<p>I recommend James Kugel's "How to Read the Bible." It's a walkthrough of the Bible from a modern theological standpoint (Kugel himself is religious, so it's hard to argue that he is biased against it). </p>
<p>He describes the historical and social components of what went into the Old Testament Bible stories, most of which derived from earlier myths and were appropriated into etiological stories by the Israelites (Cain and Abel, for example, was a way to explain why the Israelites were at odds with the Kennite tribe). </p>
<p>As anybody with a decent working knowledge of the book knows, the Bible is filled with logical inconsistencies and archaic laws that make a literal reading impossible (AeroEngineer summed it up nicely). But it's still a vastly important and influential work and so I think it's a good decision to read it. But the book I recommended is worth reading too, imo.</p>
<p>Today is my birthday! (I mean yesterday was!) YAY! (BUT, it's just the worst birthday I've ever ever had, and hopefully will ever ever EVA have! :()</p>
<p>awwww why??????????</p>
<p>coz...........1) I'm f'ing sick as ****. 2) I've f'ing exams this thursday and I still have billions of work to do (no, I DID NOT procrastinate...just how every thing ended up). Now, I am just soo sick to write 6 page paper...and a huge presentation...oh well...i think that's how it everything works. :/</p>
<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059808636-post174.html%5D#174%5B/url%5D">quote</a> Both sides [religious, scientific] hand down their beliefs from one generation to the next.</p>
<p>Is that fairly stated?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Far from it. </p>
<p>Science provides a methodology were any theory/claim can be challenged. In fact, a person making an initial claim (hypothesis) is lauded for following the Scientific Method and disproving his/her own claim.</p>
<p>Using the Scientific Method, every individual has an opportunity to independently verify a claim. Religons resort to 'testament' for the verification of their claims.</p>
<p>Thought Experiment:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Eliminate every known text, reference, etc. to all religous and scientific knowledge. </p></li>
<li><p>Jump forward 10,000 years. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Prediction: A good majority of the scientific knowledge we currently have will be re-discovered. This is because the principles from which scientific knowlege is derived from are...fundamental (pun intended). </p>
<p>One can't make the same prediction for religious knowledge/memes. For those interested in reading about how science looks at the development of religion from an evolutionary/sociological/psychological point of view, see: The</a> Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule by Michael Shermer. If you're interested in reading about research into the fundamental principle of the Golden Rule, independent of religion, see: Generous</a> players: game theory explores the Golden Rule's place in biology. This starts to address the fallacy that 'Without religion, society would have no moral compass'.</p>
<p>Finally, to individuals[/url</a>] that argue that religion should not be disucssed on CC: Many in our nation attempt to influence public policy with religious doctrine. We need look no further than the [url=<a href="http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf%5DKitzmiller">http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf]Kitzmiller</a> v. Dover for an example of this. Those that try to promote the use of religion in public policy invite those the want public policy free of religion to question and debunk it. </p>
<p>*Public Policy in this nation should be developed logically with 'faith' playing no part...other than to protect the faithful's rights as set forth in our Constitution/Bill of Rights. *</p>
<p>I'm religious, but I believe in evolution.</p>
<p>Actually, in my school we were taught not to take the Bible literally. That, and according to my previous teacher "Science explains how it happened, and religion explains why it happened." (This is a Catholic school.) He used the phrase (which only applies if you believe in God) "truth cannot contradict truth" to describe the relationship between science and religion.</p>
<p>I can't decide what's more depressing about this entire discussion: the utter lack of scientific literacy or the magnitude of widespread scriptural literalism. </p>
<p>85% of the people in this thread do not have a correct, working definiton of evolution. Evolution is a theory (a pretty damn strong one) that explains the diversity of life on earth. The mechanisms of evolution are random, heritable genetic mutations and natural selection. This theory is supported by a crushing load of evidence in many disciplines: biogeography, paleontology, embryology, morphology, biochemistry, population genetics, genomics, and molecular biology. With regard to the appearance and dissemination of life on this planet, evolution accounts for what happened and natural selection explains how. The "why" part is beyond human comprehension.</p>
<p>Jack4640, I have a feeling that you well understood the endemicity of religious fundamentalism in America (and its implications with regard to evolution and science) before posting this. Have you ever read The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby? </p>
<p>America stands as an incredible anomaly. This widespread level of anti-rationalism, scientific illiteracy, and general stupidity is not tolerated in other parts of the civilized world. Even among social conservatives.</p>
<p>Which is why Religion is an attempt to explain why it happened. It comes down to personal views whether someone believes in what a certain Religion says or not.</p>
<p>I actually got into a discussion about evolution. It's been bugging me, and it's not really an answerable question. I was thinking about the point at which whatever we evolved from became human.</p>
<p>Now, since I'm a Catholic I looked at this from a religious point of view. I know that the physical evolution of humans happened gradually, but what about when they first became aware that they were better than animals? When humans began living with more meaning rather than living just to survive (as animals do)? I guess the question is: what was it like when humans gained a soul?</p>
<p>This isn't an answerable question. No one knows because...none of us were there, and it wasn't written down. But it's interesting to think about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calm down people, seriously. Would it make it better if I told you that I myself am a Muslim? Because I am. Stop telling me that I'm being "racist" or "prejudice" or "ignorant".</p>
<p>The Muslims were, in their golden age, one of the most advanced civilizations in history and made many contributions to modern math and science.</p>
<p>Then they stagnated. Today, they are a disunited bunch of 1 billion+ around the world. Most middle eastern Muslims are some of the most stubborn and uneducated people you will ever meet. This is one of the reasons the modern culture in many Muslim countries breeds hate and terrorists. Many Muslims argue with one another over trivial differences (in beliefs) because they're not educated enough realize how trivial those differences are.</p>
<p>If you are of mideast descent and your parents either immigrated or you are attending a university outside the mideast, this probably doesn't include you, as you (and your family) probably don't fall in that group. There certainly are American and immigrant muslims that do still fit those characteristics, but they are in the minority.</p>
<p>Political correctness has gotten way out of hand.
[/quote]
Agreed completely. As a former Muslim (and current agnostic), I must say: Islam is in a sad state. Muslims, on the whole (of course there are exceptions), are incredibly stubborn and irrational and the increasing proportion of fundamentalists to moderates is horribly depressing.</p>
<p>The election of G.W. Bush empowered the stupid and the ignorant in America. John McCain is such a breath of fresh air in comparison. I mourn the passing of William F. Buckley.</p>
<p>"I was thinking about the point at which whatever we evolved from became human."</p>
<p>It was and is a continuous process; we are still evolving. Diseases like AIDS, bird flu, malaria/sickle cell anemia are current embodiments of the process. We are "human" or "homo sapiens" animals. </p>
<p>"When humans began living with more meaning rather than living just to survive (as *[other] *animals do)?"</p>
<p>When we developed our sizable cerebral cortex.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is why Religion is an attempt to explain why it happened.
[/quote]
No. Not always. Religion tries to account for what in addition to why. Creationism (an integral part of half of America's religious life) is a "what." And it's wrong. Creation and the evolution of species are mutually exclusive. Believing in a creator and evolution are not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jack4640, I have a feeling that you well understood the endemicity of religious fundamentalism in America (and its implications with regard to evolution and science) before posting this. Have you ever read The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have not, but I just ordered it on Amazon because it looks like an excellent read. Thank you for the recommendation!</p>
<p>Well, yeah, Religion does try to also explain what in some cases. For me, I don't believe in Creationism.Also, it's not an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Actually, there is no official teaching on the subject (in the Catholic Church, I can't say for other Religions), which leaves it open for different opinions. Some believe in directly what the Bible says, others in evolution, and someone might have another theory/opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have not, but I just ordered it on Amazon because it looks like an excellent read. Thank you for the recommendation!
[/quote]
No problem. Unlike other books of its type, it doesn't preach to the choir. The well-researched historical slant makes the contemporary analysis much better. She's a true intellectual.</p>
<p>these kind of threads can't continue in CC....as in not saying it "should not" but just saying...it totally doesn't end up being "intellectual enough"....I thought we were dunnnnnn w/ this thread! the forum that I recommended is the right place for this kind of discussion (as u wud get better insightful answers...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
it totally doesn't end up being "intellectual enough"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a pretty ironic assertion there, judging from your previous posts.</p>
<p>Caillebotte: how's that ironic? have u read through this whole thread yet? </p>
<p>mj93: wat happened to ur "mj93" sn?! :confused:</p>