Evolution vs. Creationism

That is the story of my life. I can not deal with "unknowns" and subsequently fill in my own gaps to understand things, even if I will be the only one who understand them. I need to know something in order to rest easy.

Then know that the universe is mysterious and even awe-inspiring when you let it be. Know that there is that much out there to discover and explore...and how grand, epic, and fun it is to explore it. Know that knowledge that is false isn't really knowledge at all.

The answer to this "religious compulsion" is found quite naturally in the subjects of philosophy and science. The world we live in is deeply mysterious and just waiting to be explored. Let the drive for exploration fill in the gaps, not unsubstantiated speculation.
 
Last edited:
Then know that the universe is mysterious and even awe-inspiring when you let it be. Know that there is that much out there to discover and explore...and how grand, epic, and fun it is to explore it. Know that knowledge that is false isn't really knowledge at all.

The answer to this "religious compulsion" is found quite naturally in the subjects of philosophy and science. The world we live in is deeply mysterious and just waiting to be explored. Let the drive for exploration fill in the gaps, not unsubstantiated speculation.

Oh trust me, I do know that. I mean, I am a science person. I fuse scientific theories about the universe (like M theory) with what I know about my spirituality.
 
Not to be a jerk...

but this is typical. Religion supposedly teaches to be nice and help change the lives of others for the better. If the evidence is so obvious, and I just haven't seen it, yet you have it...doesn't it make sense to make it known to the world? You can't take the time to help others in such a deep and fundamental way, which I think is at the core of religious moral teachings, yet you make bold claims to profess your belief in these religions. I'm either missing something or you're missing something...

Well, the thing about religion and spirituality is that, by the very nature of the subject, it is very difficult to "teach." It's not like science, where you can recreate and show experiments and have models and equations to explain it if the conceptual stuff is too hard to explain or understand. There are scientific ways of explaining it, but the nature of the subject is inherently different from science, so that only goes so far.

It's like trying to explain a feeling. Or an intuitive understanding of something. Like me trying to explain to my ESTP friend why I get depressed when it seems like my life's "easier" than his, or explaining how something tastes to someone who has never tasted anything like it. You COULD do it, but it'd be really difficult.

Spirituality is a personal thing; it's something you have to come to understand and experience yourself before you really can understand the topic of why people are into it and how it transcends cultures. There's more to religion than just a bunch of rules; that's actually more of a culture thing than a religious thing, I think. You have to take religious word with a cup of tea; even if it was "divinely inspired" as people think it was, it was still recorded by people, so it could still be culturally influenced. But the core spirituality, the reason for spirituality transcends that. And that's the part that's hard to explain; rather than approaching it like science, where you see the outline or rules and assume that's the end result of what you're supposed to get out of it, you have to approach it like you're approaching a complicated person, because it's a social thing. It's a human thing, not a logical thing; you can't explain spirituality with science accurately.

In other words, the Bibles, books of worship, and rules are just the beginning. It's the starting point; many people don't realize that you're not working towards just going through the motions, but rather that you have to search for what it means to you and how you can reach "enlightenment" through it. It's not easy; it's not simple; it's not concrete. You have to approach it differently.

And that's what that article I quoted from touched on; an idea of a single, Primal knowledge that we are searching for, that's different from physical knowledge; it's a spiritual knowledge that people are drawn to. It's not just replacing what you can't understand; in fact, I'm not even sure if it brings any real "answers." It brings a true contentment, and understanding of not being able to understand, and an acceptance of something greater than yourself, whether that be a God, gods, or just the energy of the universe. That's spirituality; that's the basis of religion; and that's really hard to explain or prove.
 
Well, the thing about religion and spirituality is that, by the very nature of the subject, it is very difficult to "teach." It's not like science, where you can recreate and show experiments and have models and equations to explain it if the conceptual stuff is too hard to explain or understand. There are scientific ways of explaining it, but the nature of the subject is inherently different from science, so that only goes so far.

It's like trying to explain a feeling. Or an intuitive understanding of something. Like me trying to explain to my ESTP friend why I get depressed when it seems like my life's "easier" than his, or explaining how something tastes to someone who has never tasted anything like it. You COULD do it, but it'd be really difficult.

Spirituality is a personal thing; it's something you have to come to understand and experience yourself before you really can understand the topic of why people are into it and how it transcends cultures. There's more to religion than just a bunch of rules; that's actually more of a culture thing than a religious thing, I think. You have to take religious word with a cup of tea; even if it was "divinely inspired" as people think it was, it was still recorded by people, so it could still be culturally influenced. But the core spirituality, the reason for spirituality transcends that. And that's the part that's hard to explain; rather than approaching it like science, where you see the outline or rules and assume that's the end result of what you're supposed to get out of it, you have to approach it like you're approaching a complicated person, because it's a social thing. It's a human thing, not a logical thing; you can't explain spirituality with science accurately.

In other words, the Bibles, books of worship, and rules are just the beginning. It's the starting point; many people don't realize that you're not working towards just going through the motions, but rather that you have to search for what it means to you and how you can reach "enlightenment" through it. It's not easy; it's not simple; it's not concrete. You have to approach it differently.

And that's what that article I quoted from touched on; an idea of a single, Primal knowledge that we are searching for, that's different from physical knowledge; it's a spiritual knowledge that people are drawn to. It's not just replacing what you can't understand; in fact, I'm not even sure if it brings any real "answers." It brings a true contentment, and understanding of not being able to understand, and an acceptance of something greater than yourself, whether that be a God, gods, or just the energy of the universe. That's spirituality; that's the basis of religion; and that's really hard to explain or prove.

Sorry, this is just more special pleading. "You wouldn't understand unless you already accept."
 
^ It's not about accepting. It's about coming from a different angle. You don't have to "accept" anything, but you're sure as hell not going to come to a fuller understanding of the side I'm talking about from your current trajectory.
 
^ It's not about accepting. It's about coming from a different angle. You don't have to "accept" anything, but you're sure as hell not going to come to a fuller understanding of the side I'm talking about from your current trajectory.

So now I don't understand because I'm not appreciative of your "evidence"? It's still special pleading. I've said I'm open to understanding. The way I'm understanding you is that you can't fulfill the standards of reason, and so are looking for a way to dodge them by making it look like I'm prejudiced or I need to change my frame of mind.

I've repeatedly asked you for your evidence...which you say is obvious and plentiful. You just keep telling me I don't accept it because I'm not open to understanding it...yet you haven't even given it to me in the first place!

Instead you've dodged and said that I need special prerequisites to fulfill before I can gain this knowledge. That is special pleading. You're coming off as just plain esoteric and even elitist...that you have access to this information and it's impossible for me to understand it until I change something about myself.
 
Last edited:
If you can't understand it through reason then it's not really evidence, it's something else.
 
If you can't understand it through reason then it's not really evidence, it's something else.

A simple and effective point.

This religion vs reason debate is almost tiring me out. I'm tired of the other side coming up with nothing, yet still insisting I should respect their side. It's hard to respect a side that continually either:

1. Claims evidence and never gives it.
2. Claims they don't need evidence and that it's ok to believe just to believe something.
3. Gives evidence that is completely irrelevant to the conclusion, or otherwise just bad/wrapped in fallacies.
 
A simple and effective point.

This religion vs reason debate is almost tiring me out. I'm tired of the other side coming up with nothing, yet still insisting I should respect their side. It's hard to respect a side that continually either:

1. Claims evidence and never gives it.
2. Claims they don't need evidence and that it's ok to believe just to believe something.
3. Gives evidence that is completely irrelevant to the conclusion, or otherwise just bad/wrapped in fallacies.

You cant prove spiritualty, I know that. Nor do you need iron clad evidence because you can't prove it.

spirituality shouldn't be explained by logic.
 
You cant prove spiritualty, I know that. Nor do you need iron clad evidence because you can't prove it.

spirituality shouldn't be explained by logic.

Then it has no right at all to be claimed as any of the following:

True
Justified
Comprehensible
Relevant

Nor is it worthy of being put into a debate about:

Ethics
Politics
Philosophy in general
Science

With a few exceptions (like right to religious belief in an ethical/political discussion), it shouldn't be allowed nearly the grace extended to it. It can be its own entity, but if, at all, it enters the realm of public consequences, it should be by default cast away as irrelevant.

Unless you'd like to take what you said back and try to give reasonable evidence for religion.
 
Last edited:
Then it has no right at all to be claimed as any of the following:

True
Justified
Comprehensible
Relevant

As I have said in the past, all of those apply for me on a personal, internal level. That is what spirituality is, a personal journey.
 
Then it has no right at all to be claimed as any of the following:

True
Justified
Comprehensible
Relevant

Nor is it worthy of being put into a debate about:

Ethics
Politics
Philosophy in general
Science

Well said.
 
As I have said in the past, all of those apply for me on a personal, internal level. That is what spirituality is, a personal journey.

Read my edit. It doesn't deserve public attention, and should be cast away, as a default, when considering public affairs. As it is, it seems that religion is not only accepted, but IS the default.
 
Read my edit. It doesn't deserve public attention, and should be cast away, as a default, when considering public affairs. As it is, it seems that religion is not only accepted, but IS the default.

You do understand that I am a huge advocate of the seperation of church and state right? I scoff when people try to use there religion to control others lives. I agree that it should have no place at all in public policy.
 
Nor is it worthy of being put into a debate about:

Ethics
Politics
Philosophy in general
Science
Noone would disagree on the matter of science(hard sciences). No point debating there.

But I believe you're wrong regarding the other 3. When debating about ethics, politics and sometimes philosophy, it would be best to have human behaviour as a basis. And humans many times believe in spirituality and are affected by it in many ways. If the debate is to have any actual social point and respond to reality, then we can't disregard the fact that spirituality is a very strong factor of people's beliefs and choices. Therefore, we cannot say that spirituality shouldnt be put into a debate, since it could very well be a driving force of the views of many people to a certain matter. The above comment regards scientific(that itself regarding to soft sciences) debate on politics and ethics, and philosophical debates regarding specific philosophical theories.

Read my edit. It doesn't deserve public attention, and should be cast away, as a default, when considering public affairs. As it is, it seems that religion is not only accepted, but IS the default.
Yup. I totally agree here. When we're talking about public issues, there are more importand things to take into account in order to solve social problems.
 
Last edited:
You do understand that I am a huge advocate of the seperation of church and state right? I scoff when people try to use there religion to control others lives. I agree that it should have no place at all in public policy.

But it does. And it's not just public policy, it extends to any discussion that has philosophical roots. I can't talk to people about, say, gay rights (as if it even should be a special issue...sigh), without religious motivation drenching the conversation. There is a song I hate (because it's a crappy commercialized form of music) that is on the party station on the radio that I hear when out and about...it's a song about a girl that is bi-curious and at a party with another girl. There is inevitably one person that mumbles something about it being unethical and disgusting...and when I ask it's almost always a religious answer.

This thread's roots are in the Creationism/ID vs Evolution "debate." Satya's OP is right...this shouldn't even be a debate. There is little to no evidence on the side of ID or creationism. Yet it's still and issue. Back in my home state of Indiana, not even 10 years ago they were making a big stink about the 10 commandments being removed from a courthouse in Elkhart.

Stem Cell research is still an issue.

Now, I have nothing against religious institutions doing their thing off on their own. It's just that it seeps DEEP into our society. It prevents progress more then any other institution, with the exception of the local license branch.
 
Noone would disagree on the matter of science(hard sciences). No point debating there.

But I believe you're wrong regarding the other 3. When debating about ethics, politics and sometimes philosophy, it would be best to have human behaviour as a basis. And humans many times believe in spirituality and are affected by it in many ways. If the debate is to have any actual social point and respond to reality, then we can't disregard the fact that spirituality is a very strong factor of people's beliefs and choices. Therefore, we cannot say that spirituality shouldnt be put into a debate, since it could very well be a driving force of the views of many people to a certain matter. The above comment regards scientific(that itself regarding to soft sciences) debate on politics and ethics, and philosophical debates regarding specific philosophical theories.

Ok, I see what you're saying. Human behavior can be effected by spirituality and I agree with you on that, but that wasn't what I was trying to express. I was expressing that religious "concerns" (say with gay rights or stem cell research) should have NO consideration. It has no place in such debates. The scientific/philosophical community has recognized this for the most part. The political community has not at all, and the common man...well, they're pretty much still drenched in religion and won't consider reason in these affairs.
 
I seem to have misunderstood your position. If by the above quoted text you were trying to justify this:
Then it has no right at all to be claimed as any of the following:

True
Justified
Comprehensible
Relevant
as in that spirituality is not an argument on it's own, then I agree.
 
I seem to have misunderstood your position. If by the above quoted text you were trying to justify this:

as in that spirituality is not an argument on it's own, then I agree.

Yes, exactly. It is not worthy of deciding anything about what is true or ethical beyond the private affairs of individuals. The annoyance I'm expressing is that is has pervaded the political community, and the social expectation is that one has certain religious convictions. I can't count how many times I've been called various unpleasant things because I express a point of view that isn't religious.
 
Yes, exactly. It is not worthy of deciding anything about what is true or ethical beyond the private affairs of individuals. The annoyance I'm expressing is that is has pervaded the political community, and the social expectation is that one has certain religious convictions. I can't count how many times I've been called various unpleasant things because I express a point of view that isn't religious.

I understand what you mean. I totally agree there, but in my country spirituality is never an argument when discussing politics and social matters. It only comes up as a factor in scientific debates. I can imagine how frustrating that must be for you, when you try to prove something with reason in a serious argument that regards a specific matter, and the response is faith based, and has little to do with logic. Hmm. Suddenly satya came into my mind. Don't know why.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top