Monday, July 11, 2011

Dennis On: Sanctified Ignorance



Sanctified Ignorance is Still Ignorant


Dennis Diehl - EzineArticles Expert AuthorWe all have our stories of how we got here and who we are in the universe. Most stories told by every culture point out the unique origins of that culture, like as not, springing directly from that particular cave or mountain in distant and mysterious times in the past. When the National Geographic Genographic research team gently informed aboriginal Australians of their African origins, according to the DNA evidence, the Elders reacted with a simple "no, we originated here and maybe they came from us." Comforting and upholding of ancient aboriginal beliefs, but not scientifically true. You could feel the tension this new information brought into the cultural beliefs that for so long had encouraged and sustained them. I doubt they will change their understanding of themselves with this bit of scientific information.

A similar reaction occurred when the team informed the Navajo in the
Americas of their DNA origins linking them to a still existent people in Siberia. The immediate reaction was understandably defensive for Navajo origin stories which had them always living in the Four Corners area of the now United States. In time, I believe they agreed that there was room for both the science and the tradition and, in this case, both maintained their truths on tribal origins. But the science was more literally correct. The uneasiness was palpable.

And now the Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism, the IPCB is raising even more concerns about the effect this knowledge will have on belief systems of indigenous peoples. For better or worse, "Indigenous peoples have consistently voiced their opposition to this type of research because it breaches cultural values, bioethical standards and human rights law. The IPCB believes the project is being undertaken at the expense of indigenous peoples. Debra Harry, the organization's executive director, writes on their website, "It is quite likely this project will advance new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowledge of ourselves. There can be no claim as to which understanding is correct, and will result in a clash of knowledge systems. Moreover, there could be serious political implications that result from a so-called "scientific" assertion that indigenous peoples are not "indigenous" to their territories, but instead are recent migrants from some other place. This cuts at the heart of the rights of indigenous peoples, which are based upon our collective, inherent right of self-determination as peoples, under international human rights law." A standard ethical requirement in human research is that the benefits must equal the risk. The IPCB believes that in this type of research, there will be no benefit to indigenous peoples, yet the research creates substantial risk for the individuals and peoples affected."

It is this advancement of "new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowlege of ourselves," that seems to be so difficult for humans to handle. Truth is still true though denied by all. In such defensiveness science always get's called "science so called" and even does in the Bible as "Science, falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20). This phrase is always used when the science is really not false, but it is threatening to sincerely held beliefs. I don't like someone knocking the nose off my idols any more than the next guy, but that's progress, painful and ever moving forward. The Bible makes fun of learning at times in this nervousness over knowledge when it mocks those who are "ever learning, but never able to come the knowledge of the truth" (II Tim. 3:7), to which I say, at least they keep trying and even Jesus is reported to have said, "seek and ye shall find." Of course he meant spiritually but it's good advice in all endeavors too.

The moment you believe you have it, you've lost it.

We all have our origin stories that, in time, will probably prove to not be true, at least not literally. We live in an age where even most Christians realize that the origin stories of mankind in the Garden of Eden, through a first set of parents, Adam and Eve, are not literally true. The problem with believing that is that much of the doctrine in the New Testament requires the story of the first Adam and Eve to be literally true as they lead to such literally true doctrines as the role of women in the church, why women have babies painfully, Jesus being the "Second Adam" and the Doctrine of Original Sin. All of these beliefs and teachings are destroyed by the Genesis story not being literally true.  Scientific truth has implications for Biblical origin stories.

If there was no real Eve, or Adam whose fault this wasn't ;) who really caused all of mankind to fall into original sin, for which we all must repent etc, then there is no need of repenting of that which never happened or of needing a Savior in the way portrayed in the New Testament. Stories and ideas have implications to say the least. Many Christians think it is ok NOT to believe in things being literally true. But that has incredible implications for other things they think they believe but dont' realize the connection and contradictions their position causes theologically. Plainly, if there was no literal Genesis like creation of mankind and fall into sin, and it is shown to not be true by good science, the implications are staggering in how we will have to change our views. Frankly most won't but will, as always, attack the messenger and burn the message, or just burn both.

Actually, a simple cheek swab was all it took for me to find out my own amazing DNA trip out of Africa 70,000 years ago. Perhaps this is done for some reason somewhere, but for the Genome project, this fear is very unfounded. Our genetic history is easily taken from the inside of our mouths. Every cell contains the whole.
Simply speaking, it appears that ALL modern humans originated in and then spread out from
Africa within the last 100,000 years or less. What a great story to read at Clan meetings! All the "differences" we see in humans are adaptations we made along the way in our trek from there to Europe, Asia and the Americas. Good science gives us good explanations, always subject to new information about this process.

Indeed, we do need to insure the privacy of the individual if they wish it and we need to be sensitive to the process that others go through when they are faced with the implications of such information and research. It takes time to accept change and as stated, many won't, but rather will just become angry and defensive. We see this all the time in the attacks Christian literalists launch into from their pulpits when new knowledge threatens old ideas.
It's funny, in my previous church affiliation there was a belief that always annoyed me scientifically. It was the belief, now long discredited, that the Lost Tribes of
Israel turned up as the powerful nations of Europe, The British Empire and of course, America. I was Dutch, so that clearly put me in the Tribe of Zebulun, according to the theory. I never gave a sermon on this topic! However, my DNA shows I made no such trip through the middle east to become an Israelite and go on into Europe. Rather it shows a long trip through Iran, Iraq the various "Beckastans" on out onto the steppes of Asia and then one big swing into Europe as Cro-Magnon and then into France, Holland and England in much more recent times. That British-Israelism idea is bunk and DNA testing will show it to be so. That particular idea is racist if ever there was one.

The historical speculations of the Book of Mormon on race origins have been destroyed by DNA testing.  Native Americans are Siberian in origins for the most part and not Middle Eastern from the Levant.  Of course, this will not stop the spread of Mormonism but it does leave them with some difficult problems to explain. Don't worry, the truth of the matter won't stop that Church anymore than it has stopped others.  The book will no doubt become "spiritual truth" instead of literal truth at some point in the future and continue to deceive.

So good science is not "science, falsely so called" or "so called science." Yes, it has implications for theologians and Christians but believing something is true never makes it really true and we need to always have a love of discovery. Sorry to say, it is usually the reactions to new information by those most threatened by it that plunges our world into chaos.



Dennis C. Diehl

42 comments:

Byker Bob said...

When considering Christians, many non-believers will lump all with the young earthers, who, let's face it, at least amongst fundamentalists, would seem to be the predominant group. But, that is a disingenuous device employed for the sake of ridicule. Ridicule does not get questions answered or resolve issues. I really have very little tolerance for ignorance on either side; there is much for which we do not have answers from either science or religion.

Though not as well known, there are also Old Earth Creationists, who believe that God used evolution as one of His natural processes, and introduced God-consciousness in mankind at the specific point when man (and woman) was ready. And, of course, I have no doubt that the first man-like creatures probably did come out of Mother Africa. Unless one considers the natural records stored in glaciers, shale, coral, sediments, residual radioactivity, and light from stars which are billions of lightyears away to have been fabricated or bogus, there is no way one could conclude that the earth is only 6-7,000 years old.

It also appears likely, applying statistical analysis and probability to the big bang and evolution, that there was some outside guidance of the process. With everything in the universe seemingly having a purpose, and much being synchronized and interrelated, it seems laughable that the universe itself would not have a purpose.

BB

Allen C. Dexter said...

Another great article, Dennis.

I haven't had my DNA analyzed and probably won't. I can go back over three hundred years to jolly old England, which evidently wasn't as jolly as he desired for old Thomas Dexter.

Since that time, just about every national strain from Europe and the British Isles has been thrown in, including the Goebbels family from Germany. Ja, ich bin ein deutcher in part. It was going on for centuries prior to that, I'm sure. That's why I regard everybody as my cousin, removed a few hundred or thousand times.

There began to be serious questions in my mind about all that BI crap there in the early seventies, along with D&R, prophecy and a few other things.

Fairy tales are hard for people to let go. I guess they feel like their ancestors are being called liars. I hope I've outgrown it, but maybe there are still a few things back their in my mind that need expunging. If so, I'm determined to grab the old eraser as soon as it becomes apparent.

DennisCDiehl said...

Thanks Al, ich auch komme aus Deutschland . i komme aus Esslingen am Nekar. :)

Good comments BB. Everything is possible. I just have always wished the Deity, if out there, up there or even in there, would speak up more clearly instead of leaving us all with way too many "could be" and "perhaps" Such important concepts such as salvation, reward, purpose and meaning have been left to way too many amateurs to interpret for us.

Jace said...

Fantastic read, Dennis. I want to have my DNA analyzed too, one of these days. Out of curiosity, did it cost all that much?

Onward...

DennisCDiehl said...

All I ever wanted to know was the truth of things ever since i was a kid. Dinosaurs, jesus, history, universe, quantum physics, what is man and consciousness and such.

It is why I was attracted to the WCG. I thought they understood the bible better than where I grew up. Michael can flap his mouth about who and what an atheist is or isn't, but I suspect he has not strayed much outside the box he came in with regards to religion. I find him to be the kind of smug that makes most i know turn away from endeavoring to understanding the Bible.

I always ask myself about those who seem to know the mind of God, 'and you know this?' How is it people can't add or subtract, don't understand quantum physics and particles, matter and light yet easily profess to know the mind and intent of a God that never shows itself? They say they read it in the Bible and it is am matter of putting the pieces together in the proper order, which they know. How did those in the Bible know??? If i had a vision of revelation, you'd dismiss me. If I said I went to the third heaven and saw amazing things I can't tell you about, you'd prescribe medication. Why do we believe the unprovable experiences of a man thousands of years ago ? I can't trust that. They'd not trust my experiences.

I doubt I am an atheist. I just don't know at this point. I'd love to know, not believe, there is more than being a hairless ape that became conscious when writing and speech came into the evolution of ourselves. I just can't prove it and just having faith does not work for me. Faith is something one has before the facts wipe it out.

Jace said...

Christ...

Did I miss something here? Did Mike just post something else about atheists? Are you still beating that drum Mike? Give it a rest already. Move along... please?

(and if someone deleted his post, thank you!)

DennisCDiehl said...

I had the DNA test done five or six years ago for about 100 at the National geographic genome project. It may be less now

Anonymous said...

It is appalling to those of us who grew up with science and technology to encounter those who don't have a clue -- the ones who have no structural visualization, are non mechanical to the extreme -- they are the ones for whom "history" so called was created. It's impossible to talk the Universe out of anything and if you don't believe in entropy, try burning ashes from the fire place. On the other hand, since human beings are prone to various failures and breakdowns, such as lying and compromise, it is possible to talk human beings in and out of some of the most outrageous stuff which can't possibly be true -- hence they are subject to superstition and con men selling snake oil.

It is those who are cut from the cloth of the nonscientific who create religion. Those of us who know how things really work (in a limited sort of way) snicker at those who live their lives in ways that indicate that they believe in magic (and no, I do not want to see discussions about Arthur C. Clark, thank you).

The problem as I see it, Dennis, is that the nonscientific types are in control of nearly everything: They make the laws and enforce them, they write history and they engage in commerce. Without them, the technologists would be just fine because they could easily invent ways to feed themselves, it's just that the nonscientific types have become so powerful and influential through manipulation of the human psyche by playing with our memories and logic.

As one of the technologist folks, I rather resent being under the thumb of the nimnul nothings nattering about such inventive ideaphoria as British Israelism, church history and their claims about descending from royalty so they have the divine right of kings and executive privilege.

Thank you Dennis for yet another swipe at the nontechnological stupid crazies who aren't so much liars as just being completely deficient.

Michael D. Maynard said...

"Michael can flap his mouth about who and what an atheist is or isn't, but I suspect he has not strayed much outside the box he came in with regards to religion.
I find him to be the kind of smug that makes most i know turn away from endeavoring to understanding the Bible."

DD, I have changed my religious views 180 degrees from the Armstrongism days in twelve months this month...a rather rapid transformation I would say.

You have had, if I remember, sixteen tears to study these issues. I can understand agnostic, somewhat, like Albert Einsteine, as far as having no "personal God" but who was adamantly against Athiesm. He could see clearly as he wrote that there had to be a master designer especially in the world of physics.

Douglas stated about those who are outside of the sciences and nontechnical...I am in a high tech electronics/electromechanical/chemical field and I see laws of physics in motion that happen exactly the same way every time even timed to the nanosecond. Laws that are unfailing and precise to measurements so minute they can't even be measured (like Stephen Hawkins Membrane Theory Particles, Ha, not that small thought)

This makes it impossible for me to accept the fact that there is no master designer out there making up these rules.

I can not find any randomness in creation that makes me doubt. Even one of my friends is a professor of higher mathamatics. He studies Chaos Theory. It is the study of identifying order in seemingly random evens in the universe, far above my ability to comprehend, but it seems there is order in even what seems to be chaos.

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
— Plato

Michael D. Maynard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael D. Maynard said...

(and if someone deleted his post, thank you!)

No Jace, AD gave me enough material for an entire book...THANK YOU!

What a fortuitous accident landing there a few days ago. I have a whole new understanding and am still digesting a lot of it.

That is why I deleted my post for now, I realized I had not even scratched the surface of the issue.

"You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation."
— Plato

Michael D. Maynard said...

Sp...Correction Hawking.

Jace said...

You know Mike, for a couple of days after your disasterous attempt at trolling AD, I was pretty annoyed with you. Now, I can honestly say, that annoyance has simply evolved into pity.

I feel really bad for you Mike. I do. You want to believe you did yourself great service by coming to AD last week? You go right ahead. You want to believe it was all an "fortuitous accident"? lol, whatever you say man... heh, maybe "god" himself sent you there...

Just keep saying whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

If you repeat it enough times, you may even start to believe it.

Onward...

Jace said...

Oh and one more thing...

Quoting Plato all of a sudden?

Total ROFLcopter.

Yeah, that's all I've got.

Onward...

Michael D. Maynard said...

Jace,

When Casey Wollberg cut u off at the knees by preempting you at my first comment I knew it was going to be fun there. As I told you I have not laughed so hard in a LONG time...thanks so much!

Jace, One Of many, many humorous aspects of Casey's obsession with Sophistic argument is that Socrates was a theist and had great respect for God and morality. If Socrates came back and saw how Casey used his style of debate in such a horrible way against a fellow theist, all of you writers at AD might just get castrated by Socrates himself. LOL

Michael D. Maynard said...

Jace,

Quoting Plato all of a sudden?

Total ROFLcopter.

What you don't realize about me is my extreme patience...it is always devastating...I never fire all of my bullets at once...I remember.

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” -Mark Twain.

Jace said...

Well Mike, I'm glad you had fun.

I know a thing or two about Plato that just wouldnt jive with your current beliefs. Hence the hilarity that becomes of you quoting him.

But hey, so long as we're all laughing about it ;-)

Onward

Jace said...

Mike, I won't read too much into your "bullets" remarks, but I will say this:

You started out on AD with a passive aggressive dig at atheists.

You went back and forth for almost 72hrs without responding in a serious way to any real question posed to you.

Your grand finale was to seemingly make a personal attack upon the one person on that site who was trying to maintain a civil tone with you: Me.

You never once responded to my last email which in itself speaks volumes to me as to your character.

And now it seems you want to make vague little threats on another forum.

What part of this jives in any way with the "True doctrine" you claim to cherish?

Manipulative?
Spiteful?
Immature?

Is that the "true doctrine"?

Whatever man.

Michael D. Maynard said...

Jace, try to think for yourself. Does Casey have his hand up your...controlling you like a puppet..those were his words?

I was the one asking the questions not AD. You and Casey finally after failing to give me any answers on the benefits of being an atheist referred me to a video "Science Saved My Soul" which I did watch and wrote down every word. When you actually read the text it is really lame.

Like everything you offered it was a nonsensical diatribe of contradictory statements based on nothing, just like the garbage that Stephen Hawking writes. HIS THEORY, The whole universe just came into being without the aid of God, just on the laws of physics. But it did not dawn on Mr. Hawking, they had to come from some where. Where did those laws come from? He can not answer that. No heaven, no God, Heaven a myth he says. Many leading scientist point out this same flaw in Hawking books.

Flawed theory of the universe flawed theory of no God.

The video stated: "I came out of a super nova, and so did you," Where did the super nova come from...no answers.

Further the video stated; "If you can't look at this galaxy...you should run from religion." Those are insane statements with no basis in fact offered in the video. Not even commonsense. And neither of you refuted those flaws I pointed out.

Jace, I have been in the real world as a business owner for 30 years and in upper management for 35 years. What you fellows are trying to spin just is not the way things happen in the real world.

If Casey went into court in front of a judge against me with his vulgar and academic approach, he would have lost before I got to the rebuttal. This academic theoretical rhetoric is trash. Judges see right trough it. The facts are what they seek, not the form. Just discovering the truth.

You simply have nothing. Casey is talking about what law students learn and practice in law school, or college students are taught in philosophy or debate...but it all goes out the window when the student leaves the class room and the academic world and gets into the real world.

The Casey Anthony Trial is a case in point, the prosecution seemed to have it hands down..all by the book...but, oops their facts were lacking and they lost. The jury saw through the rhetoric for what it was...junk. Nothing to support murder one.

Your only comeback was to attack the form in which I argued my facts, not the facts. Form over function. You lost.

Jace said...

Mike, it may get us nowhere but if you want to argue facts and just facts, I am up to the challenge. No Casey, or anyone else. I will start a debate article if you want, on Eden. Just you and me commenting, nobody else allowed. No name calling, personal insults, juvenile bullshit, logical fallacies, comment edits, etc. Just you me and the facts. Are you up to it? Just name the time and I'll host it. You interested? I sure am!

casey wollberg said...

"I was the one asking the questions not AD. You and Casey finally after failing to give me any answers on the benefits of being an atheist"

Well, Maynard's a liar, of course. See the answer to his stupid question--along with an explanation for the rest of the unadulterated bullshit he's spewing here. He's just another fool with a pathetic, little anti-atheist hard-on, but no valid arguments to speak of. In other words, a sophist.

casey wollberg said...

Maynard: "This makes it impossible for me to accept the fact..."

Pretty much says it all.

casey wollberg said...

"If Socrates came back and saw how Casey used his style of debate in such a horrible way against a fellow theist, all of you writers at AD might just get castrated by Socrates himself. LOL"

This is assuming Socrates is as incapable of processing new information as is Maynard himself. Thanks to the long progress of science since Socrates' time, and my own acceptance of its findings, little old me would be well-prepared to castrate Socrates--although I doubt he would need it. Maynard, the eternally ignorant, is playing with these ancients as though they are action figures, setting them up to take falls that would be quite unnatural for the men themselves. This is Dunning-Kruger at its finest: let's hope he keeps up the entertainment.

casey wollberg said...

"But it did not dawn on Mr. Hawking, they had to come from some where. Where did those laws come from? He can not answer that."

Oh, I assure you he can. You certainly wouldn't understand it, though.

casey wollberg said...

"Jace, try to think for yourself. Does Casey have his hand up your...controlling you like a puppet..those were his words?"

No, they weren't, and this is more sophistry. Where does Maynard get the idea that Jace is not thinking for himself? From his ass, that's where, same as the rest of his ideas. But he needs to discredit Jace somehow, so he falls back on this ridiculous, baseless charge. This is how a sophist works, folks. So much for his proclaimed love of Socrates (i.e., Plato).

casey wollberg said...

By the way, Dennis, sorry to turn these comments into an argument about something off-topic (or is it?). Great article as always. I'm working on something similar right now with the title, "Science Envy: The False Epistemology of Armstrongism."

casey wollberg said...

"Your only comeback was to attack the form in which I argued my facts, not the facts. Form over function. You lost."

No facts. You lost.

Allen C. Dexter said...

""I came out of a super nova, and so did you," Where did the super nova come from...no answers."

We know the supernovas happened and produced what we are composed of. How whatever produced the first stars, etc. came to be is being studied and theorized. Answers will come, as they have ever since Gallileo and Copernicus, etc.

Now, tell me where your god came from. By your own reasoning, he, she, it had to be much more gradiose than the resulting creation. But, somehow that God just magically happened.

Let's get "real" here.

Jace said...

"Now, tell me where your god came from. By your own reasoning, he, she, it had to be much more gradiose than the resulting creation."

Right? And, while you're at it, tell me how you know that this same god is, in fact, Yahweh - and not Buddha, Krishna, Zeus or Apollo?

It's personal bias. Plain and simple. Bias: a term that's applicable in the "real", "business world" isnt it? I'm not getting too rhetorical for you now am I Mike?

Wouldnt want Socrates to reach up at me from beyond the grave with the pair of scissors you've given him, so I'll just leave it at that.

Onward...

Jace said...

Didnt want this to get "lost" in the shuffle, so once again:

"Mike, it may get us nowhere but if you want to argue facts and just facts, I am up to the challenge. No Casey, or anyone else. I will start a debate article if you want, on Eden. Just you and me commenting, nobody else allowed. No name calling, personal insults, juvenile bullshit, logical fallacies, comment edits, etc. Just you me and the facts. Are you up to it? Just name the time and I'll host it. You interested? I sure am!"

you just let me know, Mike.

Onward...

casey wollberg said...

"Just you me and the facts."

Jace, how are you going to prove I'm not coaching you? This is the problem with unfalsifiable nonsense like, "Jace, try to think for yourself. Does Casey have his hand up your...controlling you like a puppet?"

That last one, of course, is another loaded question from the dimwit sophist.

"Socrates was a theist and had great respect for God and morality."

And what the fuck does God have to do with morality?

casey wollberg said...

"Socrates was a theist and had great respect for God and morality."

And what the fuck does God have to do with morality?

You all know what is going on here, right? This is the anti-atheist bigotry that posits an intrinsically amoral atheism. May-tard wants to express his belief that it is ironic for an atheist to invoke Socrates because he promoted morality. I guess he's never heard of secular humanism then. For him, doing the right thing can only happen among folks who believe the right nonsense--a particularly absurd form of bigotry.

casey wollberg said...

Also--no, I'm not done with May-tard the fool--the fact that Socrates "had great respect for God" is not only completely irrelevant to the discussion, but it is an attempt to marshal some unearned respectability to the cause of promoting a specific deity, Yahweh, which is nothing like any "God" Socrates ever heard of. The polytheistic ideas of Ancient Greek philosophers would set the jealous Yahweh's ears burning.

casey wollberg said...

And let me just add that I second the motion for a debate between Jace and May-tard. I'll strictly spectate, but that should be no balm to the apparent fears of May-tard. Jace doesn't need me around to kick ass, nor do any of my fellow editors over at AD. I was totally offline and unreachable for several months, and they kept the show on the road with the incisive and hard-hitting articles you've come to expect from Armstrong Delusion. No Casey required.

You know why that is, Maytard? Because the truth is not a cult of personality, and smart people know how to find it. And I don't associate with people who aren't smart. By assuming that my smarts caused Jace's smarts you commit a fallacy (a habit for you, it seems): correlation is not causation. Any freshman statistics student knows that.

Now you'd better go brush up on your logic, science, history and theology if you plan to take on Jace. He could best you in his sleep. Just a heads-up. Moron.

casey wollberg said...

"It also appears likely, applying statistical analysis and probability to the big bang and evolution, that there was some outside guidance of the process."

Citation please.

"With everything in the universe seemingly having a purpose, and much being synchronized and interrelated, it seems laughable that the universe itself would not have a purpose."

Unless, of course, you understand that a purposeless process can often present the illusion of design.

casey wollberg said...

"there is much for which we do not have answers from either science or religion."

False equivalence. Here's the full diagram, for clarity's sake.

NO2HWA said...

Ok guys, this is getting out of control. Let's have a beer, a cigar and relax a little!

Jace said...

Apologies No2, I'll drop it.

My challenge stands as issued, Mike knows where to find my site. I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Now, for that beer :-D

NO2HWA said...

A beer at Moe's and a Krusty Burger afterwards! :-)

Michael D. Maynard said...

Legs chopped out from under you again Jace...

Michael D. Maynard said...

"An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers."
— Plato

Jace said...

So I'll take that to mean you've declined my challenge then?