<p>^^ Evolutionists exist just as fans of Miley Cyrus exist! (well, actually maybe that doesn’t work…)</p>
<p>@Baelor: I tend to think of Catholicism as the biggest example of institutionalized religion, but if you’d rather use braoder terms that’s fine with me.</p>
<p>Basically, the way I see it, you can choose to organize the followers of Jesus as an organized institution with high authority given to the clergy, or you can choose not to. The one tends, in my opinion, to lead to corrupt doctrine and abuses such as the selling of Indulgences or the abuses of the Puritans (NOT the Pilgrims, who weren’t Puritans, but that’s another story…) or even smaller things like the hard anti-alchohol stance of some groups which is not (IMHO) Biblical and turns people away from the church.</p>
<p>Given these options, I think it’s better not to institutionalize. I don’t think it’s wrong per se, just unwise.</p>
<p>@@ksarmand: you are either misunderstanding my position or purposely misconstruing it. Your responses are simply showing that you have zero comprehension of the scope of what I was saying. If I make the analogy that gaps in the fossil record don’t invalidate evolution any more than jumping up doesn’t invalidate gravity, evolution is pretty damn irrelevant to jumping up just as gravity is irrelevant to the fossil record. You’re wrong for beating a nonissue. Have you ever read the argument of holocaust deniers? They sound just as stupid as evolution deniers and they both want respect for their invalid opinions. The analogy deals with the irrational DENIAL aspect of both, NOT the OCCURRENCES of each. If you’re blind to that and continue to miss the boat, then that’s not really my problem because my point is perfectly valid.</p>
<p>
Yet another awkward analogy.</p>
<p>
What they “sound” like is irrelevant. How is an opinion “invalid?”</p>
<p>
Ok, well then why don’t you just simply say “Evolution deniers are irrational” instead of ineptly trying to use an anology to denial of the Holocaust as a rhetorical device?</p>
<p>
After numerous people in this thread have objected to the weakness of your analogy, you still persist in defending its supposed validity. I think you are blind to your own ineptitude, which is your problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Let’s work with this decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But see, you’re missing the bigger point because you’re not associating the authority that the clergy believes that GOD has entrusted to it. In other words, you’re dismissing institutional religion on the assumption that it is by construction not correct, and then working with that to establish that it does not have authority. </p>
<p>Which is fine, actually. But the same arguments that you level against institutionalized religion can be leveled against all religion from the viewpoint of someone who does not believe any of it is correct.</p>
<p>^ Ok, very well then. Yes, based on my belief in the Christian faith, as taught by Jesus, religious teachings by modern Christians that do not agree with what Jesus taught are not a part of true Christian doctrine.</p>
<p>The only way I have to test the clergy’s claim of authority is to see if the things they do fit with the teachings of the God that they claim has granted them such authority. When they go against those teachings, I do not trust their claim.</p>
<p>Christianity-Christianity. Which wins?</p>
<p>^ I know right? :D</p>
<p>Actually, throughout history that has been debated a lot more than science-religion, which wins.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MM, I still am having mental problems in general, but also with your line of reasoning.</p>
<p>Such a statement already betrays a lack of belief in their authority. That is to say, if you believed that they had authority, their decisions would be correct by definition. </p>
<p>In other words, how do you apply that same test to something you take on faith, e.g. the Bible? Do you? The only reason you would consider applying that test is if you don’t accept their claim in the first place.</p>
<p>^ Well, yes, I don’t start with the assumption that the clergy has divine authority. Why should I?</p>
<p>My framework is that the Bible is God-inspired. If someone wants to claim that they are also God-inspired, then I test them against the God-inspired writings I already have.</p>
<p>It’s like checking if a dollar bill is counterfeit: You compare it with a good one.</p>
<p>How do you know that the “good one” isn’t actually counterfeit?</p>
<p>^What Sithis said.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that you are wrong, because we all make assumptions. I’m just trying to understand whether you think yours is somehow reliant better assumptions than other people’s. </p>
<p>In other words, in response to your question, “Why should I?” My answer would be, “Why should you have the framework that you do now?” Faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope - you’re just wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand the context; however, this does not address your error.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You must be drawing inspiration for your awesomely insightful statements from [url=<a href=“http://writingenglish.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2006/09/12/the-25-funniest-analogies-collected-by-high-school-english-teachers/]this[/url”>The 25 Funniest Analogies (Collected by High School English Teachers) | Writing English]this[/url</a>] website.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read the arguments of some, not all. But what does that matter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? Using the Holocaust introduces other variables into your analogy which render it weak.</p>
<p>And someone’s already responded to your assertion, so I’ll simply quote their response, as I agree with it in its entirety:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I refuse to discuss this further. It’s all right to concede in a discussion, Adenine; that’s not a sign of weakness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Extensive field testing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Naturally, any belief system requires faith at some point. But some faiths are more justified than others, IMHO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On what basis? I mean, if you were building up with no assumptions made other than the world is real, what direction would that statement take?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you don’t know in the empirical sense. ;)</p>
<p>Suppose you reverse the situation. Evolution has been indoctrinated for a few thousands years and along comes religion with an alternative take. Let’s narrow religion and treat it as a theory of creation for just a moment. The rational person compares the plausibility of evolution to the theory of religion. </p>
<p>Which one better describes the phenomena we witness? Which one can be more rigorously tested? These are the standards science holds new theories to. If you question these standards, then explain why.</p>
<p>Now, suppose a rational person decides that Evolution is a better measure of the phenomena he observes. Does a rational person’s judgment represent reality? Not necessarily. But theoretical progress builds on past theories. You suspend disbelief and build on these theories until it is time to cast them off and disbelieve because a better explanation exists. </p>
<p>First you learn the wrong method. This is how you create the right method. Until you have the right method, you use the best method.</p>
<p>A rational person should only trust religion if it can be experimentally shown to be a better theory (or equal theory) to evolution. Being an alternative theory is not sufficient reason to believe it. Anything else sounds to me like a simple anchoring heuristic.</p>
<p>I do not expect all of you to be rational or want to be rational–rationale has failed to explain many things, and there is no reason to desire to be a perfectly rational person. But this is my view.</p>
<p>So, the next obvious question is: What is better? What makes one theory better than another (I don’t mean scientific theory. In this context, religion can be viewed as a theory of creation).</p>
<p>A better theory predicts and describes the phenomena we can witness either through our senses or through instrumental technology. We must believe something–measurable phenomena is probably worth believing.</p>
<p>^ What it really comes down to is how hard you cling to the idea of nothing “supernatural” existing.</p>
<p>It compares with physics: it was once thought that the atom was the smallest possible unit of matter. But as more research was conducted results were obtained that were increasingly hard to explain according to physics as we knew it. Eventually it passed the threshold of doubt and people decided there must be more to reality than was originally thought, hence splitting the atom and on to quantum theory, quarks, mesons, and beyond.</p>
<p>Obviously, if you rule out the supernatural from the start, you have to accept Evolution no matter how many assumptions you must make and improbabilities you must accept along the way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d get nowhere without a whole mess of other assumptions, including at the least:</p>
<p>The world is predictable.</p>
<p>You are capable of decision making.</p>
<p>Your senses as interpreted by your brain correlate with some meaningful truth about reality.</p>
<p>This will get you about as far as finding your way from your bed to the table for breakfast. Once you start making inferences about the past and predictions about the future you must make still more assumptions.</p>