit to his existence. But that's not faith, that's just accepting the obvious, hardly an intellectual leap. It's believeing when you CAN'T see it that makes it worthwhile. No, you don't get to walk up and put your hands on Jesus and have him cure your warts. But I can't walk up and grab a big handful of the love I have for my son, either, but it's simply not true to say that because I can't take a picture of it with my polaroid that it doesn't exist. I know damned well it exists. ISTM this whole thing came about because some people insisted on the impossibility of something other than a messy pool of slimy amino acids accidentally bumping into each other being responsible for the creation of all life. So isn't the problem here not lack of proof but lack of the ability to conceive of something you can't plunk down some money and take home in a bag?
That was ALWAYS the point. There is no such thing as "exclusively atheistic evolution". It does not assume anything. That's baloney. Intelligent design is a philosophy. It cannot be examined scientifically without philosophy, because you would be reaching to prove something that should have created everything. Until proof of that is achieved, it is a completely unknown variable, and assuming such an object/thing/deity is contrary to scientific analysis.
But Bill, by your analogy wouldn't that mean atheists are incapable of love? I don't agree with your point. As an agnostic, I can certainly conceive of love for my parents and for my sister, even though I don't believe that God exists. But love is an emotion. We take emotions to be inherently irrational. As is faith. Because rationality, after all, is the notion that one should not believe that which one cannot prove (or argue convincigly with facts, I suppose). Atheists, would, I think, argue that the concept of God is too important and too central to be treated just like any other emotion, because it leads to "air castles" formed by those who believe in God. An argument that I'm not unsympathetic to, but one I ultimately find incorrect. I believe that if religion makes you a better person, and if yo keep it out of politics, its a great thing. I think my Mom is happier being religious, although I wish that she'd stop annoying the hell out of me with her newly found kosher rules. Unfortunately, religion has often been a great source of intolerance in society, and I think many atheists equate that with a belief in God. I think that's shortsighted, as I think the real problem is government working with religion, which I think is a recipe for disaster, and why I support secularism with a vengenace. Being Jewish and an immigrant also has a lot to do with that. But at the end of the day, I don't think atheism's problem is the inability to understand something that's technically unproveable. I think its the inability to understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone believing in the Bible, so long as he doesn't try to get the rest of the country to believe the same way. If religion makes you a better person, I'm ALL for it.
I'd state my position on faith thusly: if there's some guy out there who claims to be able to turn a swimming pool into champagne, this is a pretty fantastic claim. It would need some pretty convincing evidence. Likewise if somebody claims to have figured out the deepest mysteries of our existence. Somehow, the notion that there's some supernatural power out there that cares whether I believe in it or not doesn't cut the mustard for me. There aren't many humans who care whether I believe in them or not, let alone supernatural beings.