I am a kind, open minded, and cooperative person who has come to the personal conclusion that all religions are divisive and of no value to progress of human values, ethics, and morals in the 21 century. I see Genesis exactly as the evidence shows- a fictional story written by an ancient middle eastern priestly caste to keep power. Treating Genesis or for that matter the entire Old Testament and New Testament as anything more is a step backwards in human values, ethics and morals.
Great! I want to cooperate with you.
Fair enough. Letâs just be realist about this then. Even if you are right, religion is not going away. If we can cultivate less divisive engagement between religious and non-religious voices, that would serve the common good. Letâs serve that common good together.
Iâm comfortable with you holding that belief. You do not have to change to participate here.
One way you can serve the common good with us is by respecting those with whom you disagree, and seeking to understand their point of view. Iâve observed real good can take place with atheists, such as yourself, do just this. It breaks down stereotypes, and helps them understand that not all atheist are as belligerent as they expect.
Glad you are here @Patrick, and I hope you stick around. Please do post here about what you are finding in ancient genomes and other interesting issues in human origins. Inviting people into the awe and wonder of it all is another effective way to move us forward.
Peace.
I respect people with whom I disagree with but I donât respect their beliefs. I have seen to much where beliefs harm people. So if I feel that a personâs belief can harm themselves, me, my family, their family, their children I donât stand idly by and say âI must respect their beliefsâ No, call them out and say why they are harming themselves, their children , the community.
1 Like
You can do whatever you want on the street. But you will have to curb your natural tendencies on @swamidassâs forum.
I have seen the same. Certainly explain why you think false beliefs are wrong. However, you arguments are only going to be effective if you understand what you are arguing against. It is counter intuitive, but we can be most convincing when we set aside proving other people wrong, and instead seek to understand. Good and honest questions can do more to destabilize false beliefs than an all out assault. The case we make when people ask us for our opinion is far more effective than pushing a case before we are asked.
Setting an example is extremely effective too. If we show people that we are looking to voluntarily give ground, so that we can shed false beliefs, that communicates real confidence. It can embolden others to do the same.
There is a large range of religious beliefs. Some are going to be less objectionable than others. For example, the fact that I believe murder and lying are wrong, is a good belief, that I am sure you are glad about. We also both affirm evolutionary science. Even if my reasons for believing these things is different from you, it is an example of a good sort of common ground. Affirming common ground is important. Without common ground, there is no real opportunity to see change.
He can do what he wants, but his current approach is totally unconvincing. In the end, we have to decide if we want to participate in the reality of our moment, which is currently intractably pluralistic. The only way forward is to build uncommon partnerships across the divides.
My aim is not to convince anyone of anything. As science progresses, reason will prevail. I am very confident of that and very optimistic for the future. I think what folks like yourself, George, and others on this board donât really appreciated is how rapidly the US is going secular. Western Europe and Australia is now so secular that in countries like Iceland, 0% believe that God created the universe. The question of whether there was an Adam who is genealogical related to all mankind is so removed from the real problem humanity faces in the 21st century, that it is somewhat humorous that educated intelligent people spend time debating. I read your recent scientific paper. That is good work, and good science. It aim is at helping people. That is what secular humanism is all about. It is the promise of the Enlightment and makes a good case for reason, science, humanism and progress.
Itâs really a matter of where the problems are, donât you think? You appear to present the position that religion is so irrelevant (and dangerous?) that even trying to teach evolution to religious people is a hazard.
But thatâs not the way I read the tea leaves.
If I lived in Iceland, I would still participate on these boards for the simple reason that a Science-Denying America is a hazard for the whole world. If we were in the Clinton years, maybe Iâd be tempted to go along with you and not worry so much about all this.
But since the Clinton years, we got the elimination of the Fair Doctrine Act (equal time for opposing views), the rise of Rush Limbaugh on Radio & TV, and then FOX NEWS.
And now we have the FOX NEWS candidate in the White House.
I think you would be perfectly happy on some Atheist site, or some Christian site ⌠doing battle for Truth, Justice and who knows what else. But Atheism is not the high road of resolving the concentration of power now in the hands of Science-Denying Evangelicals. These folks, and their children, favor religion. They favor God.
And the goal is to teach them that they can have God - - AND
also embrace the divine witness of science and natural laws that guide everybodyâs future.
People have dropped off from the mission as defined by groups like BioLogos ⌠why? Not because they arenât worried ⌠but because they donât think the moderate zeal of Christian Evolutionists is equal to the task of bringing down the Almighty Zeal of Evangelical Science Deniers.
If you can stick with the program, @Patrick, you can be helpful in explaining science to those who seriously lack an awareness of it. But muddying the waters by trying to teach against God too⌠thatâs essentially playing into the hands of those who oppose evolutionary science.
Letâs agree that we donât need to play into those hands, yes?
Yes, I do that the position that religion is both irrelevant and very dangerous. Look at the problem in the world today. Reason, Science, and global cooperation is the only way to solve them. Religion by its very nature is divisive. It is either the cause of the problems or stymies solutions to those problem.
We are fighting wrong-minded religion with better-minded religion. You will have your turn⌠But if you canât be patient, all you are going to do is prove to the YECs that where there is Evolution there is Atheism.
I am not trying to teach against God. That would be ridiculous as I donât believe there are God(s). This board and the Biologos board attempt to explain the science and reason that humanity has painstakingly discovered.
I agree with you that science and natural laws do guide everybodyâs future. But debating whether your God or someelseâs God does or doesnât guide these processes doesnât help solve the problems. It only slows down the progress of the science. Or it impedes the progress by causing wars, terrorism, in the name of God.
What you are describing, @patrick, is that the best way to unseat the grappling hold on the country by Evangelicals is to denounce the Christian God. A full-on frontal attack on the Evangelicals. Canât you agree that this is not only unproductive, it also confirms the bias against the contagion alleged to be within Evolutionary science.
Doesnât Truth in Advertising require you to establish your own âdiscourseâ website, perhaps labeled: âDaring Evangelicals Everywhere to Confront the Truth that your God Doesnât Existâ.
In fact, please do so. Because if you canât align yourselves to the goals described by @swamidass, you are going to be doubly unpopular.
Wow⌠so many shibboleths, so little truth. Itâs sad, reallyâŚ
Iâm pretty sure that @patrick is not going to be motivated by that. Letâs give him some space.
That is great common ground. Iâll take it. If you can focus on that, you can do some real good here. I appreciate your help engaging @scd, for example. I just do not have the time to manage questions from him. If you can keep your objections to religion separate from the science, you could make some real headway with him.
What are your thoughts on Martin Luther King Jr? He writes:
But America, as I look at you from afar, I wonder whether your moral and spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress. It seems to me that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress.
Essay: "Grieve the Segregation of Science" by S. Joshua Swamidass
I do not know how scientific progress helps us deal with the injustice of our world. Science can neither see nor end injustice. It cannot even tell us that the segregation of St Louis, where I live is wrong. I am in a totally secular environment, governed by science, but scientists here are looking for things outside science to deal with injustice.
It seems that MLK was on to something. A scientifically advanced society is not necessarily a just society. In our case, scientific advances have not made us more just.
It seems that you have had very negative experiences with religion. I have had similar negative experiences. @Patrick, Iâm sorry for that, even though I had no personal role in what you did. I hope you are able to find healing.
We need productive and positive voices that can speak with greater authority than science to deal with some of the most pressing challenges we face in our fractured society. We need people who can speak with the same authority as MLK, and that authority does not come from science.
1 Like
Iâm glad we are on the same page now. Remember back when you wrote this?
We do care a great deal about having the science right here. We are going to use different language sometimes, which can be confusing. Nonetheless, Iâd really appreciate your help keeping us up today and clear. Thanks.
No, the Evangelicals will unseat themselves. What we are seeing in this country today is Christianityâs last gasp.
Demographics and the rise of the ânonesâ to the majority will remake the US to be more like secular Western Europe. In a most perverse way, Trump and Fox News has hasten the process which has been going on in the background for decades.
Our country was never a Christian country. Christians, also, are loosing political power. That is probably for the best. Our faith, however, does best when it does not have political power, so I am not afraid.
Well, thanks for granting that we are âeducated and intelligentâ 
.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
I do appreciate that the country is becoming more secular (note the doubling of the godless-evolution view). However, at the same time, society is becoming more fractured and isolated in echo chambers. From personal points of view, it is not possible to have a good sense of how big someone elseâs echo chamber is. Right now, you are in the secular echo chamber. But there is also, for example, an anti-evolution echo chamber. That echo chamber is quite large, about twice a large as the secular view.
Take a look at this:
Creationism poll: How many Americans believe the Bible is literal, inerrant, or symbolic.
44% of US in 2014 holds that Adam and Eve were real people. That is a lot of people. Perhaps they do not run your circles, but we still share a country together. For that reason, it is certainly worth engaging these beliefs.
You are right as the first amendment guarantees that our government is secular and cannot favor one religion over another nor favor any religion over non-religion.
Look deeper at the numbers especially with respect to age. Millennials (those under 35) are already over half ânonesâ. The baby boomers (those over 60) are still over 70% Christian/Catholic. They (predominately white males) are the FOX news demographics. They are aging fast and will be overtaken in power by the Millennials within a few years. Within a few years the survey about will look more like Europe and Austrialia does today. It is not going to matter who Adam was or whether he existed at all.
This is very much contrary to genome science. A single person, male or female, living any time before 6 kya has zero impact on anybodyâs genome today. Genghis Khan may be in my genealogy but he has had no impact on my genome.
Perhaps you arrived here with more or less zero awareness of the the mathematical trials on genealogy⌠as opposed to genetics. The difference is important. Using exponential expansion, Charlemagne could have 20,000,000 potential descendants (genealogically speaking, even though only a small portion would have any trace of his genetics). But at no point in Earthâs history would there be 20,000,000 people.
The difference between theoretical and actual is due to Pedigree Extinction⌠which happens when latter generations, not even aware that they are 4th, 5th or 6th cousins, marry. [[ By the way, almost half of Americaâs states have laws that allow 1st Cousins to marry. ]]
Each time a cousin marries a cousin, a whole slice of oneâs potential ancestors collapses onto the other.
If you were God and wanted the whole world to be descended from Charlemagne, you would influence events so that one or two adults went to every occupied region on Earth, and successfully mated with at least one person. Multi-iteration computer runs show that, even with extremely conservative migration assumptions, the whole planet could be descended from the key man (in this case, Charlemagne⌠or Adam), within 2000 years.
The one catch is that there will be several other (presumably irrelevant or uninteresting) Universal Ancestral Pairs. In other words, Charlemagne/Wife, plus 12 other couples alive at the time of Charlemagne, will all be âequally universalâ.
So, if we hypothesize a âspecial creationâ of a holy human pair, in the middle of 10,000 evolved humans (created by evolution instead of special creation), 6000 years ago - - by 4000 years ago (or 2000 BCE) - - all humanity could be descended from the holy human pair, and a couple of dozen other couples that came out of the 10,000.
In short, for those Christians who are fixated on Original Sin, and being descended from Adam, the math shows that genealogy (which is more political or definitional, than genetic) is much more influential than 46 unique chromosomes could ever be. Genetic influence gets halved with each generation⌠while genealogical influence is expanded by an exponent of 2 each generation.
1 Like
Genealogy shows the genomic signature of inequality. A relative small number of powerful males living during the Mongol period succeeded in having an outsize impact on billions of people living in East Eurasia today. One single male who lived around the time of the Mongols left many millions of direct male-line descendants across the territory that the Mongols occupied.