Hello Arlo, You know my real problem is not with the religion at all. Anybody should be free to believe whatever they choose as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. My problem started the day I discovered a whole section on Creationism in my son's 9th grade Biology book. I did some research on this and learned that fundamentalists are using Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") as a way to circumvent the 1964 Supreme Court ruling against teaching religion in public schools. As I said earlier, by affording Creationism a place in Biology textbooks, the implicit message is that the scientific method is only useful if it supports your belief system. This is a truly dangerous idea that, if left unchecked, will subvert a generation of scientists.
Why is this such a problem? I don't know anyone who makes a habit of disrupting congregations on Sunday with treaties on the Theory of Evolution. We are talking about a Science class for heaven sakes! Does anyone else find this rude and presumptuous? I personally know lots of religious people who manage to maintain their faith yet believe in the theory of evolution at the same time. Believe me, it can be done. Darwin did not dream this up as an attack. He went to seminary college at Cambridge as I recall. The whole subject has struck a nerve. It just wears me out to be a resident of the American south sometimes. :) God save us from the Social Level. Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ARLO J BENSINGER JR Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics [Mary to Mark] The argument goes something like this. I believe in a god I have never seen or heard, and because I do, I attack you for believing in scientific theories you have never seen or heard personally because they somehow threaten my belief. Upon what basis do you make such attacks? [Arlo] The basis is a need for validation. As Krimel and I both pointed out, when the movement to turn "religion" into a "science" failed, theists simply turned the table and began the atrocious rhetoric of turning "science" into a "religion". This is nothing new, and the list gets its perennial theist who feels slighted by Pirsig's remarks and begins yet another attempt to turn "Quality" into a "god", and the "MOQ" into "just another religion". [Mary to Mark] Can you explain what you hope to accomplish by this? Would it not be more truthful to just come out and say, I reject your scientific theory because it invalidates my religious belief? [Arlo] It would most certainly be more truthful, but I suspect it would be less fulfilling. Again, the "goal" is to validate "religion" by turning the MOQ into just another theism. What's funny is that the halftime report would read something like this: Your stance that science is not theism is evidence of your theism. How one counters such twisted "thinking" is apparently beyond me. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
