1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165896 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Caldur, I also have been both a believer and a non-believer. I made a choice. I believe it is the better choice. Given the traffic on this site, I am claiming it is the road less traveled by. If you doubt it, list the teeming horde who have spoken in my defense on this site. I also believe that God has set about creation through the laws of physics, through natural selection, through DNA replication and mutation. I come to church and can count on one hand those in the congregation who believe as I do. Ain't nobody on this road but me. To recap: I feel and believe in a benevolent God. I apply science in my understanding of the natural world. When we all get to heaven, I'll say, "I told you so!" You'll all say, "well yeah, but x squared minus the square root of 9 billion plus the... never mind."

I have certainly enjoyed this conversation! Thanks so much guys! Reminds me of my time as an undergrad. I was the only one there too who had a notion that this grand design indeed had a grand designer.

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165883 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm

annabanana you're right. When you want something to be true even though you know there is no material evidence for it's truth, that's called faith. When you choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla, even though there is no material evidence suggesting one over the other, that's called preference. But I choose something that engenders respect for my fellow man and for the creation, an awe for the wonders of science and for our ingenious scientific method, which is leading us every so slowly to God. I don't believe that makes me mentally defective, but I know you do. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why.

3. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165874 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

ofir simply put you are a lump of clay insisting emphatically on the nonexistence of the potter. "All I see is clay, clay and more clay! If you say there is a potter, made of something besides clay, how could I believe it?" Indeed. But it doesn't make it so. And you claim to have evidence to the contrary. Evidence that should persuade me to reject my notions of divinity in the beautiful, creative, artistic. Present them. I dare say you will eventually resort to telling me plainly that my love for my daughter is based on those cascades of enzymes and electricity that I mentioned earlier. Don't you see? Your way's no fun!

4. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165865 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

geeze you'd think with all the powers of Satan, principalities and powers, Dawkins could get a bigger pipe and more servers.

5. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165863 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Caldur, but given what I said, does it make any difference in the discourse to believe in God rather than not to? Two roads diverged in a wood, and I chose the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference.

6. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165844 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm

annabanana all I was suggesting is that sooner or later there will be a logical, scientific explanation for everything. That is a Darwinian world, in my book. Dawkins would disagree, presumably, because he would welcome such a world, but claim emphatically that our knowledge of all things would not in any way influence our behavior. We won't immunize for religious belief, even though we know it both wrong and harmful. I say we eventually will. You say we won't.

What does this have to do with the debate? I'll be bold and say that, in spite of our recent successes in scientific research, philosophy, ethics etc., we still don't know everything. Believers err on the side of the whimsical when confronted with the unknown. I do believe that behind the clockwork function of the cosmos, behind the wonder of evolution and the remarkable programming of DNA, there is a designer who has great love toward her creation. I marvel over the amazing powers of natural selection and feel a kinship with the creator.

I refuse to clear my head of all the "what if" nonsense, because I truly believe that the greatest of scientific discovery depends on a healthy pinch of creativity in the mix. I look at your avatar and think, "My she's a pretty girl. it is a gift of her creator. He has shown great love toward her." I don't want to think, "her face has the proper dimensions and her skin the correct chemical composition, and reflects the ambient light of the web cam she used to produce this picture, such that I would like to trap her in a thicket and procreate with her. And modern surgical techniques could make her even more desirable."

When I love someone, I want to feel divine authority in doing so. This is a belief that is based purely in the unknown, I admit it entirely. If I accept the writings of Darwin, and Mendel and countless others, and if I welcome as an unworthy recipient all the wonderful scientific achievement that we as a species have brought about and yet I still believe after all of our searching we will, find a God who loves us and who did all of this to show his great love toward us, standing just behind the veil. If he's a great spaghetti monster, then somebody please bring Parmesan, because i want to enjoy the feast!

7. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165811 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm

twang!

8. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165801 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

Forgive me, I have not read each and every post in this lively discussion - perhaps I am arguing something that has been summarily dealt with 3 pages ago. I did read a few pages, and I seem to be reading the same question, carefully presented by the theists in our midst, and then pounced upon and devoured like a porterhouse cooked bloody rare and tossed before a pack of hungry lions. I'll attempt to present it again. I'll clench my fists and even my sphincter tightly, making every effort to be as persuasive as I can. I only beg that you answer the question I give, and do not attempt to assassinate my character as a foolproof method of silencing me - as I am sure you will find my question horribly mundane or perhaps miles beneath you.

Dawkins claims to detest a society based on Darwinian principles. He is quoted as saying, "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave." I want to argue that like it or not, we live in that world, or we're rushing headlong into it. I won't suggest that it's Darwin who done it, but it's done nonetheless.

Perhaps a parable would best illustrate: Pete has an 11 year old daughter. He loves her deeply - would give his internal organs to save her, would run into traffic to snatch her from harm, would stand down a gunman and plead the shooter take his own life, rather than the life of his child. Pete believes his daughter feels the same way. He is convinced that her feelings for him are not a result of her simple evolutionary need to have a strong protector at this dangerous time in her anatomical development - she just loves him. He doesn't question it, but he believes it. But Randy Hawkins, The Good Professor Dawkin's perhaps more forthright doppleganger, wags his head in disapproval. "Tsk, tsk", he says, "oh poor, ignorant Pete. The love you are convinced your daughter feels for you, and in fact the love you feel for your daughter, is nothing more than a cascade of enzymes and electrical charges in your brain." He flashes a 3x5 card, "Here's the chemical composition of what you call 'love'."

Stick around long enough, and everything that we feel, every decision we make, every preference, every attitude will be instantly detectable by a biometric electronic wonder. They'll have wands you can wave over a person which will light up if they prefer Rembrandt over Renoir. They'll have quick and easy tests that can be administered at birth which will reveal the political persuasion of the child. They'll eventually add Bentham to Darwin and, by the power of the state, insist that children without a genetic predisposition for advanced cognition be bussed to the factories and the fields as soon as they can tie their shoes. Admittedly, you have to look several generations in the future to see this as anything more than paranoia, but it's very likely, in my opinion.

Believers see the unknown forces in the world, the motivation of one person to love another so strongly that they would be willing to risk their lives to protect them, and they are _comforted_. They have hope in the unknown. They apparently have a missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of their life that only spirit can fill. Neo-anti dogmatists (as you perhaps prefer to be called) offer nothing to assuage them. On the contrary, they ask the believer to first accept willingly that they are insane, that their behavior is harmful to others, that their world view is despicable. Wait around long enough, and we'll have a pill for that, if they'll only take it.

How can a person who accepts Evolution as the ultimate explanation for the origins of everything living---indeed as the only explanation for the love you feel for your daughter---fill that spiritual void? Is the longing for spirit a neuroses, plain and simple?