[Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith

[Ian]

richard:

Zsei gesund!

Shalom.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "richard haase" <hotprojects at nyc.rr.com>
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith


>i was just kibbitzing
> and being serious
> philosophizing
> im a born again christian ian
> as well as being a big jew face
> ( im sure you can relate )
> peace and love ian
> were mishbuchah
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ian" <ialterman at nyc.rr.com>
> To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Re: Debate Over Faith
>
>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>