Comments for AmericanFreeThinkers.com http://americanfreethinkers.com Celebrating and exploring the tradition of American Freethought Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:14:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Good arguments against “Intelligent” Design policy by Dwight Ball http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/12/08/good-arguments-against-intelligent-design-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-358 Dwight Ball Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:14:41 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=48#comment-358 I think I can paraphrase the message of the video “Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists” as follows. “The supposed controversy over intelligent design is a battle being waged by pseudo-scientists on religious grounds. In reality, the battle has already been lost everywhere except in the courtroom where small isolated groups, out of touch with the advances made in science in the past century, are fighting to hold onto a way of life, not engage in a true discussion of science.” As evidence of this I suggest the following snippets from the video. Dr. Forrest states that “the current controversy of evolution vs. creationism is one where you have a segment of the American population who, for religious reasons have never been able to accommodate modern science and even most aspects of the modern world… and to advance what is essentially a religious goal.” Dr. Deamer says “There is no overall disagreement [among biologists] whether evolution is right or wrong” Dr. Miller “Creationists are not interested in developing evidence, they’re not interested in engaging in this process of peer review, of publishing their work, of going to scientific meetings and trying to win a scientific consensus, in effect what they want to do is do an end run around the entire scientific process. ” The video declares from the outset that these scientists are “recognized as experts by the scientific community, in their field of evolutionary science.” The speakers on the video: Dr, Kevin Padian Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology and President of the National Center for Science Education B.A in Natural Science Colgate University M.A. in Teaching from Colgate University Ph.D. from Yale University Taught science in high school Principal author of the California Science Framework K 12 Received the 2003 Carl Sagan Award for the popularization of science Dr. David W. Deamer Research Professor in the Department of Biomolecular Engineering and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, Santa Cruz B.Sc. degree was in Chemistry, at Duke University, Durham NC (1961 Ph.D. in Physiological Chemistry from the Ohio State University School of Medicine (1965) Following post-doctoral research at UC Berkeley, he joined the faculty at UC Davis in 1967 Dr. Barbara Forrest B.A. in English in 1974 from Southeastern Louisiana University, M.A. in Philosophy in 1978 from Louisiana State University, and her Ph.D. in philosophy from Tulane University in 1988. Taught philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University since 1988 and presently is professor of philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science. Dr. James Hofmann B.S., Physics, Saint John's University (Collegeville, Minnesota) 1969 M.S., Physics, University of Minnesota, 1974 Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 1982. Dr. Kenneth R. Miller Ph.D. in 1974 at the University of Colorado Six years teaching at Harvard University Professor of Biology at Brown University Chairs the Education Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology. Dr. James L. Powell Ph.D geochemistry MIT Past president, LA County museum of natural history Dr. Eugenie Scott BS and MS from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee PhD from the University of Missouri Dr. Francisco Ayala Spanish American biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine. Cormer Dominican priest ordained in 1960 B.S. University of Salamanca PhD at Columbia University 1964 The speakers take their cues from the the same argument espoused by the late Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, declared by Dr. Ferris to be “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris, 2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming this for over 40 years—in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstakingly the proofs for evolution” Mayr, 1967. p. v). In 1971 Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well-informed person who questions the factuality of evolution” (Mayr, p. 49). Is the statement “The supposed controversy over intelligent design is a battle being waged by pseudo-scientists on religious grounds. The battle is already lost everywhere except in the courtroom where small isolated groups, out of touch with the advances made in science in the past century, are fighting to hold onto a way of life, not engage in a true discussion of science.” actually true however? I suggest that those who watch the video should examine evidence to the contrary. Dr. Jerry Bergman (Ph.D. in evaluation and measurement (minor in psychology) from Wayne State University in Detroit and two masters degrees from the Medical College of Ohio. He currently teaches in the life science and social science area at Northwest State College in Ohio.) compiled a select list of scientists, scholars and academics who are skeptical of Darwinism. Although many of these scientists embrace Intelligent Design, all do not. What they do have in common however is a rejection of Darwinism as accepted proven fact. If we can find one scientist, and it only takes one, who has higher credentials than the scientists on the video who believes in Intelligent Design, then we can declare their “law-theory-hypothesis” that all credible scientists accept evolution/Darwinism as false. Dr. Bergman claims that without any trouble he compiled a list of over 3,000 scientists who disagree with Drs. Hofmann, Miller, Powell, Scott and Ayala. Whether it is true or not is up for debate, but over 2,000 of those on the list, including six Nobel Prize winners did not want their names published for fear of academic reprisal. This fear has been questioned by those outside the scientific community, but continuously reinforced by those inside the community. So even if you decide to reject those who will not allow their names to be published, Dr. Bergman has a list of over 1,000 who are proud to have their names listed. It should be noted that on the list are hundreds for whom it can be categorically stated that they have at the very least, matching credentials to the scientists on the video. Four of whom by the way should not have been included on the video because their field of expertise is philosophy, physics or engineering, not genetics or biology. The list can be found at: http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.pdf the list is over 178 pages long. One of the most astounding claims made on the whole video is the statement that creationists do not practice serious science because they do not present their papers for peer review or follow the normal channels for critique or open examination of ideas. Again, all it takes is one scientist with credentials higher than the scientists on the video who do submit their articles for peer review to discount this claim. In reality, there are hundreds of articles available for review by the larger community. Few make it to prestigious scientific publications, but as Michael Reiss, former director of education at Britain’s scientific academy found out, this was not because of quality, but because of a black-listing of articles critical of the established science of evolution/Darwinism. Just a simple cursory search for scientific papers that present a hypothesis for Intelligent Design, presented by scientists with credentials that meet or far exceed those of the participants in the video, produced this short list: "Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection” Authors: Dr. John C. Sanford Associate Professor of Horticultural Sciences (semi-retired) at Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. Sanford is a researcher in genetics and is currently presently looking at the theoretical limits of mutation and selection. Graduated in 1976 with a BS in Horticulture from the University of Minnesota. Graduated 1978 with a MS in Plant Breeding/PlantGenetics from the University of Wisconsin. Earn his Ph.D. in Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics from the University of Wisconsin in 1980. Dr. John Baumgardner Ph.D. in geophysics and space science from the University of California at Los Angeles. Currently works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Wesley Brewer Ph.D Assistant Research Professor / Research Assistant Mississippi State University Mechanical/Test Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Mississippi State University Ph.D. , Computational Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology S.M. , Ocean Engineering , 1993 — 1995 University of Tennessee-Knoxville B.S. , Engineering Science & Mechanics , 1989 — 1993 Here are some more, any reader can research the qualifications of the contributors: Fission Tracks in Zircons: Evidence for Abundant Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes Technical Papers | Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Considerations Technical Papers | Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth Technical Papers | John Baumgardner, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3 Technical Papers | Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005 RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Dec 1, 2003 Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Models Technical Papers | Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003 Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood Technical Papers | John Baumgardner, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003 Whole-Rock K-Ar Model and Isochron, and Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isochron, "Dating" of the Somerset Dam Layered Mafic Intrusion, Australia Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003 Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003 Hypercanes Following the Genesis Flood Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003 Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003 The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003 Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003 Radioisotopes in the Diabase Sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An Application and Test of the Isochron Dating Method Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003 Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003 Radiohalos: A Tale of Three Granitic Plutons Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003 Although the argument is often put forward that to believe in evolution is to deny belief in God, this position is rejected by many in the Christian faith. There are many scientists who are theists and accept evolution and Darwinism. This information was disturbing to the two research scientists from Harvard and George Mason University who compiled the data. They clearly expected to see that decades of secular education had all but eradicated belief in God from the most highly educated in our society. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/religion However, there are also scientists who are theists who accept the theory of Intelligent Design based on evidence. Documentation proves that these scientists can hold scientific degrees from the world’s top universities such as Berkely, Cambridge, MIT in all of the disciplines involved in creation research. They can also hold positions of great influence and power in the inner circles of the scientific community in physics, biology, medicine, nuclear physics, genetics, cell biology, paleontology, geology and more. To hold these positions they must constantly present papers and publish in their field. Quite a few of these scientists are very vocal and open about their beliefs and are involved in debating evolutionists on a regular basis. Dwight Ball I think I can paraphrase the message of the video “Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists” as follows. “The supposed controversy over intelligent design is a battle being waged by pseudo-scientists on religious grounds. In reality, the battle has already been lost everywhere except in the courtroom where small isolated groups, out of touch with the advances made in science in the past century, are fighting to hold onto a way of life, not engage in a true discussion of science.”

As evidence of this I suggest the following snippets from the video. Dr. Forrest states that “the current controversy of evolution vs. creationism is one where you have a segment of the American population who, for religious reasons have never been able to accommodate modern science and even most aspects of the modern world… and to advance what is essentially a religious goal.” Dr. Deamer says “There is no overall disagreement [among biologists] whether evolution is right or wrong” Dr. Miller “Creationists are not interested in developing evidence, they’re not interested in engaging in this process of peer review, of publishing their work, of going to scientific meetings and trying to win a scientific consensus, in effect what they want to do is do an end run around the entire scientific process. ”

The video declares from the outset that these scientists are “recognized as experts by the scientific community, in their field of evolutionary science.”

The speakers on the video:
Dr, Kevin Padian
Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley
Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology and President of the National Center for Science Education
B.A in Natural Science Colgate University
M.A. in Teaching from Colgate University
Ph.D. from Yale University
Taught science in high school
Principal author of the California Science Framework K 12
Received the 2003 Carl Sagan Award for the popularization of science

Dr. David W. Deamer
Research Professor in the Department of Biomolecular Engineering and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California, Santa Cruz
B.Sc. degree was in Chemistry, at Duke University, Durham NC (1961
Ph.D. in Physiological Chemistry from the Ohio State University School of Medicine (1965)
Following post-doctoral research at UC Berkeley, he joined the faculty at UC Davis in 1967

Dr. Barbara Forrest
B.A. in English in 1974 from Southeastern Louisiana University,
M.A. in Philosophy in 1978 from Louisiana State University, and her Ph.D. in philosophy from Tulane University in 1988.
Taught philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University since 1988 and presently is professor of philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science.

Dr. James Hofmann
B.S., Physics, Saint John’s University (Collegeville, Minnesota) 1969
M.S., Physics, University of Minnesota, 1974
Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 1982.

Dr. Kenneth R. Miller
Ph.D. in 1974 at the University of Colorado
Six years teaching at Harvard University
Professor of Biology at Brown University
Chairs the Education Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology.

Dr. James L. Powell
Ph.D geochemistry MIT
Past president, LA County museum of natural history

Dr. Eugenie Scott
BS and MS from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
PhD from the University of Missouri

Dr. Francisco Ayala
Spanish American biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine. Cormer Dominican priest ordained in 1960
B.S. University of Salamanca
PhD at Columbia University 1964

The speakers take their cues from the the same argument espoused by the late Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, declared by Dr. Ferris to be “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris, 2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming this for over 40 years—in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstakingly the proofs for evolution” Mayr, 1967. p. v). In 1971 Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well-informed person who questions the factuality of evolution” (Mayr, p. 49).

Is the statement “The supposed controversy over intelligent design is a battle being waged by pseudo-scientists on religious grounds. The battle is already lost everywhere except in the courtroom where small isolated groups, out of touch with the advances made in science in the past century, are fighting to hold onto a way of life, not engage in a true discussion of science.”
actually true however?

I suggest that those who watch the video should examine evidence to the contrary.

Dr. Jerry Bergman (Ph.D. in evaluation and measurement (minor in psychology) from Wayne State University in Detroit and two masters degrees from the Medical College of Ohio. He currently teaches in the life science and social science area at Northwest State College in Ohio.) compiled a select list of scientists, scholars and academics who are skeptical of Darwinism. Although many of these scientists embrace Intelligent Design, all do not. What they do have in common however is a rejection of Darwinism as accepted proven fact.

If we can find one scientist, and it only takes one, who has higher credentials than the scientists on the video who believes in Intelligent Design, then we can declare their “law-theory-hypothesis” that all credible scientists accept evolution/Darwinism as false.

Dr. Bergman claims that without any trouble he compiled a list of over 3,000 scientists who disagree with Drs. Hofmann, Miller, Powell, Scott and Ayala. Whether it is true or not is up for debate, but over 2,000 of those on the list, including six Nobel Prize winners did not want their names published for fear of academic reprisal. This fear has been questioned by those outside the scientific community, but continuously reinforced by those inside the community.

So even if you decide to reject those who will not allow their names to be published, Dr. Bergman has a list of over 1,000 who are proud to have their names listed.

It should be noted that on the list are hundreds for whom it can be categorically stated that they have at the very least, matching credentials to the scientists on the video. Four of whom by the way should not have been included on the video because their field of expertise is philosophy, physics or engineering, not genetics or biology.

The list can be found at: http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.pdf the list is over 178 pages long.

One of the most astounding claims made on the whole video is the statement that creationists do not practice serious science because they do not present their papers for peer review or follow the normal channels for critique or open examination of ideas.

Again, all it takes is one scientist with credentials higher than the scientists on the video who do submit their articles for peer review to discount this claim. In reality, there are hundreds of articles available for review by the larger community. Few make it to prestigious scientific publications, but as Michael Reiss, former director of education at Britain’s scientific academy found out, this was not because of quality, but because of a black-listing of articles critical of the established science of evolution/Darwinism.

Just a simple cursory search for scientific papers that present a hypothesis for Intelligent Design, presented by scientists with credentials that meet or far exceed those of the participants in the video, produced this short list:

“Mendel’s Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection”
Authors:
Dr. John C. Sanford
Associate Professor of Horticultural Sciences (semi-retired) at Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station.
Dr. Sanford is a researcher in genetics and is currently presently looking at the theoretical limits of mutation and selection.
Graduated in 1976 with a BS in Horticulture from the University of Minnesota.
Graduated 1978 with a MS in Plant Breeding/PlantGenetics from the University of Wisconsin.
Earn his Ph.D. in Plant Breeding/Plant Genetics from the University of Wisconsin in 1980.

Dr. John Baumgardner
Ph.D. in geophysics and space science from the University of California at Los Angeles.
Currently works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Dr. Wesley Brewer
Ph.D Assistant Research Professor / Research Assistant Mississippi State University
Mechanical/Test Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
Mississippi State University Ph.D. , Computational Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology S.M. , Ocean Engineering , 1993 — 1995
University of Tennessee-Knoxville B.S. , Engineering Science & Mechanics , 1989 — 1993

Here are some more, any reader can research the qualifications of the contributors:
Fission Tracks in Zircons: Evidence for Abundant Nuclear Decay
Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
Technical Papers | D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay
Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes
Technical Papers | Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust
Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Considerations
Technical Papers | Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
Technical Papers | John Baumgardner, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3
Technical Papers | Steven W. Boyd, Ph.D. | Nov 1, 2005

RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference
Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Dec 1, 2003

Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Models
Technical Papers | Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood
Technical Papers | John Baumgardner, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003

Whole-Rock K-Ar Model and Isochron, and Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isochron, “Dating” of the Somerset Dam Layered Mafic Intrusion, Australia
Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003

Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003

Hypercanes Following the Genesis Flood
Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003

Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003

The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating
Technical Papers | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003

Radioisotopes in the Diabase Sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An Application and Test of the Isochron Dating Method
Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003

Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy
Technical Papers | Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. | Aug 4, 2003

Radiohalos: A Tale of Three Granitic Plutons
Technical Papers | Various Authors | Aug 4, 2003

Although the argument is often put forward that to believe in evolution is to deny belief in God, this position is rejected by many in the Christian faith. There are many scientists who are theists and accept evolution and Darwinism. This information was disturbing to the two research scientists from Harvard and George Mason University who compiled the data. They clearly expected to see that decades of secular education had all but eradicated belief in God from the most highly educated in our society. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/religion

However, there are also scientists who are theists who accept the theory of Intelligent Design based on evidence. Documentation proves that these scientists can hold scientific degrees from the world’s top universities such as Berkely, Cambridge, MIT in all of the disciplines involved in creation research. They can also hold positions of great influence and power in the inner circles of the scientific community in physics, biology, medicine, nuclear physics, genetics, cell biology, paleontology, geology and more. To hold these positions they must constantly present papers and publish in their field. Quite a few of these scientists are very vocal and open about their beliefs and are involved in debating evolutionists on a regular basis.

Dwight Ball

]]> Comment on A secular religion by Caoimghgin http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-103 Caoimghgin Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:45:13 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-103 A faithless religion. It would seem an oxymoron to much of the Western world but perhaps the closest example of a faithless religion we have is the much maligned and demonized Church Of Scientology. If we were to take Zen Buddhism and place it in a 1950's nuclear fallout shelter in Oklahoma for a few hundred years, you'd come up with a religion that looks very much like Scientology. A bit paranoid, militant, obsessively secretive with an 'us vs. them' world view, but both religions share a commitment to pulling people out of needless pain and misery. Zen Buddhism and Scientology do not demand a belief in a higher being. They simply say, "Do XY, and you will have Z result." The existence of God is implicit. As the student progresses, becoming more capable and self-aware, they experience life more fully and can detach from that which is impermanent and temporary, thereby coming closer to the permanence of God. From this point forward, the similarities of Zen and Scientology appear to radically diverge. Where Zen would use meditation techniques, prayer and fasting, Scientology would employ the equivalent of a psychologist with a lie detector. Never the less, no matter the techniques employed, the goals were identical. I applaud any honest approach to help people realize their desire to improve oneself, be it physically, mentally or spiritually. However, since I find no improvement mechanisms whatsoever within popular main-stream religions, I find them disingenuous if not outright dishonest. In days past, condemned Christians would ask which lion was the hungriest. Today, I could likely change a Protestant into a Catholic just by threatening him with a paper cut. With this in mind, I gladly join your Church of the Faithless. However, in the most Ayn Randian way possible, I'd like to know "Whats in for me and do I have to take you're word on 'faith'?" A faithless religion.

It would seem an oxymoron to much of the Western world but perhaps the closest example of a faithless religion we have is the much maligned and demonized Church Of Scientology. If we were to take Zen Buddhism and place it in a 1950’s nuclear fallout shelter in Oklahoma for a few hundred years, you’d come up with a religion that looks very much like Scientology. A bit paranoid, militant, obsessively secretive with an ‘us vs. them’ world view, but both religions share a commitment to pulling people out of needless pain and misery.

Zen Buddhism and Scientology do not demand a belief in a higher being. They simply say, “Do XY, and you will have Z result.” The existence of God is implicit. As the student progresses, becoming more capable and self-aware, they experience life more fully and can detach from that which is impermanent and temporary, thereby coming closer to the permanence of God.

From this point forward, the similarities of Zen and Scientology appear to radically diverge. Where Zen would use meditation techniques, prayer and fasting, Scientology would employ the equivalent of a psychologist with a lie detector. Never the less, no matter the techniques employed, the goals were identical.

I applaud any honest approach to help people realize their desire to improve oneself, be it physically, mentally or spiritually. However, since I find no improvement mechanisms whatsoever within popular main-stream religions, I find them disingenuous if not outright dishonest. In days past, condemned Christians would ask which lion was the hungriest. Today, I could likely change a Protestant into a Catholic just by threatening him with a paper cut.

With this in mind, I gladly join your Church of the Faithless. However, in the most Ayn Randian way possible, I’d like to know “Whats in for me and do I have to take you’re word on ‘faith’?”

]]> Comment on Good arguments against “Intelligent” Design policy by Fitzie http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/12/08/good-arguments-against-intelligent-design-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-102 Fitzie Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:17 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=48#comment-102 I like the guy who at about 7:38 says "look, the design we are talking about is pretty flawed, I don't want to believe in a god that can't get basic engineeering right." Kind of turns the issue around in an interesting way that reminds me of Jesuit science teachers. I like the guy who at about 7:38 says “look, the design we are talking about is pretty flawed, I don’t want to believe in a god that can’t get basic engineeering right.” Kind of turns the issue around in an interesting way that reminds me of Jesuit science teachers.

]]> Comment on First Post by TatsLidsbaist http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/02/first-post/comment-page-1/#comment-34 TatsLidsbaist Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:28:00 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=5#comment-34 Could not find a suitable section so I written here, how to become a moderator for your forum, that need for this? Could not find a suitable section so I written here, how to become a moderator for your forum, that need for this?

]]> Comment on A secular religion by Fitzie http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Fitzie Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:49:23 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-33 Wow that was some bad typing. Sorry. Wow that was some bad typing. Sorry.

]]> Comment on A secular religion by Fitzie http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Fitzie Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:48:26 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-32 I think that your explication gets very much to the nature of my tautological critique of the statrement "all positions are faith based." In order to make that statement work you have define "faith " so broadly that the statement itself becomes elf refrential and therefore meaningless. "Faith" surely means something more than the general premise upon which you base your understanding of reality on. I also thought of Descartes when thinking about this question. Yes it is a leap of faith to believe the world we percieve is actually there but my dog clearly believes the same thing and he can't be said to have "faith." Main Entry: 1faith Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\ Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide Date: 13th century 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs synonyms see belief — on faith : without question I think that your explication gets very much to the nature of my tautological critique of the statrement “all positions are faith based.” In order to make that statement work you have define “faith ” so broadly that the statement itself becomes elf refrential and therefore meaningless. “Faith” surely means something more than the general premise upon which you base your understanding of reality on. I also thought of Descartes when thinking about this question. Yes it is a leap of faith to believe the world we percieve is actually there but my dog clearly believes the same thing and he can’t be said to have “faith.”

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

synonyms see belief

— on faith : without question

]]> Comment on A secular religion by JB http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-31 JB Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:26:40 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-31 I’d agree that belief in god does seem unnecessary in order to receive the benefits of religion. That’s one reason why I think that some kind of secular-community organization would be interesting. I do understand the statement “all positions are faith based.” I think what’s being referred to is that in order to make a judgement you always have to make a little leap. But, this is such a commonplace thing that we don’t usually refer to all judgments as faith. If you’re being very precise, then one would have to get into the old Philosophy 101 arguments: “How do I know this chair is real?” “How do I know that YOU exist?” Those types of things. At the end of the day, I do make a little leap in reasoning that, yes, the chair I’m sitting in is real. I’m not in a coma, being given hallucinations by mad scientists. There isn’t a malicious demon controlling my thoughts and convincing me that the chair is real, when in actuality I’m in hell, spearing myself on something terrible. Those things are possible. But, I make the judgement that they aren’t true. It’s all about probability. But, in ordinary language using the terms of probability would be really, really, really tedious. And, I like girls and I’ve always liked having them like me, so I chose not to say things like “I’m going to sit in this object that I perceive to be a chair and is mostly likely a chair.” I just sit in the chair. I think we confuse our terms a little when we say that all judgments are faith-based. But, I think that’s a natural consequence of ordinary language. We’re not being precise. Something I’ve been thinking about a bit recently is – what is faith? I read a statement this morning by someone who’s opinion I generally respect, but who has kind of a whifty, new-agey, spiritual bent – in a generally non-invasive way that is only hinted at. Anyway. He talked about faith as something that you get, that you don’t have control over. It’s a reaction to something and you just feel it and it IS. It’s a connection to something higher than yourself. A blessing you receive. Now, I’ve certainly had those feelings. But, having that sense of “connectedness” does not imply to me that I’m in touch with something intelligent that created me and everything around me. That seems like the least likely scenario. It’s wish fulfillment. I think we have an amazing capacity for interpreting events and feelings in such a way that they confirm our presuppositions. Reason and analysis is the tool we have for stepping outside of that experience and getting a little closer to the truth. Anyway. That’s a little rambly. But, I’d like to hear some opinions on what faith is. I’d agree that belief in god does seem unnecessary in order to receive the benefits of religion. That’s one reason why I think that some kind of secular-community organization would be interesting.

I do understand the statement “all positions are faith based.” I think what’s being referred to is that in order to make a judgement you always have to make a little leap. But, this is such a commonplace thing that we don’t usually refer to all judgments as faith. If you’re being very precise, then one would have to get into the old Philosophy 101 arguments: “How do I know this chair is real?” “How do I know that YOU exist?” Those types of things. At the end of the day, I do make a little leap in reasoning that, yes, the chair I’m sitting in is real. I’m not in a coma, being given hallucinations by mad scientists. There isn’t a malicious demon controlling my thoughts and convincing me that the chair is real, when in actuality I’m in hell, spearing myself on something terrible. Those things are possible. But, I make the judgement that they aren’t true.

It’s all about probability. But, in ordinary language using the terms of probability would be really, really, really tedious. And, I like girls and I’ve always liked having them like me, so I chose not to say things like “I’m going to sit in this object that I perceive to be a chair and is mostly likely a chair.” I just sit in the chair.

I think we confuse our terms a little when we say that all judgments are faith-based. But, I think that’s a natural consequence of ordinary language. We’re not being precise.

Something I’ve been thinking about a bit recently is – what is faith? I read a statement this morning by someone who’s opinion I generally respect, but who has kind of a whifty, new-agey, spiritual bent – in a generally non-invasive way that is only hinted at. Anyway. He talked about faith as something that you get, that you don’t have control over. It’s a reaction to something and you just feel it and it IS. It’s a connection to something higher than yourself. A blessing you receive.

Now, I’ve certainly had those feelings. But, having that sense of “connectedness” does not imply to me that I’m in touch with something intelligent that created me and everything around me. That seems like the least likely scenario. It’s wish fulfillment. I think we have an amazing capacity for interpreting events and feelings in such a way that they confirm our presuppositions. Reason and analysis is the tool we have for stepping outside of that experience and getting a little closer to the truth.

Anyway. That’s a little rambly. But, I’d like to hear some opinions on what faith is.

]]> Comment on A secular religion by Fitzie http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Fitzie Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:23:57 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-29 there are aspects of religion that are positive. There I admitted it. Of course, I tend to believe that these things are not necessarily dependant on religion. Religion provides important sense of community and organizing principles. So does Irish music. the arc of religions tend to be that they begin as subcultrues and grow into mainstream cultures. The believing in God part can be seen as secondary in nature. The development of ancient Greek culture and thought for instance, can be seen as a movement away from existing religions and toward a more secular philosophy. It worked ok for them from what I can tell. "All positons are faith based." I don't know about this one. My first reaction is to say that all tautologies are either false or meaningless. I can't see how this tautology is an exception to that rule. there are aspects of religion that are positive. There I admitted it. Of course, I tend to believe that these things are not necessarily dependant on religion. Religion provides important sense of community and organizing principles. So does Irish music. the arc of religions tend to be that they begin as subcultrues and grow into mainstream cultures. The believing in God part can be seen as secondary in nature. The development of ancient Greek culture and thought for instance, can be seen as a movement away from existing religions and toward a more secular philosophy. It worked ok for them from what I can tell.

“All positons are faith based.” I don’t know about this one. My first reaction is to say that all tautologies are either false or meaningless. I can’t see how this tautology is an exception to that rule.

]]> Comment on A secular religion by Scott Roche http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Scott Roche Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:07:11 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-28 I think admitting 1) that there are aspects of religion that are positive and 2) that all positions are faith based are two things I'd like to hear every atheist admit to. If you're truly a free thinker then agreeing to those two things shouldn't be challenging. I think admitting 1) that there are aspects of religion that are positive and 2) that all positions are faith based are two things I’d like to hear every atheist admit to. If you’re truly a free thinker then agreeing to those two things shouldn’t be challenging.

]]> Comment on A secular religion by Fitzie http://americanfreethinkers.com/2009/11/12/a-secular-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Fitzie Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:42:33 +0000 http://americanfreethinkers.com/?p=40#comment-27 JB Not sure I have much to add except to say that this strikes me as absolutely correct. Good post. I think I may have some other thoughts on this but they are not fully formed at the moment. JB

Not sure I have much to add except to say that this strikes me as absolutely correct. Good post.

I think I may have some other thoughts on this but they are not fully formed at the moment.

]]>