Welcome to PatsFans.com

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Sep 12, 2009.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,857
    Likes Received:
    426
    Ratings:
    +919 / 8 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    This isn't a religious thread because the thread is about financial backers not wanting to front the money to show it here because evidently we are too religious as a country to give the film any monetary demand ... interesting indeed.

    I never understood why Darwin and religion couldn't exist together .. that's just my 2-cents anyways. God didn't write the religious works ... people did ... and they weren't scientists as we well know.

    Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America' - Telegraph

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  2. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey


    A great retort to this can be found here
    Darwin's Connection to Nazi Eugenics Exposed : The Primate Diaries
    and just because a horrific regime referenced a scientist's earlier work doesn't mean that Darwin endorsed it...

    It's too neat and simple to say that he buried a child so he rejected G-d. Not every bereaved parent rejects a divine being though they may take a view of a G-d that doesn't micromanage. That's for another discussion.
  3. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    This is actually a very important topic for discussion. So much happened in the 19th century in terms of sea-change shifts in world views. Not only Darwin, but people like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler .... many other pivotal figures in the 20th century had their starting point toward "radical change in world view" in the mid to late 19th century.


    I've got to go to meeting right now, but this is an excellent topic.


    //
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +460 / 6 / -9

    Nevertheless, as I understand it, he had real concerns about the implications of his research. As to losing his faith, the Voyage of the Beagle, death of his daughter, who knows. Apparently in this film it's the death of his daughter that does the trick. (As I recall that was after the Beagle.)

    Regardless - I see PFIP has linked to a story putting eugenics, then Nazi applications thereof, at Darwin's door. That is to say, at truth's door. Were there no truth, goes the implied logic, there would be no holocaust.

    The truth is, we evolved, as did everything else on Earth. As to eugenics and Nazism, there are quite a few lies conveniently bolted on to the Darwinian truth, particularly in the case of the Nazis. I mean, after the butt-whoopin' Jesse Owens laid on them, you'd think the German people would be ready to embrace the notion of the basic equality of human "races", but noooooo.

    Nazis aside (Godwin too,) there are enormously troubling implications of the actual facts of the science. After all, in the 19th century, we as a society thought that noble animals were going about their noble animal business, popping into existence when we had a moment to look, and otherwise just living their lovely little animal lives.

    It took attentive study to realize there are species that are hatched on a beach, make a mad dash to the surf, and 99.9% of the time get eaten. But that .1% that doesn't, runs a sub-4.3 40, guaranteed.

    What is truly baffling to me is that among the rabid right, we've simultaneously developed "scientific" (or more to the point, "anti-scientific") anti-Darwinism, but accepted social Darwinism, the very fallacy that PFIP points to with the link.

    I.e., there are millions of people running around America thinking that man was put here 6,000 years ago by the hand of God, but that if a business fails it must be "survival of the fittest," and if a poor person dies it is "evolution in action." Uh noooo, it might be the best thing that can happen economically (though not stipulated in the abstract,) but it is certainly not a feature of Darwinian evolution.

    PFnV
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Tis is the worst news I've heard about America in a long time. Worse than the economy, Afghanistan, and Bruschi's retirement. The Dumbing Down of America continues to accellerate like a runaway train and because of that, I'm concerned that we will not be able to recover or keep up. All the other things could have been temporary, but because of our lowering of standards and the constant opiate of media and mindless forms of "emtertainment" we may be done, ant the rest of the world knows it.

    Ignorance of natural science and history will be the downfall or this country. While other cultures like China and India embrace science and advancement of knowledge, we will be left in their wake...sick, fat, stupid and religious. I was watching TV with my little one this morning flipping through the channels during breakfast and I couldn't believe the number of preacher money grabs that were on. I just went back and counted at least (commercials might have made me miss a few) 15 shows of preachers of one kind or another and I only have 100 channels (ONLY??!!). Imagine the money pouring through these crooks in this hard times. They must be doing well...as good as package stores and cable companies.

    Star Trek Next Generation had a great episode on this subject called "The Game". All you Trekkies out there know the one.
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    All true...

    The worst and most intractible view (and one I've been wrestling with for years since I travelled) might be that our society is not flexible enough for this flood of knowledge that we have been under for the last 100 years. Other societies may be more suitable because they have had more time to work things out and become established, or they are more homogeneous, or they're smaller. Either way, they seem to get less bogged down with problems than we do. Some advanced societies may have larger hurdles like population control or a lack of natural resources, but our problems change and replace each other on a seemingly rotating basis. One decade, it's WWII, another it's the Red Scare, grappling with civil rights, it's drugs, AIDS, Who We Are (we can't seem to nail that one down) ....We become distracted from the Big Picture very easily here almost as if it's being done on purpose.

    We ignore truth in favor of feeling good. You can call it security, if you want. We are a nation who sees the world as not connected to us, and therefor, some kind of threat. I don't know if it's because of our geography or mythology or both, but it definitely sets us apart from others in more ways than one. Don't get me wrong. I've been around, and I would rather be nowhere else than here in North America, but we have to continue to evolve with the rest of the world. We can't hide anymore or we will be relegated to the same fate that other theocracies have found themselves in.

    It's fine if people want to "believe" in anything, but it's not fine to pretend that science is not real or that new ideas are inherently bad. Some are. But nothing should be considered automatically wrong because they disagree with mythology.
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +460 / 6 / -9

    Wait wasn't that the one where the whole crew got addicted to a videogame and couldn't function?

    Well to counter your analysis, the Argument from Stargate SG-1 is in point, to wit, hallowed be the Auri! (or however you spell it.)
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    That's the one.
    Don't watch SG-1 or Star Trek, for that matter. Not enough time these days.
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,411
    Likes Received:
    264
    Ratings:
    +460 / 6 / -9

    I just love imaginative fiction... that's what I love about Fox!
  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Scary, but I think its cyclical. This time is like the anti-60's.

    I read somewhere years ago that societies always get a little screwed up around the turn of centuries and even more so around the turn of millenia. Couple in September 11 and its repercussions and it feels sensible that we're out of sorts right now. It won't last.

    At some point we'll reverse and cycle back towards secularism and go even further along its path, followed again by a period of religious zealotry that won't be as intense. Over time science will grow stronger and religion weaker until in maybe 70 or 80 years a movie about Darwin won't be such a dangerous topic.
  11. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Good points all but I don't think you can lay the roots of the Holocaust at Darwin's feet. It was the Greeks (?Romans) who used to throw deformed newborns over the cliff to kill them, a likely precursor of eugenics and Hitler wasn't the first to try to exterminate the Jewish people...., not even the first in Europe if you study the pogroms of the shtetls in Poland and Russia that followed 'blood libel' lies of the middle ages. He took it to a more organized post-industrial age level with tragic efficiency.
    As for American education, I hate to wrap around immigration or bring it into the equation but I call it 'the immigrant mentality', a single minded focus to work hard and get an education to become an American. Look around at many of the schools in the inner city and the suburbs and you'' see that the salutatorians, and valedictorians are often the first generation to be born in this country. They aren't distracted by TV or video games but by getting an education......Ironically they may be the ones to help save the education system by doing well!!!
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    No..you misread me or I wasn't clear. I don't connect Darwin with the Holocaust at all. I put that on anti-Semitism and Teutonic arrogance. Master race theories have been around since the first group of Hairy proto-humans chased another group from the watering hole. We did it to the Indians. The Hebrews did it to the Canaanites. I doubt the Japanese were concerned about Darwin when they slaughtered the Manchurians.

    Your second point is very good and might prove true. I wouldn't doubt it for a second.
  13. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Oops, rereading it, I got your point...my bad.
  14. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Are you talking religious religious like Harry Boy or secular religious like Patters?

    Both can't tolerate Darwinism. One because it makes little room for G-d; the other because it shows egalitarianism to be a quaint fiction.
  15. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Most of these "revolutionaries" of the 19th century, like Darwin, Marx, Freud, Lenin, etc., had some very unpleasant experiences -- real shocks and personal challenges -- in their early lives which they then blamed on God and religion. Marx's father became a nominal Christian in order to get a better job than he, as a person of Jewish ancestry, would normally be able to secure; but that all went belly up, and Karl became bitter.

    Lenin also had Orthodox Christian education as a young man, but saw his brother arrested and executed for attempting the assassination of the Czar, so he, too, became virulently anti-religious/anti-God.

    Stalin and Freud had similar experiences.

    Blaming God and religion became a popular affectation during the late 19th and throughout the 20th centuries as the wars, suffering, and chaos of that time period immersed the entire world into doubt about the very meaning of life itself. The result we have seen was often a falling back into hyper-nationalism as a "civil religion" or a pursuit of "purity" within religious views, which led to fundamentalism.

    With the entire world becoming more and more inter-connected, old thought systems were proving to be inadequate and unsatisfactory in explaining the purpose of life and how people should lead their lives, ... a mission heretofore taken by traditional religions as the world has known them.

    In a practice that I call "throwing out the baby with the used bath water", many people threw away their faith or rejected the option to develop faith in God because of the growing emphasis on purely physical phenomena, and in an age that saw science develop more than at any other time in history, or the sudden rise of religious fundamentalism that is militantly EXCLUSIVE toward any who do not follow the same particular creed (especially among the Abrahamic faiths of Judism, Christianity, and Islam).

    Yet, even with all of this, the search for what lies BEYOND the "here and now" continues, un-stifled by the unsatisfying answers that secularism, humanism, and materialism offer.

    God is not dead. God is alive as always. It is HUMAN BEINGS who need to discover God's presence and principles of life. As Paul said almost 2000 years ago: "The invisible power and deity of God have been visible through that which God has created, so we are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20

    As Divine Principle would say:

    "Just as a work of art displays the invisible nature of its maker in a concrete form, everything in the created universe is a substantial manifestation of some quality of the Creator's invisible, divine nature. As such, each stands in a relationship to God. Just as we can come to know the character of an artist through his works, so we can understand the nature of God by observing the diverse things of creation.

    Let us begin by pointing out the common elements which are found universally throughout the natural world. Every entity possesses dual characteristics of yang (masculinity) and yin (femininity) and comes into existence only when these characteristics have formed reciprocal relationships, both within the entity and between it and other entities.

    For example, subatomic particles, the basic building blocks of all matter, possess either a positive charge, a negative charge or a neutral charge formed by the neutralization of positive and negative constituents. When particles join with each other through the reciprocal relationships of their dual characteristics, they form an atom. Atoms, in turn, display either a positive or a negative valence. When the dual characteristics within one atom enter into reciprocal relationships with those in another atom, they form a molecule. Molecules formed in this manner engage in further reciprocal relationships between their dual characteristics to eventually become nourishment fit for consumption by plants and animals. " -- The Principle of Creation


    //
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    huh?..........
    Your arguement for the defense of anti-Darwinist thought is called "Divine Principal"?
    Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called "Begging the Question"? It's a basic part of rhetorical discussion in every Logic 101 class in the philosophy departments of every major university.
  17. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Try to follow the bouncing ball ..... it's not too hard .... I'll go slow ... real slow:

    Darwin comes out of the 19th century, a time of transition from the "old order" of kingdoms and private fifedoms, to the era of world-wide democracy and "equalization" of humankind. All of this was in full-gear by the 19th century.

    Meanwhile, religions were still operating on credos that were anywhere from 1300 to 4000+ years old; Christian doctrine hadn't changed much in 1500 years; Judaism in 4000 years; Islam in 1300 years. But worst of all, NONE of them had answers to age-old questions like: where DID it all actually begin? Where does EVIL come from?? What KIND of APPLE did Adam and Eve eat??? How COULD Jesus be born from a "virgin"??? Among others.

    So, what to do: throw out all religious belief OR re-think the teachings we have had until now??

    We've tried everything else -- from throwing out everything to going fundamentalist -- and it is not good enough; so why not look into something that is genuinely NEW and a revelation never before heard?? Makes sense to me -- even TRULY LIBERAL, if you ask me -- to look carefully into it. What "it"?? Divine Principle.


    //
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    No need to regurgitate your last post. I got it the first time. Your logic in defense of religion is religion. The point of this film, I think (I can't know because it won't be shown here because too many people think the Bible is not a fable) is to show why Darwin rejected religion. For many, it is a tragic loss that is emotionally too difficult to overcome or be salved with religious platitudes about God's plan, etc... Darwin didn't "blame" God. He just concluded correctly that all the myths he was led to believe in have no basis in truth. He was already on the fence about religion, and this just happened to be the final straw for him. It's not complicated. It's a process that many good and thoughtful people go through. And it isn't an "attack" on God or his believers as much as you would like it to be.

    You can't substitute a lack of religious competency with another version of religion that is based on the assumption that religion is truth. There is no governing principal that is independent of human creativity. You're getting into an existential paradox. The definition of something cannot be that itself. The dictionary does not say, "red - (red) adj.: a color that is red".
  19. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    But to believe in God and the eternal requires you do exactly as you say: believe in something that is "invisible" to the physical eye. Existence is beyond the physical -- as we all get to know sooner or later. Everybody has been searching for answers about it, even the God-denying, religion-denying Soviets did experiements on the "supra-natural" because they knew something is there, something that the old religious writings could not explain.

    Thus the need for a new approach: The Divine Principle.

    You already know what Darwin says; why not try something new .... and infinitely more satisfying??


    -------------------------------

    And to say it's "not an attack on God or religion", I bet a month in solitary confinement for you -- where NOBODY sees you, hears you, or has any contact with you AT ALL -- would make you have a fresh appreciation for what "attack" is all about.


    //
  20. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I've tried. I don't have enough faith in the philosophy of what may be to make the effort worthwhile. I am where Darwin was. I remain open to all possibilities, but, for me and many others- even churchgoers - there is only truth in things that are experienceable and observable (not to be confused with "visible").

    I don't know what makes matter and forces behave like a sine wave. I don't care about reaching the "singularity" or non-reduceable element of the universe. I am also not afraid because I don't know. That's what makes me different from Mrs. PFinVa. Not better.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>