Re: Letter to the Editor: Belief system is key to behaviour


Jason Spaceman wrote:

From my hometown newspaper:
---------------------------------------------------
Mar 9, 2006

To the editor:

In the last while you have published some in-depth and well-written
items with the subject being the debate between those who believe the
creation or intelligent design theory and those who espouse the
evolutionary theory.

One thing that has been missing in the debate, and in my opinion is
the reason for it, is any discussion about the consequences of those
beliefs.

It cannot be disputed that what we believe, not what we say we
believe, determines how we act. That includes the eventual
consequences of our beliefs to us, our relationships and to society at
large.

Well ... ok


A great deal of our culture, (defined as the sum of our values both
inherited and acquired) comes to us by way of the theism (Biblical)
and pantheism (Greek) of ancient times. More recently, and grafted
upon that culture, is the knowledge that science has provided.

Very generally ... but I think I can see where this is going already


Both wisdom and knowledge are acquired by different processes. As the
philosopher Mortimer J. Adler puts it, "knowledge is that which can
be, (is capable of being), disproven, all else is opinion."

So wisdom can't be derived from knowledge/experience? It might be
opiniated in some fashion but I don't think you can demarcate that
finally that kind of boundary.


Both theism and pantheism eventually embraced the concept of
immortality. The patriarchs, priests and judges showed the path to the
immortality of the nation and the Socrates and Aristotle articulated
the immortality of the individual soul.

Charles Darwin, with his Origin of the Species, is credited with
providing the scientific theory (note theory, not fact) of evolution.

Ah - well let's not get bogged down in that particular piece of
misrepresentation. It's been demonstrated and explained so often here
how evolution is both fact and theory.


But let's return to the consequences of what we believe on human
behaviour.

If we believe in the existence of an immortal soul, then we must also
believe in the eventual and ultimate consequences of our behaviour.
For those who believe, that is a strong inhibitor on anti-personal and
anti-social behaviour.

True ... sort of. It's a strong inhibitor for proscribed activities.
The religion concerned defined what is proscribed. Whether the
activities concerned are actually anti-social are a different thing
altogether. In addition, some of those activities are 'inhibited' are
just as easily explained within social or evolutionary terms. Religion
provides the overlay for behaviours, not the reason or driving force
for them.


If, on the other hand, we deny the existence of an immortal soul, then
physical death ends all, with no inevitable accountability, and the
rule becomes "don't get caught."

That would apply to those who commit acts that go against the religious
prohibitions but allow themselves to be continually be 'born again' in
order to redeem themselves. Many people have justified extreme actions
based on religious prejudice, I don't see how the idea of eternal
punishment acts as a preventative at all. In fact, history teaches us
that it is anything but.


The difference expresses itself also in our polity. With a rule of
"don't get caught," there is a requirement for a strong and ever
stronger police presence. If we believe in inevitable consequence,
regardless of whether we are caught in our lifetime, then the chances
are that we will be "self governing.", That is a prime prerequisite
and the basis upon which our democracy was built and upon which it
still rests.

No - the principle still applies - see above.


Another argument is what I believe psychiatrists call the "draw toward
home" syndrome. That syndrome is desire in each of us to return to the
security of our origins, the womb.

If we believe that our origins are derived from a high and almighty
God creator, then the draw is toward that higher and holy place. If,
on the other hand, we believe that we originate in the slime that
harboured the first amoeba, then a return to that origin also acts as
an attraction.

Apart from the fact that ID (as this letter observed the debate was in
relation to) has nothing to say about who the designer is (apparently)
the author has demonstrated a lack of understanding about
psychoanalysis and its implication for religion. Freud rejected
religion as a neurotic function, it was better to do away with the
whole institution, but that realisation had to be gradual not sudden.
'Believing' in evolution would no more change the urge to 'return to
the womb' than any other ideology. It's a part of our psychological
make up. Rejecting God does not lead inevitably to lax morals and a
degradation in standards. If anything Freud would have maintained that
such an understanding leads to a healthier more productive psyche and
attitude to life. The only unit that counts with respect to life is
society itself. Religion is an excuse for behaviours that the
individual wishes to distance themself from and deny they are
themselves either anti-social or that they have not been able to
internalise fully certain feelings in any useful way (e.g. homophobia
prevelant in all fundamentalist faiths).


Ed Goertzen

Oshawa
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/voices/column/story/3370895p-3901380c.html



A couple of other letters that have appeared over the past couple of
weeks:

"Let's examine all the evidence"
http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/voices/letter/story/3357240p-3885708c.html

"Creation debate causes many concerns"
http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/voices/letter/story/3322448p-3845727c.html
















J. Spaceman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Great Evolutionists Name-calling machine
    ... I have never seen any "evolutionist", as you call them, lose a debate ... Religion never appealed to me until I saw the scientific ... I used to believe in evolution. ... Yes, most creationists do lack scientific integrity, which is why they ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clayton nominates himself (LOL!)
    ... frequently in various topics (not just the debate) and I freely admit. ... problem with evolution, but "the majority is right" when they disagree ... Ray, has it occurred to you that you are not religion, or all ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Corrupt Scientific Establishment Gets DOUBLE DARE
    ... with so many variants on the theme that it makes religion look ordinary. ... FWIW, its all debate about dead stuff, there is heaps of problems ... > authorities on evolution at the same time during an hour-long ... > PETRIFIED BONES, TEETH AND SOFT ORGANS ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Corrupt Scientific Establishment Gets DOUBLE DARE
    ... with so many variants on the theme that it makes religion look ordinary. ... FWIW, its all debate about dead stuff, there is heaps of problems ... > authorities on evolution at the same time during an hour-long ... > PETRIFIED BONES, TEETH AND SOFT ORGANS ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Double Standard
    ... work of a fiction writer whose creativity exceeds George Lucas, ... were using dry irony) I think that makes it a far superior read than ... And yet here you are reading stuff concocted by evolution ... confined to religion, my friend. ...
    (talk.origins)