91热爆

Sorry to nag Will, but I think it was published on the 24th of November, not the 22nd?

Not that the exact publication date in November 1859 is that important for a momentous book that explained to people in the world (at least those people who didn't use its pages to tear bits of paper and make them into eaplugs, then go 'LALALALA, can't hear you Darwin, LALALALA, praise God! LALALALALA') how the diversity of life on our planet came about.:)

Hello Will,

It wasn't wikipedia for me, but you're very close.:) The NCSE is apparently also hopping along with the wikpedia version:



From Historylink.org

"Murray printed 1,250 copies of the book, all of which were purchased by wholesale subscribers on the first day of availability, November 22, a few days before the official publication date."

H. L. Mencken covered the Scopes trial, not exactly impartially, and the collection of his reports is well worth reading:

erm.. I thought W&T said it was trying to avoid using the term fundamentalist?

Never yet seen a working definition of the term on this blog???

;-)

Why would someone produce a radio drama in 2009 when the superb movie Inherit the Wind was made decades ago. It is still the masterpiece it always was. It is hard to imagine that a radio drama could hold a candle to the classic movie. Among the actors were Spencer Tracey, Fredrick March, Claude Akens, Dick York, Gene Kelly, and Harry Morgan. Highly recommended. Of all the versions this is the one to see. Made in 1960.



Nominated for four Academy Awards but lost all four of them.

The full length version is not available on video on demand on the internet yet but here's some trailers.

Nice one, Will - David is always interesting to listen to (even though I don't think he quite understands the implications of evolution as science). Presbyterianism definitely took a turn for the worse with Cooke in the 1830s & 40s. Imagine what would have happened if Montgomery and the Non-Subscribing group had won out - we'd likely be a far more rational, free-thinking society. Maybe there's an opportunity to correct the mistake?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that the fundamentalists are not out to get you...

>8-D

Will, I'm only teasing. Call it "biologist bias" - we biologists don't think anyone other than biologists can really do justice to the beauty of evolution :-). The real reason for the gentle jibe is that I think he had a couple of opportunities to go for the jugular the last time you had him and Peter Bowler on against the twofer of the Young Earth Creationists. I thought they were *good*, but could have been better, but then that's radio. David is a good guy (I've never met him personally, actually), and I always enjoy it when you have him on. By way of encouragement, you don't need to have a creationist on to put "the opposing view", any more than you need to have a flat earther on to counter the view of an astrophysicist, so I thought the Sunday show was good.

Cheers,
-H

Will

You say the nicest things!!!

"OT, you're doing it again. You are the most paranoid contributor I've ever encountered."


Err... would this be the same William Crawley that repeatedly asks people not be personal and attacking in their posts???


I'm using the tongue in cheek symbole for the second time on this thread;-

;-)

OT


PS Its a fair cop on this occasion Will ie your explanation. But it still does seem to crop up so regularly without anyone defining it!

btw I'm a bit mystified why you keep calling people paranoid on this blog if they post something you dont like but which is within the house rules Will.

It sort of suggests a lack of tolerance and inclusivity.

Is the only person allowed to test world views in Northern Ireland William Crawley???

;-)

Also, do I really see theological reds under the beds???

Hmmmm. Maybe. Feel free to discuss. Im quite relaxed about it.

I guess Will that it does appear to me that W&T and SS consistently carry features which challenge/ridicule/scrutinise conservative Christianity.

I rarely if ever see the same level of scrutiny applied to humanists, environmentalists, feminists, liberals or sexual libertines who so regularly appear to get a relaxed platform.

eg mature men who fully justify themselves havng sex with numerous 17-year-olds AND get invited back on again for a longer TV interview!

While W&T repeatedly solicits info from gossipmongers at Whitewell.
Obviously Jim McConnell has not proven himself the right type for an easy interview on SS / W&T in comparison!

;-)

Instead, W&T repeatedly creates platforms to fan the flames of tension, with repeated visits to try and dig up stories on Whitwell. And what as the worst that has been found? I'll tell you.

Whatever it was, it certainly wasnt advocating sleeping with endless 17-year-olds.

Does that make me paranoid? Well, feel free to discuss it.

It IS a discussion board and I'm just discussing within the house rules.

Your strapline above says;-

"91热爆 Northern Ireland presenter William Crawley discusses the often controversial political, religious and ethical issues of the day."

Controversial?

OK. I'm just joining in.

Even paranoid people are allowed in. Arent they?

:-)

OT

Dunno. Are we?

Will - don't lose hope. You are witnessing the implosion of a peculiar variant of Northern Irish Christianity. The good news is that you helped create this implosion. Was it on this blog that someone claimed that you could reason anyone out of any position if you had good enough reasons? They clearly hadn't met OT. Some people have too much to lose by thinking rationally; there is no point in wasting much time on them. Concentrate on the audience, not the nutter.

"The trouble with extreme forms of self-righteousness is that, no matter what you say or what you do, you will only ever achieve proving THEM right in the first place."

Dont know who said it but I think it was somebody wise.

Incidentally, I read David Livingstone's very interesting 2000 article in ISIS on BB Warfield. I had always thought of Warfield as a bit of a fruitcake because of his bizarre inerrantist theological notions (this remains the case), but hadn't realised that he was a firm supporter of evolution and Darwin. Now *his* understanding of evolution certainly seems a little suspect, in that I would quibble over what he felt "natural" processes were able to achieve, but to be fair these were the days before genetics came along and effectively proved it. In some ways it's interesting to see how some of the ideas in science were taken up by those not actually involved in the process of discovery, but to his credit, Warfield could *see* these processes going on in domestic cattle. Who would have thought that 150 years after "The Origin", certain theologians and philosophers - chinstrokers and armchair preachers - (cue ref to Jerry Fodor and Alvin Plantinga again) would be making such twits of themselves and getting the wrong end of a stick that even the "fundamentalist" *Warfield* was able to grasp fairly well! In the 19th century!

"it does appear to me that W&T and SS consistently carry features which challenge/ridicule/scrutinise conservative Christianity."

Okay - I'm guess that I'm a conservative Christian. Do I feel that Will's unfair to me?
Only when I'm criticisng 'Battlestar Galactica'.

GV

And obviously, he'd only promote Battlestar Galactica as part of a liberal conspiracy...

He's always promoting liberals like Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff...

And the way he just swallows the New Atheists, and never gives their critics any air time...

Oh noes! Too much diversity! My tiny brain can't cope.

The historian of ideas David Livingstone was my guest in the studio today. He will be giving a lecture tomorrow night (at 7.30 p.m. in Fitzroy Presbyterian Church).

I wonder if any of the YECs that seem to be so prevalent within the ranks of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland were there ?

The Presbyterian Church appears to be riddled with YECism these days, and I would imagine a majority of ministers within the denomination are YEC (have any surveys been done on this ?). Just as an example, Dr. Monty White (former CEO of AiG (UK)) spoke at Belfast City Mission,the church's outreach arm, a couple of years ago. Though the official line isn't YEC and they allow for different views (their press officer, Stephen Lynas has told me this), that isn't what is reflected in reality. The denomination is the only one of the four main churches here that hosts AiG/CMI talks.

"I would imagine a majority of ministers within the denomination are YEC"

Suppose they are. What follows? They may not be dogmatic about their beliefs.

My minister let slip that he was YEC; and then was falling over himself the next week to reassure everyone that it wasn't an issue he'd hold strong opinions on. My wife refuses to debate the age of the earth with a husband who can't remember what time he was supposed to pick the kids up. When I get that right, I can start discussing other issues.


Suppose most ministers guess that the Science allows for a young universe. Most people would estimate the speed of light incorrectly, or get impatient with descriptions of QM.

Wouldn't it be more important that ministers be able to recognise signs of depression? To have a grasp of psychology? If you want to worry, worry about their take on counselling and mental illness.

Now if the Ministers were aggressive Ken Hammish YECs, that would be a different matter. But how would you quantify that? And in any case your experience seems to differ from my own. I find most ministers and theological students indifferent to the issue, or open to a wide variety of interpretations of Genesis 1-3.

GV

My minister let slip that he was YEC; and then was falling over himself the next week to reassure everyone that it wasn't an issue he'd hold strong opinions on.

I've had excactly the same experience Graham.

However, AiG/CMI are dogmatic on the issue. Why then, are the Presbyterian Church in Ireland allowing their ministers to host the speakers from both these organisations ? From the AiG Satement of faith:

The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

The above statements would contradict the church's position on science. Certainly from what I've been told by Stephen Lynas.

Now if the Ministers were aggressive Ken Hammish YECs, that would be a different

but you've forgotton about the Rev. Robin Greer Graham. The Rev. Greer was a speaker with AiG for a year or so and is now an associate speaker with CMI. I've heard his talks and he definitely doesn't accept other viewponts. I just wonder what he says to members of his congregation with views like mine.

Graham, it's a marker for mental competence. If someone is unable to sort this one out in their own head, they are hardly in a position to give sound advice to potentially vulnerable people at difficult times in their lives, nor are they likely to possess the cognitive skills to project anything like a sensible message to their "flock".

You suggest that this issue is not relevant - it is very relevant. Young children are being indoctrinated with creationist nonsense right now in Sunday Schools (OK, not *right* now - this is Wednesday ;-) and creationist drivel is for sale in bookstands at Christian meetings up and down the country. My Mother-In-Law picked up a Ken Ham tract at her church (Presby) midweek recently, and there are plenty more where that came from.

I know we sometimes tease Will about his concentration on this issue, but it *is* important in that people are being led into serious error by people who, frankly, are *stupid* and *ignorant*. Harsh words? Yes, perhaps. But they are certainly justified. Suppression of science by an incompetent view of what religion *is* is not something you should feel happy about. Certainly, people like Ron Elsdon (great chap) and David Livingstone are very happy to argue forcefully about the error of creationist thinking - are you suggesting they should shut up?

I'll be even more frank here - IF there is a god, and he gives even the slightest tinker's cuss about truth and about his creation, Ken Ham and John Mackay and Mervyn Storey and the poor stooge Paul Givan (remember that wee chap? Lisburn City Councillor, wet behind the ears, set up by the DUP and certain other Unionists to float the ill-fated motion to demand schools to teach creationism) among many others would need to be VERY worried on Judgement Day.

If you ignore creotards, will they go away? No they won't. Anyone who cares about education cannot afford to let these charlatans promote their silly pseudoscience.

Helio,

"people are being led into serious error by people who, frankly, are *stupid* and *ignorant*. Harsh words? Yes, perhaps. But they are certainly justified."

They are, and I can add a few more:

*stupid* and *ignorant* and/or dishonest in the service of their faith.

PeterJ

"From the AiG Satement of faith:The gap theory has no basis in Scripture."

We probably have similar concerns. My Dad was raised in a Fundamentalist (Brethren) Church in Belfast in the 1950s. (He didn't come to faith until the 1980s. The "brainwashing/labelling" failed.) He was raised with the "Gap" Theory. So he has always been quite open to different interpretations of Genesis 1.(He recalls that the "Day Age" theory was held by a few preachers also).

It's only with the advent of Morris/Whitcomb, and then the aggressive publicity of Ken Ham, that YEC has become a shibboleth in Fundamentalism.
I've never encountered Mr Graham. But I really think that it's Ham and companies "Creation Evangelism" that has made YEC a central dogma of the faith.

I should make it clear that I don't hold YEC as a sinister doctrine, or YECs as willfully ignorant. But I don't think Creation Science is Science. It appears to be a kind of "presuppositionalism".

GV

Peter - quite so. Indeed, the dishonesty runs so deep that they cease to even be aware of their dishonesty. I guess I wouldn't be as concerned about it if it were not for their flagrant violation of that little commandment about not bearing false witness against their neighbour. But then I understand that creationists feel that that is an optional one.

people are being led into serious error by people who, frankly, are *stupid* and *ignorant*. Harsh words? Yes, perhaps. But they are certainly justified

But neither the Rev. Greer or Prof. Nevin for example, could be called stupid or ignorant of science Helio/Peter. Both are well qualified and have worked in the scientific field. It's that which makes their claims plausable to the lay person.

That was quite a beautiful thing that happened there with OT. Sorry I missed it earlier. My favourite part is where OT, in the midst of his vigorous reaction, says:

"I'm quite relaxed about it."

LOL!!

Helio

I can't even remember what I wrote in #29! Just consider it as a parable that proves me right and everyone elese wrong.

Helio

"it's a marker for mental competence"...
That *at least* assumes that they've taken the time to think the whole thing through. A lot of folk just haven't gotten around to it yet. Frankly, I'm much more concerned with the mutated pop-psychology that surrounds Christian Counselling. Most Church members will never have to date the age of a fossil. Most will encounter someone with depression.

"people are being led into serious error by people who, frankly, are *stupid* and *ignorant*"

Just like Dawkins discussion of the Theistic proofs? Can I add 'dishonest'?

And you know, some YECs are quite bright
(Dr. Raymond Damadian? And others you personally know. They're very smart, and they're not dishonest. And it doesn't seem to effect their work (they get their MDs/ PhDs and continue to publish). Aren't you always telling me to deal with the evidence, and not my assumptions?) So why are they making the mistake?

Go for their methodology instead. It's not scientific, it argues in a circle and there's no good Christian justification for it.
(Where is there a text for presuppositionalism in the Bible? Go back to the Galileo debate. What were Galileo and Bellarmine agreed on? That in principle, empirical evidence can be used to give a correct reading of scripture.)
You might actually win some YECs over that way. Show them how they're wrong on their own assumptions.

"If you ignore creotards, will they go away? No they won't. Anyone who cares about education cannot afford to let these charlatans promote their silly pseudoscience."

Well, I'd agree it's 'pseudoscience', (although I'd prefer a kinder term that isn't a conversation stopper). I don't want it taught *as science*. But teens being teens will just go and believe it if I get on my high horse about it. Censor it and I might as well start a cult. Michael Reiss was spot on in his comments.

So as an RE teacher I'd just point out why I disagree with some of the assumptions behind YEC, and let those kids who are interested think it through for themselves. If I start calling people "creotards", they's be within their rights to stop listening.

It's a crazy plan, but it just might work.

GV

"neither the Rev. Greer or Prof. Nevin for example, could be called stupid or ignorant"

Of course not. And let's not fall into the trap of calling them wicked or dishonest just because ken Ham would like to string *us* up.

A lot of this goes to methodology. And lot's of very bright people have eccentric views.

And people do like to thumb their nose at authority. But if you really want to blame someone, blame some of the silly preaching that ignores the theology of Gen 1 and turns it into a science lesson.
Those sermons irritate me. But probably more than they should.

GV

John

Yes - when someone's relaxed about their paranoia, it's time to ask for some of what they've been drinking!

GV

People can be stupid in some areas and intelligent in others. No-one is saying Greer and Nevin, for example, can't compartmentalise their brains. But in doing so, you compromise yourself. Graham, it is important. If your pastor was a passionate believer in fairies at the bottom of the garden, you would have a right to be concerned. Creationism is the same. If they haven't formed an opinion on this, they are frankly negligent at best. It is, if nothing else, a barometer for the fruitcake scale.

Helio

(Don't you think *I* believe the equivalent of "fairies at the bottom of the garden?")

Relax. I'm not saying truth isn't important. Far from it. I'm suggesting that (a) we put the problem in perspective (b) we understand how the problem arises.

Start with Professor Nevin's compartmentalised brain. Assume it isn't the result of a mental virus. Assume it's a deliberate strategy. Why does he compartmentalise like this?
Well, Prof Nevin believes that there's more to the universe than atoms, molecules and the laws of nature. I think that's a reasonable assumption.
But Prof Nevin makes further leaps that I don't. He assumes things about *one passage* in the Bible. He then builds a quasi-scientific methodology on that assumption. (Eg. Find evidence for literalist interpretation of Gen 1, explain away all evidence against).

So if you offer a standard scientific critique of Creation Science, you'll be talking past each other. He's not offering a scientific theory. Point that out.
I expect he'd respond that every scientist is guided by assumptions and presuppositions. Don't debate that. Point out that, typically, those assumptions don't depend on *one* contested interpretation of *one* religious text. Concede that doesn't make him wrong. But ask if he can still honestly describe his methodology as scientific.
Then I'd ask how that methodology is working out. Accept, for the sake of debate, that it's had some success. Isn't it equally true that it has thrown up many more difficulties than solutions. (You're understating your case, I suppose. But sometimes the worst thing you can do is win an argument.)
Now if the interpretation of Gen 1 is contested on exegetical grounds alone, and if the methodology based on that interpretation is hitting significant obstacles, at what stage do you abandon the methodology? Or to put in terms a Young Earth Creationist might sympathise with - "at what stage do you concede that you didn't know God's Word as well as you thought you did?"

Okay, take a typical Pastor's brain. He probably pictures an atom as little electrons orbitting a big proton.He'd guesstimate the age of the Earth incorrectly. He'd also guesstimate the number of hydrogen atoms in a gram of hydrogen gas incorrectly. Which is the worst guesstimate?
He's not hindering anyone's education. He's allowed people to follow their own convictions on this matter. The subject rarely comes up.
But I do challenge the thinking when I get a chance.
Now suppose that there was a Pastor (**not mine** thankfully) who was hopelessly confused about depression, or schizophrenia, or SSRIs, or alcoholism. I've seen real damage follow from the Oprah-esque-self-help-with-the-Spirits-approval pseudo psychology that dominates the evangelical world.
Now shouldn't I be more concerned about bad psychology than bad physics in the Ministry? Shouldn't I **go out of my way** to challenge those mistakes? Don't those mistakes create more urgent problems?

GV



PS The relevant quote from Bellarmine, the uber-literalist of his age -

"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false."

The whole text can be found at

And why should the age of the Earth or evolution be my barometer? Why not history, or poetry, or ethics? Or some simple logical fallacy?

Can I call Dawkins a loon because he doesn't grasp basic philosophical arguments? Because he thinks that the courtiers reply is a convincing argument?

And, more importantly, are you going to dig me out of the whole when I call my wife a fruitcake?
No harm Helio, but she can suspend more privileges than you can.

GV

Graham, what you are describing is indeed a compartmentalised brain. And such thinking is dangerous - *properly* dangerous. I'll be frank - religion does not answer ANY of the "big questions" - it instead imposes a fake buffer to prevent the "big questions" being asked and analysed. The problem here is one of critical thinking. If a pastor is unable to practise critical thinking, then the prospect of him/her leading the poor sap who is mistakenly turning to him/her for advice in difficult circumstances into serious error is dramatically increased.

Should we be happy about that?

Nope!

Hang on. If I make a mistake I'm dangerous? We're both agreed that Buddhism is wrong. Are Buddhists dangerous?

Anyhow, softly softly catchee monkey. You can prove you're right. Or chill a little with these dudes. You'll make progress.

GV

Ref post 32 John ;-)

Make mine a Bud John and we can relax in our 鈥減aranoia鈥� together.
I know I made your day about how relaxed I am about my alleged 鈥減aranoia鈥� about 91热爆 bias on W&T and SS.

But after reading this article on your blog it would appear you hold exactly the same views as me.

The only difference being, in this forum I am directing my comments specifically at W&T and SS corporately, while you are speaking about the 91热爆 as a whole and the European media.

Are you really saying that your comments apply to every part of the 91热爆 *EXCEPT* W&T and SS John?


UK POLITICS AND THE 91热爆
BY JOHN WRIGHT

鈥�....... If you were to take a poll of 91热爆 journalists, perhaps using a quiz of this nature, you鈥檇 find that the vast majority will reveal themselves to be centre/left, to some degree. In some of the newsrooms I鈥檝e been in, a 鈥榗onservative鈥� would have a tough time. They鈥檇 be a minority.

鈥淎nd this is the case across the board in 鈥榯hinking鈥� circles in Britain......

"In the worldview of Britain鈥檚 liberal media, there was no room for such a documentary. (Doubt that? Check your local listings for similar content.)

鈥�........The long and the short?: Perhaps unbalanced journalism would not matter quite so much were it not done with the incredible arrogance of using my [licence fee and tax] money, whether I wish to give it or not.鈥�

Furthermore, Will, if I really am the most paranoid poster you have ever seen on your blog, it would seem I am in good company. The very same accusations as mine have been levelled by many of the 91热爆鈥檚 top stars against the Beeb too.

Also, Archbishop John Sentamu said in 2006 that Christians took 鈥渕ore knocks鈥� in 91热爆 programmes than other faiths!!
A paranoid Will & Testament person of the year 2008???

Are we really all that nuts? Of could a clue to a more accurate view of the matter rest in the harsh ad hominem attacks on me by Will and others here after I raised the subject??


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





We are biased, admit the stars of 91热爆 News

It was the day that a host of 91热爆 executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the 91热爆 is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism....

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, 91热爆 executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran 91热爆 executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the 91热爆's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'..............

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The 91热爆 is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the 91热爆 is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the 91热爆 treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former 91热爆 business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the 91热爆's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The 91热爆 is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'
Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the 91热爆 was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the 91热爆 was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the 91热爆 should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The 91热爆 must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the 91热爆 or the people who work for it.'

Here are some more money quotes by a former high profile journalist in NI on a similar theme.

He is not singling out the 91热爆 - but he is certainly not excusing them either. Proof? How often are the Christian Institute and Evangelical Alliance invited onto W&T or SS? His point, not mine!

I think his quotes fit as well here on W&T / SS as anywhere else;-



Widespread anti-Christian bias in the media means that groups like The Christian Institute face an 鈥渦phill struggle鈥� for fair coverage, says a Sky News journalist.

Journalists select the information they wish to report based on a largely anti-Christian ideology, says David Blevins, a former Washington correspondent for Sky News.

Mr Blevins made his comments on Christian blog, To Whom It May Concern. When asked if the media in America and the UK understands evangelical Christians, he said:

鈥淣ot at all. It鈥檚 important to remember that what appears in the newspapers is not an objective summary of the significant things that happened yesterday but an ideological selection based on the prejudices, agendas and assumptions of a relatively small group of people.

鈥淭heir ideology could be loosely defined as 鈥榩rogress will one day meet our needs.鈥� So as with other forms of thought that deviate from that ideological view, evangelical Christianity is either dismissed out of hand or reported in a manner that serves to reinforce the ideology!
鈥溾�楻eligion鈥� is viewed as obscure, life-denying and regressive.

Organisations like Evangelical Alliance and the Christian Institute face an uphill struggle to change that perception.鈥�

Helio

Ref this idea that people like Greer and Nevin must compartmentalise their faith from their science. I have discovered in recent days that Russian science is drastically different to western science in that God is traditionally assumed to be a central part of science.

Apparently much of the science in Russia rejected the Enlightenment idea that worldviews had to choose either science or religion.

...apparently, the Russian view bore many similarities with those of Maxwell Clerk and others among his peers, like Kelvin.




But apparently most of Clerk's work and therefore his worldview which easily combined his physics and faith have apparently been censored from modern science;-




Here are some of the ideas outlined a little more;-

Integral Reason: Science and Religion in Russian Culture

by Vladimir Katasonov


After decades of oppression and obscurity, the dialogue between science and religion is alive and well in Russia, drawing on deep historical roots that have given the dialogue a unique national character.


In Russian culture, the great theme of "Science and Religion" has been played in a different key from that sounded in the West. There has been, on the Russian side, far less conflict between the two "magesteria" (always excepting, of course, the 70 years of state atheism under the Soviet regime). The antagonism that has marked, and often marred, the Western science-religion dialogue was never a part of the foundations of Russian thought, due to several unique factors in the nation鈥檚 religious and intellectual development....




The more you look at it, the more difficult it appears to be to accept Dawkins' argument that science is and must be materialistic.

It certainly wasnt during the scientific revolution, or indeed in any of the ancient civilisations.

Now here IS a personal challenge to Will,

... accusing him of possibly "a subconscious intent to prevent people from drawing different conclusions..."

Who by?

Errr. John Wright;-

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

Previous Next 1. At 8:30pm on 19 Oct 2009, John_Wright wrote:

An entry here about an article, with lots of links but none to the original article itself? Hmm, what does that say about our own Will's approach to the piece; obviously disapproval, maybe a subconscious intent to prevent people from drawing different conclusions than the 21,000 who wrote to a government body about it? Does this make it an issue of free speech too? What are the PCC expected to do about this and what power can they wield?

By the way, I haven't read the Moir article and none of what I just said rests on any kind of judgment about it whatsoever. (Chances are I'd agree with William, but I'll have to Google the piece to find out ;-))

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

/blogs/ni/2009/10/to_be_straight_with_you.html

Will

Now it is time to come clean!

What have you and Sue Lawley been up to? I think we have a right to know!

GV

OT

Trust me - the Russian view of the Christian faith and Society isn't going to help anyone. Least of all Russians.

GV

GV

OK i trust you that the russian view of faith and society isnt going to help anyone, i'll just set aside my mind and allow you to think for me on that one.

;-)

BTW, my post was actually primarily about the easy compatibility of faith with science in Russia - that is something quite different.

My point was that faith can sit easily with science today in the 21st century - nothing else.

OT

William

Some rather provocative adjectives used towards me of late, which I feel I must respond to, though not with personal attacks.

Here is a previous thread on W&T which quotes Leviticus as undermining the traditional church view of homosexual practise.

It gives a nodding glance to the NT, but the burden of this article plays up to the public perception that the bible cannot be trusted on homsexuality because it also condemns eating pork and shellfish.

In other words, it appears to me that the post in question is seriously misleading, as the law in Leviticus is in no way binding on Christians today.

To neglect to mention this appears to make idiots of the church when it critiques homosexual practise, but it is far from the whole picture.

Now as the former theology lecturer you are, Peter Morrow made much the same point at some length, concluding with the words;-

"...William, with his theological background, should understand exactly what I'm getting at....." (post 34, have you committed an abomination today?)


/blogs/ni/2008/06/have_you_committed_an_abominat.html

Money quote;-

"Few today would regard shellfood restaurants as abominations; not would most regard eating pork as an unclean act; and I don't know anyone who believes a man has corrupted himself in any way by having sex with his wife during her menstrual cycle. Some may say that homosexuality is different, since the book of Leviticus also calls for the execution of those men who are found to have had sex with other men. But the Old Testament texts in question sanction the death penalty in all kinds of cases. The text tells us that a child (no age specified) who repeatedly disobeys his or her parents may be executed. The act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death. And even having sex with a menstruating woman is worthy of death, according to this ancient body of literature (see Leviticus 20:18; Ezekiel 18:13, and many other texts to that effect). Who today regards any of these acts as unclean or meriting execution?"

These laws are not binding on the Chrisian church, see books of galations, romans, hebrews.

If I am *really* guilty of anything in raising these points, I will me more than happy to hear about it.

But I feel it is a fair point to raise in the context of my "madness" and "paranoia".


In any case William, I dont consider this a personal debate and will refrain from making any personal attacks.

Apolgies if the tone or attitude of anything I said previously crossed this line.

Wishing you a peaceful Christmas and happy new year.

sincerely

OT

"I'll just set aside my mind and allow you to think for me on that one."


Don't take my word for it. Read Dostoyevsky. Faith swamps science, politics and everything else in the paradigmatic Russian view.
You could also read Meic Pearse's "The Gods of War" and Buruma and Margalit's "Occidentalism".

GV

I think you are still missing my point. Are you meaning to?

I would appreciate it if you could explain what you actually mean rather than naming books.

I guarantee I will understand you if you have a clear argument.

My point was that in Russian faith and science are easy bedfellows.

Are you saying that this aspect of Russian thought is unbiblical? This is really my key question.

I am saying that at least this aspect of Russian thinking would appear to be biblical and indeed reflect the European view of science and faith during the scientific revolution....and that this poses some difficult questions for the Dawkins camp today who would argue that faith and science are oil and water.

Is it really unbiblical to suggest that science and faith are complimentary in a biblical worldview?

Or are you arguing that a secular/sacred division exists or should exist either in reality or human knowledge?

I can see you hiding behind the bookshelf Graham... come out and talk, I promise I wont bite!

;-)

OT

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.