How Colleges Create Creationists

[Buster's Uncle]

This is an interesting conversation; I'm moving it to Rec Commons, where it won't be buried so quickly.

[Yitzi]

Purely?  Perhaps not.  But a god who didn't care about humans at all would be irrelevant.

I never stated this god would be uncaring, just that it cannot for all intents and purposes in my eyes be human centrist.

I don't see any need for that either...

Perhaps, which would paint this god in a much more patient, long term minded entity- though it is indeed a fair bit different then what we perceived is it's potential plan.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a fair bit different then what we perceived is its potential plan."  (By the way, unlike with proper nouns, "its" as a possessive does not get an apostrophe, presumably to distinguish it from the contraction "it's", which does.  You seem to have the two backward.)

It all comes down to personal belief on this, but in my humble opinion I think if a god exists its both much more grander and enigmatic then previously believed to be, and we are not the center of the universe as we'd like to believe. I think if there is a god of some form, its one that is, sure, benevolent and caring of its creations, if even just as an observer with a paternal outlook; we are not the sole inheritors of its observations and love. While we have not encountered life yet in space it is mathematically inconceivable that we are alone in this universe. Maybe sentient life is not very common- but it exists. And due to that notion I think a god is way more universal and broad in its vision then we could ever imagine.

I think that, if life exists on other planets, God as portrayed in the Bible definitely cares about that other life the same way as humanity.  However, that is not an a priori feature of a potential deity, nor do I find it mathematically inconceivable that we are alone in this universe.  (Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.)

[JarlWolf]

Original plan as detailed in the bible; the order of how genesis occurred.

(Also I apologize on my English, I've been very bad with it because I haven't been speaking it daily for a long while, still getting used to it again.)

And for human centrism, the reason why that's important to Abrahamic theists is that in the bible it is stated that God made man in his own image. If there is other life forms with sentience... well that is a bit of a conundrum then isn't it?

[Yitzi]

Original plan as detailed in the bible; the order of how genesis occurred.

That's not the full plan, just a description (probably not in plain language) of one small part of it that happened before the interesting stuff started.

And for human centrism, the reason why that's important to Abrahamic theists is that in the bible it is stated that God made man in his own image. If there is other life forms with sentience... well that is a bit of a conundrum then isn't it?

Not really; the general understanding is that God is not physical, so "in God's image" can't mean physically anyway, so it could easily encompass other sentient life forms.

On the other hand, I don't see any absolute need to assume that God is not human-centrist either.

[JarlWolf]

I think the bottom line comes down to interpretation, as it is with all Religions, AND Ideologies for that matter too.

It is where one stands on whether god's image merely meant sentience, even if it is different forms of sentience. This god could very well be expressing him/her/itself through all of its creation-

but another could argue a more human centrist philosophy as well. It is very much the same with every ideal I find, even my own.

Communism and Socialism have had so many different interpretations on how to operate and carry it out it is astounding- Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Leninists, Fidelistas, Libertarian Socialists, State Socialists, Communo-Anarchists, Communist Communalists, the original Marxists, Christian Communalists, etc.

How to carry out the revolution, how to institute the changes, etc. While Communism isn't a religion, rather an ideal, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels being philosophers equivalent to John Locke or Rousseau, there is a high degree of perception determines the means and status of how people use an idea, and often times, faith.

[Yitzi]

I think the bottom line comes down to interpretation, as it is with all Religions, AND Ideologies for that matter too.

It is where one stands on whether god's image merely meant sentience, even if it is different forms of sentience. This god could very well be expressing him/her/itself through all of its creation-

but another could argue a more human centrist philosophy as well. It is very much the same with every ideal I find, even my own.

Very much so; there are multiple possible valid interpretations (as well as far far more invalid ones.)

[Buster's Uncle]

Yitzi, would you call yourself Orthodox or what?  I'm really asking.

[Yitzi]

Yitzi, would you call yourself Orthodox or what?  I'm really asking.

Yeah.  Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."

[Geo]

Yeah.  Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."

When I hear about "orthodox" Jews, I always have the Chadisim (sp?) community in Antwerp in mind. They come over as living "way back in the dark times" to me. Now you make me wondering if these people are following the modern denomiation or not.

[Yitzi]

Yeah.  Although I think of it more as "what people were before this whole modern denomination business started."

When I hear about "orthodox" Jews, I always have the Chadisim (sp?) community in Antwerp in mind. They come over as living "way back in the dark times" to me. Now you make me wondering if these people are following the modern denomiation or not.

Basically, the way it breaks up is as follows:

-The first real denominational split happened in the late Second Temple period.  There were a lot of groups there, but the only ones with remaining heirs are the Samaritans (descended from people brought in by foreign conquerors and probably shouldn't really be counted as Jewish), the early Christians (whose modern-day heirs are definitely not Jewish), the Pharisees (who gave rise to rabbinic Judaism), and the Saducees (who don't have any real modern-day heirs, but who are the closest things the Karaites have to a history that far back.)

-In the medieval period, the split was between rabbinic Judaism (who follow the traditional interpretations found in the Talmud and decrees made by the rabbis), and the Karaites (who take a more literal approach to reading the text, though they have their own traditions too.)  While the Karaites were once a fairly prominent group, now they're very minor (I think there are a few groups of them around but very minor).

-In the modern period, when Jews were allowed to join the wider world, there were three main approaches as to how to handle it:
  -The Reform movement decided to embrace the wider world whole-heartedly, even at the expense of following the rules of the Jewish religion (which, according to every group I'd mentioned previously, except for maybe the early Christians, are the essence of the religion).  They split off the Conservative movement to the right (who broke off when they felt the Reform went too far), and the Reconstructionist movement to the left (who decided to ditch the theistic aspects of the Jewish religion as well and be Jewish only in a cultural sense.)
  -Rabbi Moses Sofer (Schreiber) saw this and decided that the whole modernity thing was a menace to Judaism, and led his followers to reject it, not going to college, avoiding popular culture, etc.  He was, naturally, a strong opponent of the Reform movement.  The groups descended from his movement are known as Ultra-Orthodoxy.
  -Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch, on the other hand, was also a strong opponent of the Reform movement, but believed that the wider world had a lot to offer as well, and advocated accepting the wider world but not at the cost of one's Judaism.  He also argued (as most ultra-orthodox groups do not) that the Talmud is to be accepted regarding Jewish law, but not regarding physical science.  The groups descended from his perspective are known as Modern Orthodoxy.

Ultra-orthodoxy and modern orthodoxy are generally considered a single denomination, because despite the differences they have enough in common to engage easily with one another (for the most part).

Of course, it splits up further.  The main split in ultra-orthodoxy is between the Hasidim (followers of the movement founded by the Baal Shem Tov (Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer), which emphasizes mysticism, God's love for every Jew, and following the laws with joy) and the misnagdim (non-Hasidim).  This split actually predates the reform/ultra-orthodox/modern orthodox split by a generation, but because Hasidic communities revolved heavily around a single charismatic and pious "rebbe", they tended to be more conservative and pretty much (read: I don't know of any exceptions but can't guarantee there aren't any) all ended up as ultra-Orthodox.

Modern orthodoxy doesn't really have a clear binary split (although it's not clear how long that will stay true), but more of a spectrum from more modern/lenient to more conservative, with the main issues being how to deal with non-Orthodox Jews and various questions of Jewish law.  I personally am toward the right wing of modern orthodoxy.

[Buster's Uncle]

It is worth noting that the Samaritans would, naturally, differ with the above about them and who the true Jews are.


If it isn't too nosy of me, Yitzi, how long are your sideburns?

[Yitzi]

It is worth noting that the Samaritans would, naturally, differ with the above about them and who the true Jews are.


If it isn't too nosy of me, Yitzi, how long are your sideburns?

They reach to my beard.  They're not substantially longer than the surrounding hair, if that's what you're asking.

[Buster's Uncle]

Hat or yarmulke?


I've just never met anyone as hard-core as you, and I'm curious.  (And I feel uncomfortable asking, because I like you too much to not care if I offend.)

[Yitzi]

Hat or yarmulke?

Yarmulke, plus hat for prayers.

I've just never met anyone as hard-core as you, and I'm curious.  (And I feel uncomfortable asking, because I like you too much to not care if I offend.)

I'm very hard to offend with just asking.

[Buster's Uncle]

Charles Darwin's Evolution: Did His Anxieties Shape His Science?
LiveScience.com
By Denise Chow, Staff Writer  8 hours ago



This is one of the last photographs taken of Charles Darwin, who developed the theory of evolution whereby changes in species are driven, over time, by natural and sexual selection.



NEW YORK — How much did Charles Darwin's personal anxieties influence his work on the theory of evolution? Did the tragedy of losing his mother at an early age shape the type of scientist he would  become?

Dr. Gail Saltz, an associate professor of psychiatry at the New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, and David Kohn, founder and director of the Darwin Manuscripts Project at the American Museum of Natural History, discussed these and other intimately personal questions about Darwin on Monday (March 3) here at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.

The speakers examined the so-called psychobiography of Darwin, which involves using modern psychological research and theory to peel back the mystique of historical figures, in an effort to better understand their lives. Through the lens of psychology, Saltz and Kohn tried to figure out the motives that governed Darwin's actions and the issues that drove his ambitions.


A lasting legacy

Darwin is best known for his work on the theory of evolution, which he detailed in his seminal book, "On the Origin of Species." The book, published in 1859, stated that all life on Earth descended over time from common ancestors, and a process of natural selection governs the branching pattern of biological changes.

Darwin's contributions helped him become one of the most influential scientists in history, but his theory of evolution by natural selection remains controversial to this day. Biblical literalists reject Darwin's theory, believing instead in creationism, which focuses on the idea that God created animals and humans in their current form some 6,000 years ago, as described in Genesis.

Yet, Darwin's experiences early in his life may have taught him how to protect against the onslaught of criticism that would be lobbed his way from people championing competing theories, according to Saltz.

Darwin was born into a wealthy family on Feb. 12, 1809. But tragedy struck early, and Darwin's mother died when the boy was just 8 years old. His older sisters became the maternal figures.

"His sisters were like mothers to him, and they were very critical," Saltz said. "He learned to protect himself from criticism, and maybe learned to develop a sense of oppositional defiance, which becomes prophetic."

Darwin's father, Robert, was a doctor, and was very strict with his son, the researchers said. Robert had aspirations for his son to follow in his footsteps, but Charles felt indifferent about medicine, Kohn said.

"He liked observing his father practice, but when he went to [the University of] Edinburgh Medical School, other things drew him in," he said.

Yet, despite going on to pursue his interest in natural science, Darwin maintained a strong desire to please his father, and Robert Darwin's death in 1848 would have a profound effect on the naturalist, Saltz said.


On his own origin

Another key to unraveling Darwin's psychobiography involves analyzing the scientist's internal anxiety, Saltz said. Before embarking on his five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle — during which time he would begin to develop his theory of evolution — Darwin experienced anxiety attacks, headaches and eczema-type skin irritations, she added.

"Historians have looked at this and think it's very psychosomatic," Saltz said, referring to the idea that Darwin's physical ailments may have been accompanied — or even aggravated — by mental suffering brought on by stress and anxiety.

Darwin's anxiety persisted throughout his life, and culminated in what might be diagnosed as a nervous breakdown shortly after the death of his father, according to Saltz.

"He wanted his father's approval so much, and this remained to the end of his father's life," she said. "After his father's death, Charles goes through a period where he's really not well."

These troubles may explain why nearly 21 years passed between when Darwin began writing his theory of evolution, and when "On the Origin of Species" was finally published in 1859, Saltz added.

"He holds back in publishing, and waits decades," Saltz said. "There was a long period when he had these ideas, had written these ideas, but didn't publish them. Sometimes we see that production is blocked when patients are depressed."

Yet, despite suffering bouts of anxiety and having to navigate around critical family members, Darwin's upbringing likely also shaped his unique scientific talents, the researchers said.

"He was remarkably vigilant as an observer," Saltz said. "This may have been honed by having a father who was highly critical. All of this may have translated into him being a great observer of nature."

http://news.yahoo.com/charles-darwins-evolution-did-anxieties-shape-science-183513196.html