MBB: Midwest Conference

[The Roop]

Logically you are right Mr. Ypsi, however, nothing has been proven either way.

On a side note. I enjoy science except that it seems to raise more questions than it resolves. Maybe one day when the flying bigfoots that built the pyramids come back, that they can explain it all to us.

For now I'm content to believe that everything natural is in the right place. Man made objects only get in the way of seeing that.

[diehardfan]

While you and I are old friends, and I certainly do not believe you meant any harm, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that you do not believe that rationality is the better approach and that you don't think there are major flaws in the way that I think. (If you didn't think there were flaws, there obviously would be no reason for you to post your comments of disagreement.) While that's not "making fun," there's certainly some inherent intellectual condescension in that.  I assure you that there is very little that I have not turned over in my mind until the thoughts are beaten to death. I am a big fan of the Socrates quotation which states that "unexamined life is not worth living" and I have an (un)healthy tendancy to take that to an extreme. I do appreciate the opportunity to deepen and shape my beliefs more firmly by working on the language with which I explain them, however... debate is always healthy as long as it doesn't destroy relationships.

Stephen Jay Gould, while wrong on several issues, was absolutely correct that science and religion are different 'magisteria', addressing totally different issues.  Conflict occurs (properly) only when one 'magisterium' seeks to invade the turf of the other.]

Obviously, I disagree. To me, my passion for science is motivated by the fact that it causes me to

1) be more in awe of the power and character One I believe created it all.
2) causes me to understand pieces of His character in the limited sense that a finite being can understand an infinite one.

Not to mention that the times when I feel the closest to God are when I am outside wondering at the things that he created...  the stars especially though I do have a thing for snowflakes (and all waterlike substances in general), daphnia and diatoms.

From my perspective, studying the laws of thermodynamics, or the way chemicals bond or the way the abiotic and biotic systems interact teaches me about God. In fact, I believe that it is designed to teach me about God.

**** Creation, according to Romans 8, is "General Revelation." ie.... a non-specific way in which God has revealed himself to the world. (the Bible and his actual presence here as Jesus being examples of specific, or "special" as the term usually goes, revelation).

I don't really know how Christians could believe otherwise. A foundational part of our belief is that God created the world (though how he did it certainly varies from person to person in the Christian realm). It would be crazy to think that God would do all this stuff, and yet it wouldn't relate to him at all. To me, science and faith compliment and illuminate each other....

Uh, so, anyhow, basically my point is that I disagree.   

[Mr. Ypsi]

The Roop,

Yes, and the fundamental point was that nothing CAN be proven either way.

The joy (as well as the frustration) of science is that, yes, the more you know, the more you realize how little you know.  In my research methods course I define a 'good' reserach study as one which RAISES more new questions than it contributes an answer to (and I am only partly joking).

[I also tell them that this is a GOOD thing - otherwise, science would have already answered all the questions, I'd be unemployable, and I'd have to break into your house and steal your stuff to survive: so be glad that science is a never-ending series of ever-harder questions! ]

[Mr. Ypsi]

April,

I certainly apologize if I came off as condescending in any way - that was not my intent, and I don't think I did (see post of 7:53, where I stated that my conclusion seems to me to be the only 'rational' response, but NOT the only human response).

While I have chosen to go with pure rationality (recognizing its limitations), I respect most who have selected other choices (exceptions would be 'young-earth' Creationists, the Taliban, etc.).  Ultimately, my argument boils down to both theism and atheism are matters of faith, since an omnipotent Creator could create a universe where human reason could NEVER prove or disprove such a Creator.

But I DO think that was one of the times Gould got it right - in oversimplified terms, science asks 'what', religion asks 'why'.  Science is out of its realm when asking teleogical questions; religion makes a laughing-stock of itself when dealing with the contemporaneity of Adam and Eve and T Rex.

[diehardfan]

I respect most who have selected other choices (exceptions would be 'young-earth' Creationists the Taliban, etc.)....

But I DO think that was one of the times Gould got it right - in oversimplified terms, science asks 'what', religion asks 'why'.  Science is out of its realm when asking teleogical questions; religion makes a laughing-stock of itself when dealing with the contemporaneity of Adam and Eve and T Rex.

I'm not sure you would respect what I believe any more than young earth creationists... it covers what are probably some of your main issues, but it's not extremely different. I believe the earth was created by God in 6 days and everything... though I believe that it looks old because God in his compassion created a world which was fully functioning. I don't believe the data for any of the many theories of how evolution happend are as conclusive as they are generally persented in a middle school science class, or there wouldn't be so many vastly different theories out there. (The air was like this, no, actually, the air was like this... etc etc). Rather than remaining indecisive, I choose to believe that it happened how God seems to be saying it happened, especially since there are aspects of traditional evolution that rub very badly against certain key characteristics of redemption and the character of God. In some senses I am also a evolutionist... but interpreted backwards... I believe invasive species, and species extinction we are seeing distinctly less genetic variation... kudzoo, zebra mussels, canada thistle (grrrrrrrrrrrr) etc. I guess it's something roughly equivalent to de-evolution. If you choose not to talk to me anymore based on that decision, I don't really mind. I just feel the need to be honest, since I don't want to waste time on anyone who is going to dismiss me as a person later on over such a trivial matter.

Incidentally, I don't understand how belief in the young earth creationist postion and the Jewish traditions from which it stems is any more based on faith than say, the creation stories of Native American cultures I work with, which are some of the deepest and most important stories that they have... but anyhow. If you hold that religion does not, and should not involve rationality at all, clearly, from your perspective doesn't make sense to dismiss one view or another based on the fact that it seems more crazy to you. Internal or external contradictions of a religion wouldn't be relevant  (much less the extremity of the beliefs of that religion) if religions did not have/need rationality to have a basis. You can't disagree with me in theory and agree with me in practice. 

If science asks "what," and religion asks "why" but they are asking it about same thing, and if one questions (very roughly) leads to the other, and back and forth over and over, I still I don't understand why they wouldn't be related.  

[Mr. Ypsi]

April,

I'm hurt that you would even consider that I would want to cut off communications based on this disagreement - afterall, we haven't even addressed the subject of whether or not IWU having the same number of titles in bball as the next three schools combined is an 'Act of God' .

The 'young-earth' evolutionists and the American Indian beliefs are NOT different - they are both matters of faith, not science.

I'm not clear on how 'what' and 'why' questions EVER come in conflict - except for fundamentalists who think the Bible is a science (and history) text.

No doubt we would each repel the other in numerous ways if we were to discuss religion (though I'm very open to other views - you, too?) - but, if and when we actually meet, I have no doubt we would be highly compatible in our love of d3 bball.

[Greek Tragedy]

uh...so when does preseason practice start? 

[Pat Coleman]

I can't remember the last time I scrolled through a page so fast.

[John Gleich]

With all due respect, Mr Ypsi, when you say that agnosticism is "rationality" and Christianity and atheism are NOT...

The only purely rational response is agnosticism, but that does NOT mean it is the only reasonable HUMAN response.

you essentially are saying that faith (of either definition, belief or disbelief in God) is irrational.  The second definition of irrational in Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary, 4th ed, defines irrational as:

"Contrary to reason, senseless, unreasonable, absurd"

In implying that people of faith irrational, you basically are making a statement that has a negative connotation.  Comments like

(exceptions would be 'young-earth' Creationists... ) religion makes a laughing-stock of itself when dealing with the contemporaneity of Adam and Eve and T Rex.

affirm this.


What you seem to be saying (and I don't want to put words in your mouth... I'm just reading what you've written, and perhaps making iferrences that aren't true... excuse me if this is the case) is that you believe in evolution.  But my question to you is this...  Is this a rational response to the question of human (and heck, the rest of the world's) origin, or is this a response based on faith?  The same arguments you have against rationality for belief in a Creator apply to belief in evolution.  The theories put forth by evolutionists are just that... theories, and Darwin himself said that, in the years following the creation of the theory, it would be proven* by the fossil records.  This has not happened.

(* Your argument about absolute proof in God applies here... you mentioned that your work has created more questions than proof, and it's kept you employed.  How can you say, so rationally, that you believe ANYTHING, or that you disbelieve ANYTHING?)

But I digress... Assuming that you're not going to go this way, and that reason can, in fact, prove something to be true or not true, then, I again return to the creation vs. evolution debate and bring Occam's Razor into the discussion. 

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

... Without belaboring the point, Creation requires very few assumptions, while evolution requires very many.

One question I do have for you:

Your comment

I'm not clear on how 'what' and 'why' questions EVER come in conflict - except for fundamentalists who think the Bible is a science (and history) text.

implies that you do not believe that the Bible is either a science or history text.  What do you propose that it is?

[Gregory Sager]

Sager-I don't think you are any better off going to Neusner that to Wills to sort this out. Both are struggling with interpretation of events recorded years ago and now used as the basis for another organized sect as laid down (you correctly point this out)by Paul and other followers. It becomes a questionof who/what you are willing to believe, The Word as spoken by Jesus, the interpretation of the Word as written down in the Gospel, or further interpretation of the word by the likes of Neusner, Wills, or even Phelps and Sager for that matter? Are the recorded words of Jesus accurately reported? Who has the upper hand in this?

BTW,
i didn't say that Jesus wasn't immersed in Jewish tradition or that he didn't practice many "jewish traditions, but to say he wasn't rebellious against the organized religions of his time -including his own-denies the supposed reason for his existence, IMHO.

I don't see this as a discussion of either epistemology or canonical accuracy, but rather one of hermeneutics. I think that both Wills and Neusner are taking the words of Jesus as compiled in the Gospels at face value -- correspondent with context, redactive agenda on the part of the Gospel authors, and the Jewish culture of first-century Roman Palestine. I'm doing the same. That's why I think the arguments stand or fall on their own merits -- Wills and Neusner are using the same playing field. Neusner's simply a more persuasive critic of Jesus' fidelity to Judaism than Wills, both because he's more learned in the field of pre-Rabbinical Judaica and because he doesn't bear the burden of Wills' tendency to self-contradict.

I didn't say that Jesus wasn't rebellious against Judaism -- not "the organized religions of his time," Judaism -- and in fact I acknowledged that the essential nature of his mission on Earth ran counter to the partisan interests of all four of Judaism's recorded sectarian parties of the era (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots). But there's a quantum leap from stating that to stating that "he was very much opposed to all organized religions." It doesn't follow from the evidence. His rebellion was contained within Judaism; it did not take him outside of it. And there is no evidence from the text that he was "very much opposed" to any of the contemporary religions (Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mithraism, the Roman pantheon or imperial divinity cult, etc.) on philosophical grounds, aside from the basic fact that belief in such religions was inimical to a Jew. Of course, there's no textual evidence that he was opposed to any succeeding religions, including the one he founded, either.

[Greek Tragedy]

I can't remember the last time I scrolled through a page so fast.

I got a headache just skimming through the pages! lol.  

As my dead good friend Marvin from Pulp Fiction said before his life tragically ended, "Man, I don't even have an opinion" (ironically, Jules and Vincent were also talking religion)  

[Gregory Sager]

From all the random facts and tidbits he's always throwing out around Posting Up, I think it's pretty obvious that he has an insatiable appetite for knowledge. 

Yes, knowledge from the sacred to the inane.

Hey, I just throw the information out there. Quality control is not my department. 

[Gregory Sager]

I can't remember the last time I scrolled through a page so fast.

At least the arcane deep-thinker colloquies that cause readers to grasp for the scroll bar keep a room lively in the off-season, though, eh?

If nothing else, we're keeping the MWC board's page total moving upward by posting a bunch of really long posts. 

[Knightstalker]

I have two things to say on this subject.  It is actually very simple but all of the finely educated D-III minds are looking too deep into the subject matter. 

1.  Religion is just like science.  It consists of Theorys that have yet to be proven using the scientific method. 

2.  The biggest problem with Religion is Religion. 
This was pointed out to me by a Lutheran street minister that never even graduated high school but went to seminary after losing three fingers on his hand while working as a mason.

How many different sects of christianity and Judaism are out there and how many think the others are approaching it wrong?  If you believe in god and are seeking him religion usually just gets in the way.

[titan2000]

When I need this kind of dogmatic theory, I go to Waffle House.