Be A Voice For Change

Sometimes, you realize that the perpetuation of lies breeds hatred toward a particular ethnicity or group of people. Sometimes, you spot propaganda and call it what it is. Sometimes, you realize the ignorance of others as detrimental to society.  All people, of all lifestyles deserve to be respected.  It does not mean we acquiesce to their beliefs or behaviors, but as human beings we ought to respect one another with sincerity, rather than a hypocritical false humility.

I decided to speak up yesterday on a friend's thread.  This particular propaganda cartoon has been shared 5,781 times and has conjured the approval of nearly 31,000 people.  I knew my perspective would not be received, but I wanted to be a voice that called the propaganda what it was, a lie.  We must be concerned, that today's mainstream ideologies nullify the principle liberties of human life that we have termed "self-evident" and "unalienable."  The following conversation played out more like a debate (because what Facebook conversation doesn't?) This was my opportunity to be a voice, and I hope it shows that there is more than one to be heard.

March 31 at 9:08pm ·

ScienceDump

Science! Best served with as few preconceived notions as possible.

Like · Comment · Share

• 6 people like this.
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir Jesus died for your Bunsen burner!

  Yesterday at 2:12am · Like
• 

  Ryan Jackson Please hear my side of the argument, I know that you are kind of enough to respect my perspective Michelle, and that's why we're buds...
  
  The following quote is from David Berlinski, who received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. Berlinski is not religious, but is agnostic and leans more towards atheism, however he quotes;
  
  "Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” 
  
  Science and religion are not at war. John Polkinghorne is one of the world's leading theoretical physicists and is also an Anglican priest. John Lennox is a triple doctorate in mathematics from Cambridge and Oxford and is now professor of mathematics at the university of Oxford. He is also one of the leading voices of the relationship between science and religion.
  
  Scientists are all across the board. Many are theists many are atheists, and that's okay (the discipline does not necessitate one or the other.) Science simply tells us the how about the reality we exist in, but it says nothing of the why. The how and why can coexist, but not to the one who has no interest in the why. To say that philosophy and religion are inadequate to the empirical sciences is to overstep the boundaries of the discipline. It's time we quit bullying and keep an open mind, on both sides of the fence! (I love you...)

  23 hrs · Like
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir If there is no proof the find religion factually correct then there is no reason to entertain the idea of it anymore than that of underwear gnomes and dragons.

  23 hrs · Like
• 

  Ryan Jackson Define proof.

  23 hrs · Like
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir Direct cause and effect.

  23 hrs · Like
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir When religion says 'gays cause earthquakes' and masses believe it without reason.... that is just a grand example of idiocy and the danger of religion. If evolution cannot be taught in Texas schools... that is idiocy and detrimental to society. Religion makes things up for its own selfish gains and touts schizophrenia as 'the voice of god'... That is foolishness that all too often leads to fascism. Religion says 'Here, I made this up and if you don't believe you will be sent to some horrible place for eternity.' Science retorts with 'Prove it.'

  23 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Shawna Benda
  

  

  23 hrs · Like · 2
• 

  Ryan Jackson Can scientific naturalism sufficiently provide a sound cause for the universe? At one point, we believed the universal to be eternal, then Big Bang shook up cosmology. The universe has a definite beginning. In order to account for that cause, we have turned to theories that are void of a credible proof, such as the multiverse. Now, that's not to say you need to employ such a theory. Stephen Hawking wrote that because gravity exists, the universe was able to be brought into being. In answer to this John Lennox replies, "If I say, “X creates Y”, this presupposes the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. If I say “X creates X”, I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."
  
  There are many things science cannot prove by the discipline of science. Therefore, to live as if science is the only means by which something is proved is untenable. For instance, rationality and logic cannot be empirically verified. Science can posit a list of findings and evidences, but it takes a rational conscious to determine what is logically consistent. 
  
  I am currently reading "Night" by Eli Wiesel, the autobiographical account of Eli being torn from his home, thrown into the ghettos, and then being hurled into the nightmare of Auschwitz. What was Auschwitz, except the place where unbridled sciences were allowed to run their experiments void of ethical direction. Hitler's final solution was to eliminate inferior races, according to a social Darwinian theory. Now that's not to stab at Darwin, but Mengele's experiments were guided by an interest in heredity, in order to create the perfect Aryan. Science can tell you how to do that, but it will not tell you if the mindless slaughter of 6 million innocent people is morally reprehensible. According to science alone, there can be no moral point of reference.
  
  We simply do not arrive at an honest perspective of reality simply by using the empirical sciences. None of the sciences has disproven the eyewitness testimony of men and women of the first century claiming a man rose from the dead and left an empty tomb. We have to critique that from another scholarly perspective and from an honest academic position, I believe that the accounts of the gospels are good history.
  
  So as to answer the question of sufficient cause and effect, science alone cannot render a sufficient cause to the origin of the universe, the emergence of conscious life, the meaning in human existence, or the point of reference employed to determine what is moral.

  23 hrs · Like
• 

  Ryan Jackson Eirikke, I agree with you! The masses should never mindlessly be swayed by illogical and irrational propaganda, especially when it results in the persecution of a particular people. Now have religious people been guilty of this in the past, absolutely. People have waged war in the name of religious ideology. But, in all honesty, so has political atheism. The 20th century saw more political regimes founded under the banner of atheism, and has destroyed more lives, than all of the previous centuries put together. It can be adequately stated that both religious and no religious people can be extremely dangerous. 
  
  Therefore, I pose the assertion that not all ideologies are equal, nor should they be given equal value in terms of what they purport. This is the opposite of today's philosophy of relativism and that we should be tolerant of every idea floating around. I believe every worldview can be investigated to its logical out working. For instance, I believe that certain faiths make claims that should not be followed. Such as claims that advocate violence and teach hate in the Quran. I can study historical origins of myth and legend and prove them to be adulterated and subsequently false. I can also see how certain philosophies like Nihilism and scientific materialism can pose as threats to society if brought to their logical end.
  
  Yet, I am intrigued by the life of Jesus. I agree that christians carried out horrendous anti-Semitic acts and participated in the crusades in the Middle Ages, and have made extremely narrow minded jests in recent times. I will be the first to agree. But that does not deter me from the simple and tender life of Jesus of Nazareth. I am fascinated by the historicity of the accounts that give claim to this figure. I am astounded by the faithfulness of those who died in Roman arenas upholding what they believed to be true (some 30 years from the actual event.) I agree that christians throughout the ages have been guilty of atrocity, but in carrying out such atrocities were in direct transgression of their faith. I delight in the study of Jesus, his meekness and compassion, and yet I can draw no direct line to where he advocates the hatred or persecution of any. If He was the Son of God, sent to reveal the Father's nature and will to us, then I see that God is good and just and love, and that all that bear his name and act contrary to that are in violation of that fundamental doctrine. 
  
  I cannot say the same about scientific materialism or even Islam. Their deeds may be justified, by what they believe. Not all ideologies are equal and not all should be tolerated, but still this has not aided the notion that science and religion should be opposed.

  22 hrs · Like
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir We don't have to have a cause for the universe. We can continue to search for one. Not having one doesn't validate religion, it merely states we have more to discover.
  
  You don't need religion to have 'morals' or to be a decent person. In fact, religion seems to hinder that. The most hateful legislation is always religion backed.
  
  Just because you believe something doesn't give it merit or truth.
  
  Morals are determined by those who create them. They are not absolute and do not exist outside the mind of man. Science can describe the emergence of conscious life. The lack of definition of a 'sufficient cause' for the universe is not a detriment to science nor a boon to religion. Just because science has stated no 'sufficient cause', in your opinion, for the origin of the universe, does not mean religion has any use or truth to it. It simply means that we haven't discovered it yet or it doesn't exist, like gods... or dragons.

  22 hrs · Like
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir Science has provable and repeatable results... Religion has made up falsehoods that can be changed on a whim to semantically bamboozle the foolish.

  22 hrs · Like
• 

  Ryan Jackson Eirikke, you make a valid point. Religion can be twisted and warped to suit the fancies of demagogues. I agree, however, when morality is twisted and warped to mean whatever it means in one's opinion, is that not how we arrived at Nazi Germany? What moral reference point then did we employ at the Nuremberg Trials? 
  
  I find the absence of objective morality scary... Is it then justifiable that Isis throws gays off cliffs? I guess it's okay for them, just not for us in America, but then again we wish not to denounce another's personal opinion, thus their morality... Should we adopt the practice? Obviously not. It is objectively wrong. That ideology of independent morality is terrifying, and in all actuality no one lives that way. 
  
  I have one question however, can science prove your last statement? How could you repeatedly test and affirm, scientifically, that "Religion has made up falsehoods that can be changed on a whim to semantically bamboozle the foolish." You are no longer using empiricism to validate that claim. Thus, why would I find it reasonable to only look to the sciences to determine what I believe to be true about reality?
  
  Science gives scientists reasons to believe or not to believe in God, which therefore asserts that science does not lead one toward belief to one extent or another. It is an altogether different motive that leads to such reasoning, the presuppositions held by the researcher. Eirikke, I know we could go back and forth all day, and it is not my desire to win an argument, but to voice my view. I also would like to hear what you believe, I respect your opinion. You are a fellow human being with value and you have a right to your belief. I will not respond in any more style of debate. I simply want to know what you believe about how we came to be, what meaning there is to life, how we decipher what is right or wrong, and what happens when we die. Everyone answers those questions in some way. It develops our worldview. If you are interested in answering my question, leave that reply. I see that we have a differing worldview, but I do not believe that science has objected to mine, just some presuppositions that certain scientists hold. 
  
  But off the record, why not believe in dragons!? They're awesome! Every civilization has its dragon lore! That points to something, I don't know what, but in conjunction with the sciences, I hope we figure out what it is! (Dinosaurs?) Nessie?

  22 hrs · Like
• 

  Eirikke Emilsdottir You can't have 'objective' morality if morals don't exist outside the human mind.
  
  You can prove that by merely following historical documentation of their doctrine and action.
  
  I don't believe in any absolute meaning of life. we are consequences of physics. pieces of the universe just smart enough to be foolish enough to seek 'meaning'. I don't greatly trouble myself with questions that presuppose something actually exists when that thing is a mental abstract at best. 'meaning' is inherently subjective as it is tied so tightly with emotion. It is a want without ultimate reward at best. We can ascribe whatever meaning we wish, as there is no real answer.
  
  As for dragons... I would merely assume they are simply an archetype of fear.

  21 hrs · Like
• 

  Zac Holzapfel
  

  

  20 hrs · Like · 1