Neil / Mark / religious content

[Neil Jones]

On Friday 12 April 2002 06:47 am, Ron Gatrelle wrote:
> I changed the subject line as I think that is proper when threads go
> outside of the original topic.  Here we are way outside of it.  Neil
> introduced a religious point (creation) and it is continued here.  So if
> not interested - delete now.  Also, don't complain if you go ahead and read
> it.  We will just have to agree to disagree.  Neil will likely want to post
> one more on this ( for any clarification of his personal views) and then
> that should be it.  We can state our positions but we should not argue (to
> convince - or denigrate) on this one.  I state my view - and it is mine
> alone.

First of all can I make one point absolutely clear. Here in Britain we
are generally not religious at all. One statistic that I saw recently is that 
less than 2% attend Christian churches.
It is absolutely _normal_ not to be religious here. Deep religious faith is
_exceptional_. 

It is also not unusual amongst good American scientists. Some time ago
I saw some statistics from a survey of members of the scientific elite
the National Academy of Science. The highest percentage of  religious 
believers was in the Mathematicians and then it was only 6% !

It isn't my purpose to offend people in this posting. Just to give Ron an 
honest answer.

Also because of the paranoia I have to keep repeating.
_I_ don't_ want_ to_see_collecting_banned.!

> _______________________
>
> Neil, I have a couple of questions.  Not trying to stirr anything up.
> Just some expansion of your thoughts.  When you said
>
> " _However_ the evidence from this list shows that there is often a
> lamentable lack of logical and scientific thinking amongst certain
> collectors. "
>
> Is the reason you referred only to collectors (vs. say lepsters) simply
> because you were talking to one, or does this reflect a view that
> "collectors" in general don't utilize "scientific thinking"  while other
> lepsters (in general) do?   I think you meant the former, but it would be
> easy for (paranoid ;-) collectors who read that and perceive that this
> indicates an overall prejudice on your part.  So please expand the thought
> for clarification.

Later on in the posting I did clarify this by saying that it wasn't just the 
collectors. but they are the ones who need to be the most careful.
Collecting is justified by being scientific but collectors are falling for 
phony ideas and conspiracy theories. 
I don't collect butterflies but if I were in the USA I probably would but I 
wouldn't want the chore or responsibility of looking after a collection. I 
study lepidoptera in all sorts of ways. 

> You also said:
>  "You [Mark] believe in an obvious, hoax; a phony scam that seeks to
> deprive the world of proper scientific thinking. The so called "creation
> science". It has been _proven_ beyond the slightest glimmer of doubt to to
> be utterly false.
>
> " The bible _cannot_ be litterally true as you assert. It is full of things
> that are plainly incorrect. This doesn't invalidate its morality but it
> _cannot_ be litterally true."
>
> "Mark. to be utterly frank. You may like to call yourself scientific but
> until you drop your belief in this phony, crooked, tribal anti-science no
> proper scientist will regard your beliefs as founded in science."


>
> In saying this I get the impression you don't think that anyone who agrees
> with the Divine Creation of the Universe and/or the literalness of
> Scripture can be a proper scientist.  Is that correct?  If so, then you
> realize you call to question people like Dr. Don Lafontaine who is the Lep.
> Soc. president, a Canadian National Collection researcher,  systematist,
> born-again, Pentecostal, Christian, and lay minister.  His theology and
> mine are virtually the same, by the way.  We are both tongue talkin,
> evangelical, fundamentalists.  I don't see that our "religion" or belief in
> the God of the world's Jews, Moslems, and Christians as The Creator has
> anything to do with our "science" in dealing with Lepidoptera.
>
> If this is not what you meant to say please clarify.  In emails we do not
> always get across what we really mean or think.  I would hate for you to be
> misunderstood by those subscribed here who belong to the God-of-Abraham
> faiths and as such are thus "creationists," and by virtue of that one
> thing, think that you are saying they are all incapable of being "proper"
> scientists.

Ron, I think you must know what I mean because we have been through it before.
It all centres around whether you accept _evolution_. I know from what you 
have said previously you _do_. It is such a really obvious truth.
Mark has stated several times that he does not belive in evolution and 
repeated the odd ideas of "Creation Science".

>
> Ron Gatrelle
>
> PS.  If that is your opinion, I will disagree, but allow you to have it
> (not argue the point).   I just want to make sure that if that is how
> broadly you view this issue (or not) that you are correctly understood by
> all.  Now, the reason I have no problem with you holding that position is
> that if there is no creation, just pure natural evolution, then you would
> be totally correct.  This whole tread is way off leps as it is, but I will
> add that if there is no creation then there is no God (in the
> Jewish/Moslem/Christian tradition) for that is the central element that
> makes Him such in those faiths.  

To make a point firmly and paraphrase you. "if there is no evolution there is 
no biology". To be more accurate the phony  baloney of  "Creation Science"
cannot in way be correct. If it were then all of biology is wrong,all of 
physics,and all of a whole host of other sciences.
I have a great dislike of frauds and scams. Creation Science is a _fraud_ 
PERIOD. It does not mean that Christianity is bad. Lots of Christians do not 
accept this deception _including_ the pope!. I am not saying that It is 
baloney because _I_believe_it is but because _I_ know_with_absolute_
certainty _from_logic_and_science_ that it is. 

I put this phony  "Creation Science" stuff in the same category as the.
International Flat Earth Research Society.
see this
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Here is a salient quote from a leading figure Charles K. Johnson. "The whole 
point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no 
up and no down. The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big 
joke."  And folks he is sincerely serious about it!

This is also based on a litteral interperatation of the Bible. It is quite 
clear that people _did_ believe the earth was flat in biblical times.
I think people will realise that this is the kind of thing I mean by the 
Bible not being literally true.

> Thus, in Christianity, anyone who does not
> believe in God as creator can not truly be Christian. 

I am not a Christian then. Let me clarify that by saying Jesus was a good guy 
and of course his morals are good ideas to follow. I do not , however, 
believe in the virgin birth as I see it no different from  a whole host of 
other deities  supposedly born from virgins. It is a common theme in a lot of 
mythologies. We actually once had a Church of England Bishop who didn't 
believe in the virgin birth. There are other holes in the biblical story too.


>They are just
> religiously pseudochristians.  Millions of people are very good and moral
> persons without being involved in a formal religion - so why belong to a
> Christ Faith (God was incarnate) where there was/is no such thing?    (No
> answer wanted or needed.)
>
> PPS   I do understand that Neil is not agaist these "religions" or the
> people in them  -  just creationism and a Divine Creator as fact.

For the most part that is correct. If people wish to be religious then that 
is up to them. I cannot accept religion as a personal belief and this is 
probably an inherant characteristic of the way my brain is wired .The morals 
are good I just cannot agree with  the Bible being _factual_.
Like you, however, I dislike it when religion keeps people ignorant and 
uneducated. 

Let me just finish with just a few points. There is one popular Christian 
offshoot which started in the USA.  It has litterally millions of adherents.
One of its supplementary holy works is based on a supposed
divinely inspired translation of an Egyptian Scroll. This was performed
before research led to the decipherment of hieroglyphics. The divine 
translation claims to be an additional story about a central biblical 
character. However, today we can read ancient Egyptian. Guess what?
The scroll actually contains details of an Egyptian funeral rite. In other 
words the other translation is a proven _fraud_. (it is not the only fraud 
with this sect.) Yet millions still believe in it. 

Ron, My view is more agnostic than truly atheist.
However, let me explain my views to you in this way.  I don't mean to sound 
offensive but I hope you follow the logic. You are actually very very close 
to being an atheist. Out of all the countless thousands of deities that 
humans have or currently worship in all their varieties you only believe in 
_one_. When you understand why you don't believe in all the others you will 
understand why I don't believe in any of them.


--
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.butterflyguy.com/
NOTE NEW WEB ADDRESS
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl