1. Christianity 'could die out within a century'

Comment #197400 by philiproulx on June 22, 2008 at 1:09 am

This guys math is seriously wrong...which makes it very difficult to take this article seriously...and gives rise to some ulterior motives.

...just over a third of people thought religions like Christianity and Judaism would still be practiced in Britain in 100 years' time

A third? I thought the article said that 4 in 10 for Christianity? The article doesn't mention how many are swayed by Judaism, but is has to be less than 9%, since that's Buddhism, and Buddhism surpasses Judaism...but even if Judaism is 3 or 4%, that still makes the combined more like 43 or 44%, which is nowhere close to "a third".

Buddhism however, proved more attractive than both Islam and Judaism, and was chosen by nine per cent of those questioned.

So, Buddhism gets 9% and beats out Judaism and Islam. Not sure how that sentence required a "however" though, since it followed comments about a 40% popularity of Christianity.

In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims is predicted to increase from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035.

Wow, I don't even know where to start here... because it's clear that the author is mixing the conclusions of two different studies. I mean, if according to this study, 40% are swayed by Christianity, 40% are swayed by Atheism, 9% are swayed by Buddhism ...that only leaves 11% for all the other world religions.

To say that Christianity is on the decline when it has 40% popularity and then to end his piece with a comment on Muslim growth doesn't follow. And yes, I personally know why the Muslim faith is on the rise, contrary to it's popularity amongst those who were questioned in this study.

The title of the article also seems pretty intentional. I mean to say that Christianity has a 40% popularity, Islam has a less than 9% popularity (by deduction) and then state:

Research published earlier this year suggested that church attendance is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation.

Seems like more scare tactics to embitter Christians and Atheists alike against Islam.

This is propaganda, and I'm surprised that no one has called the author on this.

2. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163493 by philiproulx on April 18, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Count von Count, I was just trying to delineate between what can be tested and what can not. Science encompasses what can be tested, philosophy encompasses both what can be tested and what can not.

Philosophically it's okay to theorize about the spiritual realm, scientifically it's impossible to make any comment on the issue, since it's not something we can empirically quantify, test or prove or deny. So as a philosopher I am okay with exploring the notion that there was something spiritual (in a realm that is not physical) the preexisted everything...as a scientist, it makes me nervous, and unscientific because it can not be brought into the realm of science.

That's all.

3. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163414 by philiproulx on April 18, 2008 at 10:16 am

Creationists usually respond with the, "god is a complex spirit, outside of our realm of the tangible and physical" line when the issue of complex antecedents is raised.

As a philosopher, I'm okay with exploring this line of reasoning...as a scientist I find it very unnerving and very unscientific.

But you do propose the need to find simpler antecedents, but as creationists are quick to point out, the simplest antecedent, out of necessity, must preexist matter/space/time?

God as a spirit, not a physical being and not made up of the same components of our physical reality, is what they claim is the simplest antecedent. The ultimate cause.

Does this not necessitate that matter/universe has always existed? Or is there something that we can point to that preexisted matter, which serves as a probably, reasonable, rational antecedent?

4. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #159486 by philiproulx on April 12, 2008 at 9:33 am

julesfkirby, I know the genetic bottleneck that you describe. But does that not only apply to populations in decline? I'm sure we all remember BIO101 "The Genetic Peril of the Cheetah" ha ha. Poor cheetah.

To suggest that eugenics will create a genetic bottle neck on a population of approaching 7 billion, may be a bit of a stretch.

I might also add that we already ARE engaged in harmful eugenic practices. Not in the literal sense, but any type of artificial interference with "natural" selection has the potential to produce the problem that you describe.

For example, modern medicine (while good) creates and environment where deleterious genetic weaknesses (that would under natural circumstances be eliminated from the gene pool) are now finding safe harbor and are given opportunity to propagate and even thrive.

So our efforts to coexist with (and not eliminate) the multitude of genetic weaknesses, has, in effect, created a gene pool that has a dependency on medication and medical advancement, and is not getting stronger.

I was merely suggesting that possibly, the solution would be to balance out this with some proactive approaches to identifying genetic weakness, and eliminating them pre birth.

I was also suggesting that evolution gives us the impetus to do so, since it would be doing it naturally, if we didn't interfere. But since we do interfere (with modern medical science) we need to balance it out with artificial selection.

So, I am sticking to my guns. Evolution does compel us to make every effort to pursue the fittest genome, since it would be doing it for us, if we didn't interfere.

I think if we can determine sickness/diseases that under natural circumstances would be eliminated from the gene pool, we should make every effort to let natural selection do it's thing. Of course the most humane thing to do would be to prevent these types of births.

I also stated that we just don't like where Hitler drew the line in the sand, but the point that no one contends is that we already have a line drawn in the sand in regards to this issue...and we already do perform eugenic practices....in respect to abortions. I'm not saying that Hitler was right, I'm just saying I can understand how he could have drawn his conclusions from evolution.

5. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158348 by philiproulx on April 10, 2008 at 11:26 am

Jules, if you mean that evolution has no say on what is right and what is wrong, then you are correct. There are no right and wrongs with evolution, and it is not ethically wrong for a species of bird to wipe out a species of insect. Right and wrong only exists because humans have a perspective on life that no other organism has. So, when I talk about ethics, I can only talk about ethics in regards to an ethical framework that humans have constructed. I am merely asking the question, "What prevents us from building our ethical framework on the foundations of evolution, which suggests that we ensure that we are the fittest, and take any means necessary to that end?"

6. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #158320 by philiproulx on April 10, 2008 at 10:37 am

Isn't it true that since we know about the mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution, and we know how to make our genotype stronger, that we should engage in practices that make our species stronger genetically? This may include promoting interracial marriages (which studies show produce far superior offspring) but may also include such practices as aborting when defects are discovered (like hearing defects, or sight defects or propensity for diabetes, or even asthma). I think if we embrace evolution we need to accept the ethical implications even when we find ourselves conflicted. And I think to a large degree, that's what Hitler thought he was doing...the difference is, we just don't like where he drew the line in the sand....and is it really our place to do that type of line drawing in the first place? So what is it that constrains us to not play "god"? What is it that compels us to not try and make the human genotype stronger, more resilient through advanced genetic manipulation, or unnatural selection?