Bad News in Nutsville
Terrible bad news today. Tests of a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV), a widespread virus that can be spread sexually and causes cervical cancer, are showing very good results. From MSNBC:
About 20 million Americans have HPV right now, it is very common. It is estimated that 50 per cent of sexually active people will eventually get it, and by age 50, eighty percent of women have the genital form of HPV. Thus, that 94 per cent success rate is very high.
Personally, I think this is great news. But some on the dark side don't see it that way. Remember this story? From the New Scientist magazine, earlier this year:
I remind you, also, that PFOX wants Peter Sprigg, who is Senior Director of Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, to serve as their representative on the MCPS citizens advisory committee that will review the next sex-ed curriculum.
Is this what you want?
Efforts to develop the world's first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer took a key step forward Monday with test results suggesting that it can provide long-lasting protection.
Four years after getting the vaccine, 94 percent of women were protected from infection with the virus that causes most cervical cancers and none had developed worrisome precancerous conditions, a study showed.
"We're thrilled about these results. The immune responses seem to be really long-lasting," said Dr. Eliav Barr, who leads development of the vaccine for Merck & Co. The company plans to seek U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval next year for an expanded version of the vaccine that also could be used to prevent genital warts in both women and men.
...
"They showed clear effectiveness," said Dr. Scott Hammer, a Columbia University infectious disease expert who reviewed the work but has no ties to Merck or the study. "This is a very important issue for women's health around the world." Study: Cancer vaccine protects for years: Test results suggest shots prevent cervical disease in women
About 20 million Americans have HPV right now, it is very common. It is estimated that 50 per cent of sexually active people will eventually get it, and by age 50, eighty percent of women have the genital form of HPV. Thus, that 94 per cent success rate is very high.
Personally, I think this is great news. But some on the dark side don't see it that way. Remember this story? From the New Scientist magazine, earlier this year:
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus. Will cancer vaccine get to all women?
I remind you, also, that PFOX wants Peter Sprigg, who is Senior Director of Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, to serve as their representative on the MCPS citizens advisory committee that will review the next sex-ed curriculum.
Is this what you want?
posted by JimK at 1:42 PM
47 Comments:
yes
...and Peter Sprigg says on same-sex marriages......
******************
Would Same-Sex "Marriage" Lead to Polygamy? In the Netherlands, It Already Has
return to full navigation
by: Peter Sprigg
At the heart of the argument for same-sex "marriage" is the belief that government should not restrict a person's choice of marriage partner. One of the weaknesses of that argument is the fact that applying such a principle would require eliminating other longstanding restrictions on a person's marriage partner. For example, if such a choice cannot be restricted based on gender, why should it be restricted based on number? The idea that legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would lead to the legal recognition of polygamy as well is the "third rail" of the whole debate, which pro-homosexual activists refuse to touch.
Yet the predictions of a "slippery slope" towards polygamy have already been borne out in the Netherlands--the same country that was the world's first to legalize same-sex civil "marriage" a scant four years ago. A Dutch man recently became the first to enter a civil union (the legal equivalent of marriage) with two bisexual women. For more details, see the link below.
*********************
Can't say I would want him on the new CAC.
Heh-heh he said "slippery".
Fortunately, you have nothing to say about it.
Good comment from P. Sprigg. He's right, of course. Once you change the definition of marriage, all sorts of possibilities open up. He shouldn't have said slippery slope though. It's an outright logical cliff.
So why would the government tell people who they can marry in any case? There are tens of thousands of polygamous families in the US, and I don't see any ill effects from it, other whatever problems they have within the family, from jealousy, nagging, etc. Who cares if some Mormon guy wants to have a bunch of wives? Not me.
PB
We should all care if some Mormon guy has children underage as their "bunch of wives."
Different issue. We should care if he keeps his wives in cages, we should care if he beats them, we should care if he can't feed them ... Sprigg's talking about polygamy, and so am I
..hhmmm polygamists have been shown to sometimes have underage wives.....but swear they treat them well.
From Sprigg's...
What in the world is a homosexual activist? Is that the similar to a homosexual curriculum?
testing
Government isn't telling people who they can marry. Marriage has been defined by God and society has long accepted that definition. Government has, to its credit, so far refused to redefine marriage.
Not everyone believes in God.
Whaddya mean, Anonymous? The government has all kinds of laws about who you can marry. You can only marry one person, an unmarried and consenting adult of the opposite sex... Of all the forms of marriage that exist in societies around the planet, our government allows: one.
PB
Oh my...I wish we could all post on CRC's "public" message board and be able to have these conversations......
Oh how I do wish....
Some people don't believe in God?
Truth doesn't change when you refuse to believe it. Marriage wasn't instituted by the government.
Marriage is regulated by the government.
The institution exists in many, many forms around the world. Every society has evolved a system of norms for legitimizing reproductive behavior and controlling it. If you believe that God invented marriage, then what of people who live in places that worship different deities? Do they have marriage? These Mormon guys? Do you call that marriage?
I do.
PB
I don't know which anon said this- but "marriage was defined by God". Really, so is this the two wife marriage(Jacob) or the wives and concubine marriage(King David) or the other more than one wife marriages of the bible. Mormon polygamy is not legal in the US although the gov't seems to turn a blind eye in Arizona but certainly there are countries where polygamy is not illegal and religion allows it. Certainly the Netherlands is not the first place for this- but then I wouldn't expect Peter Sprigg to use facts. His point was to pretend that same sex marriage leads to polygamy- when polygamy already exists in many places outside of the US and western countries.
Andrea
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex."
By this same logic, giving the hepatitis B vaccine to young people could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in needle sharing.
Any parent who would deny a potentially life-saving immunization from their child is not the sort of parent I'd want to influence the health education curriculum at my children's school.
MCPS Mom
Anonymous said...
"Good comment from P. Sprigg. He's
right, of course. Once you change
the definition of marriage, all
sorts of possibilities open up. He
shouldn't have said slippery slope
though. It's an outright logical
cliff."
People who think the government
has a right to tell you who you
can or cannot marry have fallen
off the outright logical cliff.
The definition of marriage
includes love, and most marriage
vows do too. It is basic human
dignity to permit people to marry
the person they love. To deny
this basic human dignity to those
citizens of minority sexual
orientation is an outrageous act
of arrogance.
Can't we all just get along?
Ma
Can you imagine not giving a life saving vaccine to someone because of this? It is like the stories we have read very recently of certain third world countries where polio vaccine was refused because people were told by religious leaders that the vaccine was actually a form of birth control to stop the increase of certain peoples or religions-sad and potentially deadly. This vaccine doesn't stop all the other STDs or pregnancy or take away values or decision making- so how ridiculous to suggest that this will make kids have sex. Crazy right- get rid of your TVs, your radios and your computers first.
Andrea,
Just because polygamy was common in ancient lands doesn't mean it's condoned by God. You metioned David, for example, who once murdered a man whose wife he was attracted to. God clearly didn't condone that. What some people don't understand is that part of Christianity's message is that the only example of perfection is Jesus Christ. Don't infer that Jacob or David or anyone else is a role model in every sense. God ordained marriage between one man and one woman at creation.
Other anon who said this:
"It is basic human
dignity to permit people to marry
the person they love. To deny
this basic human dignity to those
citizens of minority sexual
orientation is an outrageous act
of arrogance."
Marriage is defined as between husband and wife. Other relationships, including sexually immoral ones, don't have the same status. There are no "citizens of minority sexual orientation." There are only people who developed an irrational preference. Sexual orientation is a construct of advocacy groups that desired to convert a civil liberties issue into a civil rights issue.
Lightning Man (my new alter ego- to distinguish me from other anons)
Lighning Man says "Marriage is defined as between husband and wife." LM, you think that's how it's defined, but billions of people disagree. That's how 21st-century Christian America defines it, but that doesn't mean everybody else is wrong. What about those Mormons down there in Utah and Arizona?
And the idea that "sexual orientation is a construct of advocacy groups that desired to convert a civil liberties issue into a civil rights issue" -- whose web page did you cut-n-paste that one from? A kid grows up, hits puberty, finds he's attracted to guys. He most likely has never encountered an "advocacy group." He just likes guys. It's corrupt of you to make someone's personal preferences into a political agenda.
PB
PB
Got work-related duties but will give you the response you deserve later this evening.
PB
Got work-related duties but will give your comments the deserved response later this evening.
Lightning Man
LMan,
thank goodness I don't have to pay attention to you any more as I am not a Christian and your "answers" all seem to be based in your personal religious beliefs. I know the two creation stories in Genesis without translation- marriage isn't mentioned.
Andrea
I accept Mr. Sprigg's desire to believe what he wants about God and religion, but his view of human history is extremely constrained. Firstly, and most importantly, this is a country composed of Christians and others, not a Christian country. The Constitution is a completely secular document.
Secondly, marriage was not created by God, even in the biblical sense. Many, many species pair-bond, some far more monogamously than humans. Humans lived in families with pair-bonded adults for millions of years before we even had a monotheistic concept of God. This kind of reasoning leads back to creationism which is pure nonsense from a scientific perspective, and has absolutely no place in the laws of a secular country with a secular constitution.
Mr. Spriggs and anyone else is free to believe and act as they please, as long as they don't inmpose those beliefs on others. It's called separation of church and state, and is the only reason the United States have remained united, for the most part, for the past two centuries and not ended up like the Balkans.
Andrea
Reread the creation story and note Gen 2:24. It's too bad you've rejected the idea of God. I can only imagine how depressing it must be to put all your hope in materialism.
These things aren't "personal beliefs", they're observed or revealed truths.
Dana
Please don't cite your credentials unless you've had peer-reviewed articles published. You don't want to get Jim started. I'll go ahead and get you off the hook by peer-reviewing your comments.
Our country began with the Declaration of Independence which explicitly mentions a Creator. I know other Christians who agree that this is not a Christian country (including the pastor at my church) but I think you've got it bass-ackwards. The country is no longer composed mainly of Bible-believing Christians but the frames of reference we refer to day in and out are of Christian origin and, thus, in that sense it really is a Christian nation. Want proof? Try to engage any member of our society in a discussion of morality and you'll find before long they'll be quoting Jesus- and won't even be aware of it. So, this is not a country composed of Christians but it is a Christian country.
God created all species but whether they're monogamous or not is irrelevant- they're not moral agents.
Humans have had a montheistic view from the creation, before sin came into the world and man had direct access to God. There are many ancient cultures they began to worship multiple false idols- usually based on materialism- but this was long after creation.
Creationism is not only not "pure nonsense from a scientific perspective", it's the most logical conclusion one could arrive at by empirically. The anthropomorphic principle was first cited in a peer-reviewed paper by a secular scientist who noted that the entire structure of the universe appears to be designed to facilitate the existence of human life on our planet. Time magazine last winter this one of the most persistent paradoxes of modern science.
I don't know what you mean by saying that creationism doesn't have any place in the laws of a secular country. If some other religious tradition (like atheism or Darwinism) tries to get the government to attack creationism, they should be stopped. The constitution says the government shouldn't make laws to "respect the establishment of a religion"- and that would include religions other than Christianity.
"the seperation of Church and state" is a mantra among certain elements of our society but the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution. Indeed, the constitution makes clear the government should protect the rights of citizens to hold religious belief and engage in religious speech and activity. The founding fathers were merely trying to avoid having the government take over religion (like the king had done in the Anglican church in England.) The phrase you mention originated in a speech by a president in the early nineteenth century but is not fundamental to our government.
Your idea that seperation of church and state has kept us unified is historically dubious. The 1960s, when secularism had reached its zenith in our country, was one our most divided periods.
the Lightning Man
I see, as I am not a Christian, I have rejected God and believe in materialism. Wow, so everyone not a Christian has rejected God. Since you think God equals Jesus- everyone has to believe that? Could you be just a tiny bit more narrowminded?
Genesis does not mention marriage. A man clings to his wife- what kind of marriage is mentioned or "ordained"? in one of the most well-known early ceremonies- Jacob is joined with Leah and then is joined with Rachel and has children with their servants as well. This is not considered a sin or wrong for Jacob to do so.
Andrea
Well, Andrea maybe I'm being unfair. I seem to remember you attacking religious belief on this blog many times, but I have have frequent senior moments where my memories fail me. What are your religious beliefs?
By the way, truth is not relative (although it's often surprising). If that's narrow-minded, so be it.
Well, Andrea maybe I'm being unfair. I seem to remember you attacking religious belief on this blog many times, but I have have frequent senior moments where my memories fail me. What are your religious beliefs?
By the way, truth is not relative (although it's often surprising). If that's narrow-minded, so be it.
Lightning Man, you mention a peer-reviewed paper by a secular scientist who noted that the entire structure of the universe appears to be designed to facilitate the existence of human life on our planet.
Would you happen to be able to give us the title or author of that paper? Are you talking about the "Gaia hypothesis?" Interestingly, I once referred to that hypothesis in a paper (they have a simulation that is very interesting), and the reviewers totally tore into me for it.
But what were you referring to?
JimK
Jim
It was a Czeck scientist at a conference back in the 70s. I'll try to find the reference a the church library tomorrow morning.
Jim,
I think he's referring to the anthropic principle, not Gaia. Either way, it makes for an interesting discussion in physics circles.
As for using my credentials, I am not using them in this discussion -- they're just part of my blogger ID. The credentials I could use for this particular discussion are my decades of Jewish study, so I don't think you should be quoting Torah with me around. Genesis 2:24, btw, refers to a man clinging to his woman; we've only glossed it as his wife in translation. And in those glorious days, the woman was the man's property. Why not return to that as well?
You lose me when you start talking about "the fall." I respect your right to believe that; I don't, and it turns me right off.
I still think this is not a Christian nation, and your calling it such only inflames the dialogue. I could just as easily say it's a Jewish nation, because just about anything Jesus said that is quoteworthy today had its origins in Jewish sources. Which he acknowledged, since he was Jewish and proud of it.
The problem is that America's vocal Christians today do not seem to be living by Jesus' words (you know, Sermon on the Mount and similar pronouncements), but become obsessed with a single verse in the Torah. And considering that the main attraction of Christianity in the olden days was removal of the need to obey the Torah, it's quite hypocritical to base an entire political movement on a quote from the Torah. And, yes, I know, Christians take the Hebrew Bible seriously as a source, but they DO NOT take it seriously as a code of law.
Thank you Dana, I see that Wikipedia has a chapter on "anthropic principle." Seems it started with a paper presented in Krakow, probably where the Czech angle came in.
So, we observe that our universe is suited to us, and then propose a backwards causality? This sounds like something a four-year-old would dream up: the world is good for me, therefore it was invented with me in mind... just weird.
OK, so if the universe had different properties, human beings would not have evolved as we did. So what? Maybe the creatures that did evolve would have been more intelligent than us. Maybe intelligent life would not have evolved at all. It seems weird to me to argue back from our existence to the origins of the universe. Like we still haven't accepted the Copernican truth that we are not the center of the universe.
JimK
Jim,
I think you capture the gist of the debate. Many physicists consider it nonsensical to even discuss it.
The interesting question, from which this debate derives, is why the critical physical constants turn out to be just what they are. A touch more here, a sprinkle more on that, and the universe is completely different.
Of course, as you said, if that were the case, we wouldn't be here to notice, so it's a bit absurd to even raise the question.
Dana
Sorry if I offended you with my "credential" remark. I was only trying to lighten the tone of the discussion with a little humor. Never seems to work, though.
I'm glad to learn a little about your background, though. I'll keep it in mind in responding to your comments.
One thing I think you're forgetting is that Gen 2:24 also says a man will leave his family and become one with his "wife." Jesus later referred to this verse when discussing marriage, saying "what God has joined together, let not man render asunder"
I don't think either the Old or New Testaments supports the idea that women are property of men. There is some support for the idea that spouses belong to each other. You might notice the status of women in countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage vs other parts of the world.
Regarding your remarks about Christian nation and Jewish nation, I actually think of Christianity as a sect of Judaism. We have a Judeo-Christian heritage. It's a fact- it shouldn't inflame anyone.
You're quite right that virtually everything said by Jesus came from the Old Testament. All the apostles were also Jewish. Thus my belief that are really different groups in the same religion.
Could you elaborate on this a little bit?:
"The problem is that America's vocal Christians today do not seem to be living by Jesus' words (you know, Sermon on the Mount and similar pronouncements), but become obsessed with a single verse in the Torah."
This comment:
" And considering that the main attraction of Christianity in the olden days was removal of the need to obey the Torah"
is actually incorrect. If you have a New Testament, you should look at the internal arguments of the early Church. Far from wanting to be freed from the Torah, many early Christians favored greater adherence to the Torah. Only relevation from God developed a correct view of the purpose of the Law. Basically, Christians believe in following the principle and not the letter. When Christians quote the Torah, they're invoking the relevant principles. Forgiveness is always available but that doesn't change wrong and right.
Hope all that wasn't too inflammatory. Let's get a Torah study club going at the local high school!
I apologize for missing the attempt at humor; I have often been attacked online for my credentials, not having precisely the correct credentials, etc. It has gotten old.
I have to disagree with you about Gen 2:24. The words in Hebrew are "ish," for man, and "isha," for woman. The imputation of isha as meaning wife came later, and is quite sexist. Ish is always used to mean just "man," so why would the generic word for woman mean wife?
As for women being property in ancient Israel, you're correct, they weren't property in the sense they were under English common law, for instance. And not treated as slaves were treated. But neither were they equals in any sense of the term as we use it today.
I agree with you that the US has a Judeo-Christian heritage. I don't think most people would disagree with that. I do know that doesn't mean the same thing to me as "this is a Christian nation." I also don't believe many fundamentalists respect my heritage, but only pay it lip service. I feel things have got better since I was a child and "Judeo-Christian" was used simply for political correctness. Since those days the "Jesus as Jew" movement began and developed and many Christians know their history better today.
As for the development of the church as a breakway sect of Judaism, that gets a little complicated. The original church was such, and the communities commingled. But once Paul broke with James the critical issues erupted and Christianity no longer could be considered a sect of Judaism. I know some people think of Chrisitanity as the means Judaism has used to spread its moral vision, and that's fine on a philosophical plane. But I don't think most Christians would be happy thinking of their religion simply as a vehicle for the spread of Judaism.
The sentence to which I refer is the classic Lev 18:22 followed by the nearly identical 20:13. When a religious community expends all its energy hating homosexuals on the basis of one out of 613 commandments, there is something seriously wrong. The obsession with things sexual says a great deal about those whose lives center on this issue. In Judaism it is simply not that big a deal, except among the orthodox. And there are a sufficient number of Biblical passages that counter those Priestly admonitions. I'm simply speaking of the moral code which Jesus emphasized and which has nothing to do with homosexuality (which Jesus never mentioned.) There are many moral issues with a Biblical pedigree (though I don't believe for one minute that morality originated with us, not by a long shot) that are never discussed by the Christian community in the political sense. And abortion is also very problematic from a Jewish perspective, and is not considered murder by any denomination.
If Christianity meant in the public square "Love thy meighbor," rather than "you're going to hell because I disagree with whom you love," I think you'd find a great deal more tolerance among the secular for religious expression. I can remember the great respect I had for liberal Catholics, for instance, back in the 60's in the anti-war movement, and the African-American church which was, for all intents and purposes, the civil rights movement. But those voices are rarely heard today.
Jim
I see there's no need to find that paper for you. Krakow, Prague, whatever. I looked at the wikipedia entry and it looked like an interesting discussion of the discussion.
One thing that may have escaped your notice is the observation that the physical forces of the universe seem to be independently "fine-tuned" to produce the same result. Recently, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers in the world- a man who spent decades circling the globe to debate theist philosophers and whose books are read in university philosophy couses- announced that he has become a theist and he cited the fine-tuning argument as what convinced him. As a man who spent his life studying the nature of evidence and proof, I think his conclusion is significant.
Hope you look into it but the original point of all this, if you remember, is that Dana had said that "creationism is pure nonsense from a scientific perspective" and yet they are estimable scholars- possibly more intelligent than the three of us- who disagree.
By the way, I forgot to ask: What was the Gaia hypothesis you mentioned? Any similarity to the anthropic principle?
Well, I'm off to church now and probably won't be doing any more posting until tomorrow night. We'll see if we can jack this baby up to a hundred posts.
The fact that order emerges from complexity is no longer surprising in science. When I just searched Google for [complexity order] I got 51,800,000 hits, and most of them discuss this interesting effect. Add [emergence] to that search and you still find more than three million web sites, almost all discussing this very phenomenon.
Emergence is amazing to us, that twenty billion neurons, for instance, can produce one ego, one mind, one self; that a bunch of astronomical bodies can find a regular state of orbit around some centers of gravity, when the formulas are too complicated for mathematicians to figure out; or that gases can mix with exactly the right combination so that the atmosphere neither bursts out in flame nor deteriorates into stale poisons, etc. We are surrounded by incredible examples of emergent order in complex systems.
This is amazing stuff because our minds are not capable of dealing with it, not necessarily because there's some superintelligence behind it all. Computer programs such as cellular automata can be parameterized to produce various kinds of complex or edge-of-chaos behaviors, without any randomness or complexity in the programs themselves. For fun, download a program called the Game of Life, and play with it. There are hundreds of versions of it on the Internet. Very simple rules, and very simple elements in the system, result in behavior that seems lifelike in its spontaneity and complexity.
Creationism is nonsense as a scientific concept. That doesn't mean scientists need to be faithless as private individuals. As I just noted, our minds are in awe of the unfathomable complexity of the world, we realize that we are incapable of understanding all of it at once, and even the richness of human experience convinces us that there must be more than just complex dynamic systems. But even if scientists believe in higher powers, there is never a need to insert those higher powers into any scientific theory as a causal force. And when they are inserted anyway, the result is nonsense. The stuff I hear these guys say about dinosaurs and Noah's ark ... it's nonsense.
In fact, I'll go out a limb here, and say I think religious principles are excellent for explaining human experience, and useless for explaining empirical phenomena observed in nature. As science extends its domain, and more of nature falls under the umbrella of valid knowledge, we will be challenged to reconcile these two things, the need to explain and understand human experience and the need to understand the world. I don't know where it will go, but it can't go back. The books that were written thousands of years ago may speak eloquently of the human heart, but their explanations of the causes of natural events, taken literally, are primitive.
You can read about the Gaia Hypothesis in Wikipedia, too: HERE. It's no big deal, but that's what I thought you were referring to. Well, it's interesting enough, I guess.
I don't want my statement about creationism to be misread. Creationism IS pure nonsense from a scientific perspective. It is NOT science. There is nothing about it that is scientific. That is true whether you believe the world was created in six days 6000 years ago, or whatever origin story you choose.
Is it possible that there is an intelligence that was involved in creating this universe? I don't know. Positing such a being doesn't help us understand anything, it doesn't lead to new testable hypotheses. And who or what created that intelligence? And what about other universes?
Jim put it very well, as did Steven Jay Gould when he coined the term "non-overlapping magisteria." Let science and theology go their own ways. If Anthony Flew is more comfortable in believing in God, or a God, all the power to him. But it's not science.
All this talk shows a very constraining parochialism in this country. IF you are fixed in your belief that the world (universe?) was created 6000 years ago, then it isn't unthinkable to imagine that the being who did so may have spoken to Abraham 3000 years ago, and Lao Tzu 2500 years ago, and Buddha 2400 years ago, and Jesus 1980 years ago, and Muhammad 700 years ago . . . But the facts are that humans have been around as the current species for 225,000 years, and as humans for 2-3 million years, and as moral, pair-bonding, tribal protohumans for 3 million more years before that . . . When you open your mind to the wondrous history of the universe, you may find yourself filled with awe and mystery, at which point believing the fairy tales of our childhood as literal truth may begin to pale a bit.
The problem is that far more people grow up being indoctrinated in the Bible as literal truth than are taught the principles of science and the history of this planet, this universe, this species.
I'd like to thank the two doctors (MD and PhD) for their scholarly replies to Lightning Man. I don't hold any post graduate degrees, but I also have a few responses and questions for him.
First, I have a comment. That's an interesting name you picked for yourself. In the mid-eighteenth century there was a popularly held belief that lightning was God's retribution for sin. It's the 21st century now and there aren't too many of us who fall for those old superstitions any more.
LM said, "Humans have had a montheistic view from the creation, before sin came into the world and man had direct access to God."
So between the time Genesis says life was breathed into Adam and his mate was crafted from his rib (creation) and the forbidden fruit was consumed (sin) denotes the period you claim humans had a monotheistic view. Who or what is your source for this information of monotheism during that time span? And how long was that time span between creation and sin?
LM said, "Creationism is not only not 'pure nonsense from a scientific perspective', it's the most logical conclusion one could arrive at by empirically."
By empirically what? What empirical data could be collected to prove there is a creator? None. It is due to this lack of observable data that there have been exactly zero empirical studies conducted on creationism. On the contrary, there have been thousands of empirical studies on numerous aspects of life on earth which support the theory of evolution.
Note: The chimpanzee genome shares much of it's genetic make up with the human genome. See
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html
and
http://www.genome.gov/11509418
LM said, "If some other religious tradition (like atheism or Darwinism)..."
Well, you are still allowed to express your opinion here in America. So am I. Darwin was a man who wrote a book called The Origin of the Species in which he postulated a theory of the survival of the fittest called evolution. He is not worshipped like your god. He is not credited with any creation myths. We don't sing his praises or pray to him for guidance. Science is not a religion, it is a field of study and discovery. Rather than being godlike Darwin was just a studious man, very much like a monk named Gregor Mendel. Darwin and Mendel lived at the same time and it was the monk Mendel who discovered the importance of "traits" and developed his own "laws of inheritance" when he was trying to prove Lamarck's theory of the influence of environment on plants. Mendel was attempting to study the influence of the environment on plants when he discovered unseeable (at the time) discreet units of inheritance (later named 'genes') instead.
Note: This perfectly illustrates one of B. F. Skinner's enduring observations about scientific study: Some things are discovered by accident. (Dr. Skinner discovered the extinction learning curve when one of his Skinner boxes ran out of lab rat food pellets one night.)
Oh, and how is it that we can see tiny subcellular and subatomic particles now that we couldn't seen in the 1850's and 60's? That would be due to scientific improvements in microscopy. Instead of the finely polished glass of compound or reflecting microscopes, we now use electron, phase contrast optical, and scanning tunneling microscopes. You know those X-rays, sonograms, PET scans, CAT scans and MRI's you rely on for diagnosis of medical conditions? Those were all created as a result of scientific study. Of course if you take your religion as seriously as some sects do, you don't care about medical advances and rely on shamans rather than medical doctors for treatment.
LM said, "The consitution says the government shouldn't make laws to 'respect the establishment of a religion'- and that would include religions other than Christianity."
Here's the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Goevernment for a redress of grievances."
See: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
There is no exception for Christianity.
LM said, "The phrase you mention (the establishment clause -- the government shall make no laws to establish religion) originated in a speech by a president in the early nineteenth century but is not fundamental to our government."
If you go to the US Constitution website referenced above, you will find that this First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1791. The first Ten Amendments to the US Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. To claim any of the Bill of Rights are not fundamental to our American democratic government is illuminating to say the least.
Ma
LM sez: Oof!
Thank you, Ma. You don't sound too ignorant yourself, even if you don't have an advanced degree.:-)
I'd like to make a point about fundamentalism and literalism, if I may. I hope Peter Spriggs is still reading.
I grew up in a fundamentalist community, and was taught in a fundamentalist day school, known as a yeshiva. Jewish fundamentalists are known as orthodox Jews, that is, they believe that the Torah was given to humans by God at Mt. Sinai, and that every word in it is a word from God. But these same Jews also believe that a man wrote it down, and that issues discussed at the time which were not written down became part of the oral traditon, later codified in the Talmud.
Now, being a Biblical literalist is one thing. As I said, orthodox Jews believe the Torah is the exact word of God. But humans have to read or hear those words, and then interpret them. There is no choice in this. There is no pure interpretation (this is called hermeneutics in philosophical circles these days).
So what to do? Jews developed a very elaborate system for interpretation, of which only the most literal and simplest (though oftentimes not vey simple in itself), called p'shat, is the first level. And p'shat is often not what we would call literal, but metaphorical. The other three levels delve more deeply, into allegory and deeper metaphors and mysticism and secret codes and the like. And no one level is considered privileged over any other. They are all valid.
That is accepted by all Jews, not just fundamentalists. It is that system of interpretation over the past 3000 years that has created Jewish civilization.
I find it sad, especially given the rich hermeneutical tradition of the Jesuit community in the Catholic world, that the publicly, politically religious Christians of today are stuck interpreting the Torah, as well as their Scripture, in only the most simple, and most simplistic manner, that wouldn't even qualify in most cases as p'shat.
And it is done often in a hateful, self-righteous manner, implying or stating outright that they know what the Bible says, and all others are sinners. Very sad. Very ignorant.
Dana
Don't have time to go through all the activity I've inspired but I'll try to get it tomorrow.
I did see (and haven't read closely yet) your latest interesting comments on hermaneutics. I did want to point out that various Christian groups have different ways of interpreting scripture. I personally- and most other evangelicals- don't believe in a literal interpretation but instead believe in a perspicuous interpretation.
Dana
Don't have time to go through all the activity I've inspired but I'll try to get it tomorrow.
I did see (and haven't read closely yet) your latest interesting comments on hermaneutics. I did want to point out that various Christian groups have different ways of interpreting scripture. I personally- and most other evangelicals- don't believe in a literal interpretation but instead believe in a perspicuous interpretation.
I've learned that Dobson and his ilk do not represent the evangelicals, and certainly do not represent Christians as a whole. They are fundamentalists, and not all evangelicals, probably not even a majority, are fundamentalists. Except insofar as everyone else has ceded the ground to them. They have not only taken control of the country and the Republican party, they have also taken control of the Christian community. I would think it is up to those Christians who do not believe as they do and hate as they do to seize back control and present a better face to America and the world. I hope it happens soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home