Appealing to the “Spiritual But Not Religious” in Politics.

I’m guessing we are going to see some new political language in the next Presidential election cycle.

That’s because the group, “spirtual but not religious”, is growing.  Opportunity is there for either party.

It seems to me one way of moving in this direction is the dropping of phrases like, “We are a Christian nation,” and “God bless you and God bless America.”  What to add in their place is harder to figure out.

One thing that seems possible is adding, “We all share common values, lets think of doing things for the good of all.”  JFK had that beautiful phrase, “Think not what your country can do for you, think what you can do for your country.”  No one has quite matched that one.

Religious people often refer to the nonreligious as not having values or ideals.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Every group has ideas and values, just different ones.  Most every group has some self interest, Christians and others alike.

What I gleen from young people today, and I’m attributing it, rightly or wrongly, to the spiritual but not religious group, is an idealism about diversity.  That is, to be idealist, to do something for the greater good, is to accept, even embraces, differences in people.

We need only look back at Obama’s election to remember the excitiement around electing the first black President.  I think “spiritual but not religious” is in that excitement.

“Growth through diversity,” just popped into  my head.  I wonder if someone wants to pay me for that.  : )

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/spiritual-but-not-religious-a-rising-misunderstood-voting-bloc/283000/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Appealing to the “Spiritual But Not Religious” in Politics.

  1. Michael Ross says:

    “Spiritualism in general terms is based on the belief that the spirits of the dead survive mortal life, and that sentient beings from “spiritual worlds” can and do communicate with the living by agency of a medium. The phenomena of spiritualism include prophecy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, gift of tongues, laying on of hands, healing, visions, trance, apports, revelations, raps, levitation, automatic and independent writing and painting, photography, materialization, psychometry, direct and independent voice, and any other manifestation which proves the continuity of life after death.”

    http://www.witchcraftandwitches.com/related_spiritualism.htm

    Witchcraft is one form of spiritualism. Spiritualism has infected the Christian church to a great extent, especially in charismatic circles. The emphasis is on the experiential and not objective truth. Karma not dogma. When I first became a Christian I tried to be “spiritual”, but it was not a good fit for me. I believe God has called believers to be his covenant people in the real world and not off in the spiritual realm.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      Spiritualism does not equal being spiritual. You are off the mark here, Michael.

    • entech says:

      Michael I must apologise, when I first started reading what you posted I thought it was Henry muddying the waters again.

      The topic is “Spiritual But Not Religious”, although specifically this is supposed to be in its relationship with politics you have chosen to relate it to religion, your extension to spiritualism as witchcraft and as religion is certainly valid. They do seem to be inseparable, the old story is that we need devils otherwise we would not recognise angels comes to mind.

      Not quite sure what you are on about when you try to differentiate between experience and objective truth. If someone and everyone experiences something in the same way all the time as for gravity, it would be reasonable to say that gravity exists is an objective truth. You seem to imply because something is declared true because of your religious beliefs, that it is written in the Bible, and what is probably most likely, that you want it to be true is no measure of objectivity.
      Spiritualism as you describe it is a bigger con game than the televangelists, but not by much.

      Personally I don’t have much positive from the ‘spiritual not religious’ designation, it sounds to me very like people who don’t believe but can’t give up or escape their early religious inculcation. It is similar to the days of your revolution and Europe of the time, many thought atheism was impossible but could not accept the organised religions as having value or truth, so Deism was born. More reasonable when you look at the universe and all, the creator created and departed, leaving us to work it out for ourselves. Far more reasonable than a personal God who hears all, knows all, observes every sin even if it is only a potential a glimmering in the back of your consciousness, a God who inspires fear and demands love.

      If you conflate spiritual with the feelings of awe that we sometimes get or the power of good music well played, a beautiful sunset, love and similar to invoke strong emotion, then you are adding something that is not there, something from your imagination.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Re. 12:02, 4th paragraph, last sentence: Rather, “A God who reveals cause of fear, and offers love to replace it. The Law, and the Gospel.” The problem, and the solution.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Wanna 6:21 “The problem, and the solution.”

          That reminds me of a film doc. featuring an anthropologist traveling with some hungry aboriginals. They were not finding food, so around the camp fire they conjured up the notion it was because the gods were angry with them. Then, they conjured up another ideas as to how to please the gods and looked forward to success.

          You do what they did. With no evidence whatsoever, your mind sees a God that gave humans laws. The laws have these problems, so your mind finds a way out of the “laws”.

          As the anthropologist said, “Thank goodness for the humans mind. It can both create and solve problems inside itself.”

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Yes, you have said something like this before. You forgot the coke bottle thrown from an airplane, landing by a primitive, in the movie; “The Gods Must Be Crazy.”

          • entech says:

            Jon 6:31 pm, There are a lot of fascinating stories from anthropology, primitives with little to go on came up with some wonderful ideas of gods and rewards and punishments and signs, portents and omens.

            A friend was just telling me about an explanation (one of many I would guess) for the flood story:
            A rich family loads up a boat and leaves on an exploration, taking a chance and looking for something better. As they sail away from land they see the land slowly disappearing apparently sinking into the sea. The only conclusion they could reach was that the water was rising, a great flood, as they approached land at the other side it appeared that the flood was subsiding. Any one that has been on a boat trip will have seen this phenomena and knows that this is caused by the curvature of the earth and the visible horizon and so on. But to primitives with a flat earth theory the story would be perfectly logical.

            Even more fascinating is how so many of these primitive ideas have not only survived but have been embellished and expanded, can now be used to explain anything, instead of primitives sacrificing to God we have God sacrificing to primitives.

      • Michael Ross says:

        “It is similar to the days of your revolution and Europe of the time, many thought atheism was impossible but could not accept the organised religions as having value or truth, so Deism was born.”

        That was true of a number of the founders. They believed in God and the Bible but were critical of organized religion. That could be said of Washington. He was a member of the Anglican church but never attended while he was president.

  2. Katherine says:

    It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged. — Thomas Jefferson

  3. H.P.Drifter says:

    Spirituality is soft sell religion, if they can not get you to join the church, They tell you watch your Karma. You need to do that, just another form of manipulation. Everybody has some unexplainable things happen in their lives that can seem to be supernatural, but really its all in your head, the limit of your experience whatever that was. Just through mediation I can take myself all kinds of places, again in all in my head. The brain is marvelous tool when you use correctly, use it for your own good and don’t self destruct. Human emotions and intelligence mirror each other, bouncing back into your face, they are two things reflecting off the same mirror. How you interpret what you see is your own reality, whatever you think it is. Good thoughts, bad thought, good emotions bad emotions and everything in between rolled in a ball which is your head that speaks when you open your mouth (sometimes) better you keep it shut and think before speaking. Making conscious decisions instead of making those influenced by things you can not understand is the way to go. Don’t be influenced by somebody pedaling something for the greater good or any such nonsense, be your own man or own woman. Manipulation is an art form perfected by the church and the politicians. Don’t fall under its spell, that is witchcraft, it soft sell religion, marketed under the name of Spirituality.

    H.D.P.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      I’ve always felt that spirituality is an inside job for each of us. Typically I find experiences that cause me to recognize an insight into my behavior to be spiritual. It doesn’t have anything to do with belief, religion or stamps of approval from anybody outside myself. It’s just self-knowledge.

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        Realist
        I call that improvement in one’s personality, developing one’s personality to be able think better, more clarity of thought, have insight. To be a better person.
        Oh, Henry is not a Gentleman, more like flies on meat. Pest

        • Henry says:

          More atheist intellect. This is getting good.

        • H.P.Drifter says:

          Realist
          Being spiritual or spirituality was a by word for the hippy Jesus freaks in the 1960′s, Cult talk really, nice group to avoid, had one good friend that sucked in, he has now been out since the early nineties, still not right in the head. Saying you have had a spiritual experience as an atheist or non believer is just a throw back in terminology to the 1960′s by words, that mean different things to different people depending when you arrived on the scene. Or maybe a earlier religious back ground, the difference like you say it is in your head. And is a meaningful experience. Problem now it has jumped up and being used by the new era soft sell religious organizations and political machine, like reusable candy for mindless believers that’s why I prefer (personal preference) personality enhancement, things that you make you more articulate, more decisive.

          H.D.P.

        • H.P.Drifter says:

          At a Atheist barbeque

  4. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Well said, Jon. I think for so many, ‘religion’ has become something bad. Spiritual, but not religious can describe lots of people, including Ricky and I.

    Although I recently joined a church in Boca. :)

  5. Henry says:

    Jon:“We need only look back at Obama’s election to remember the excitiement around electing the first black President.”

    Excitement like a root canal, except worse. The pain is still there.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      What a sore loser. At the very least, you could remember that since he was elected by a majority of Americans, many people were happy and excited. You were sulking because of his very election. How ungracious of you, Henry.

      • Henry says:

        His stripes were evident before inauguration. We knew who we were getting. The truth is he has been like a root canal.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          His “stripes”? You mean that he would avoid getting us into wars, that he would try to stop the ones we had ongoing, that he would try to help people who had no health care, that he would do his best to put the economy on a better footing, first having to weather the worst financial crisis since the depression? You mean those “stripes”? Face it, Henry. Your side lost and he was fairly elected. I get sick and tired of those who for some reason think they are entitled to the president of their own choice regardless of how the voting turns out. We have one president at a time. All of us owe allegiance to that person regardless of if we voted for him or not. I reaffirm my view that you are a sore loser.

          • Henry says:

            Ah…now we have to place our criticisms on hold and give him obligatory allegiance, otherwise you will label us a “sore loser”.

            You are handling this matter about as well as you did the discussion concerning health insurance.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 1:41 “We knew what we were getting. The truth is he has been like a root canal.”

          That’s one point of view. Another is Obama may turn out to be one of the best economics President ever. At the end of the Bush Administration, the deficite was about 10% of gross national product. Obama has lowered it the about 4%.

          Like it or not, the fact is the economy does better when Democrats are in the White House. If you invested $100,000 at the beginning of all Republican Presidents and ran their years of, you would have ended with a stock market sum of $126,000. Think that is OK? If you invested at the beginning of all Democratic Presidents and out up to Obama, you would have $3.9 million. The market went up 30% last year and that is not in the $3.9 million.

          http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/obama_may_be_best_economic_president_ever

          • Henry says:

            Jon, we have had this conversation before. Give me a printing press, and I can increase the value of the stock market as well. We can do some wonderful things with the market.

        • H.P.Drifter says:

          You actually have teeth left, would have never guessed

  6. Wanna B Sure says:

    In considering 1. “the separation of church and state,” and 2.”the two kingdoms” differentiation, (sacred/ secular). For today’s purposes, both are essentially the same, neither one should intrude/ rule the other. Except for Theocrats or semi theocrats, (Robertson et al.) on one end, or the extremes from the other end, I think most can agree on that.

    “Spiritual but not religious” is such an undefined position/title. We need time for “It” to reveal what “it” is. “It” may be church/state neutral, or it may not. I would be cautious to encourage/ champion politicians to court this new undefined classification. The word “Spiritual” too, has baggage , and where that goes and develops, is unknown. New Age, flower power, Aquarius I understand was “spiritual”. So was LSD. Would there be those in this “spiritual” movement get involved in politics to promote the legalization and sale of all drugs over the counter? (Just wild speculating). The line between “spiritual”/church (in the broad sense), and state may become blurred even more. The law of unintended consequences may rear it’s head. Give it 50 yr. then we may have a clearer understanding. Who didn’t like Evening in Paris perfume 60+ yr. ago.

    • Wolfy32 says:

      One could say the anti-christ would be one of two things. The concept of anti Christianity. a public declaration of intolerance of religion. Which, could be classified as an atheistic leader that’s popular. the other possibility is the anti christ could be one rooted in strong religious dogma. The veryt hing Christ hated..
      A leadered embedded in theistic rituals and traditions without any spirituality.

      A change too quickly to public denunciation of religion would disrupt the masses…. It would need to be done politically over hundreds of years to keep the people’s favor and slowly change group thinking at a societal level.

      That said, It seems humans are prewired to believe something supernatural, so, I believe the spiritual without religion will stick eventually.

    • H.P.Drifter says:

      You can still buy it on E-bay or Amazon 45 bucks for the big bottle, surprise the wife

  7. H.P.Drifter says:

    Jon

    What do you make of this, think its true or is it a militant faction. Anything to do with main stream Atheist views or is the website too much Anti-theist ? Or what kind of people would put up a site like this ? Think it is factual or contrived? Just would like your opinion. Haven’t seen the whole site yet, just came across it, surfing the web

    http://www.christplagiarized.com/Christ_Plagiarized/Blog/Entries/2010/7/6_IQ_and_Religion_-_An_inverse_relationship.html

    • Henry says:

      Junk.

      From the link: “The More Religious the Parents, the Less Intelligent the Children”

      Take the two extreme examples, Einstein and Tesla. Einstein from Jewish parents. Tesla, the son of an Orthodox priest.

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        Okay Henriod calm down back in your box!

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 8:04 “Take the two expreme examples, Einstien and Tesla….”

        There was apparently some religion in each family. It didn’t take with either of these men. A better example would be men(women) extemely religious themselves who excelled in science.

        • Henry says:

          Jon, I am working with the claims in the web article HPV presented.

          Yes, a long list of Christian scientists can be arrived at.

          • Henry says:

            P.S. Tesla was not an atheist.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 8:50 “Yes, a long list of Christian scientists can be arrived at.”

            I know that to be true. My questions for any discussion like this is, what is a scientist and what is a believer?

            I think it was Michael way back on here linked to a site that listed “Christian Scientists”. It included medical doctors. A medical doctor is practicing what is called “the medical arts”. An engineer designing a car fender would use physics, a science, but he is not a scientist. What are called “applied fields” often would not be included in research science.

            Then, there is belief. Enstein was a cultural Jew, but wasn’t religious so far as I know. There are probably many scientists,like there are nonsceintists, who are members of churches but may not buy any of the super natural dogma.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, I would agree with you on Einstein.

        • entech says:

          There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. …
          Tesla.

          There is no need for conflict, but when religion tries to impose some of its more outrageous ideas then there will be conflict. Creation science, intelligent design and what have you are probably neither science nor religion and the Discovery Institute is probably the most misnamed organisation the world has known.

          George Coyne and many other Catholic scientists are in complete agreement with modern science and do not let it affect their faith, Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne also come to mind. Their contributions are enormous.

          Their being scientists does not make their views on Christianity (in these cases) and more valid just as the many more scientists who are non believers can be anymore correct in their atheism. It is telling that of all the high level science Societies and Institutes that the number of non believers is generally above 90%.

        • H.P.Drifter says:

          Einstein’s family was quite smart, they set up and installed electrical systems, in towns and small cities. His biography is a good read.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      H. P. D. 7:37 “Just would like your opinion.”

      I suppose finding a relationship between being religious and being intelligent depends on what is being used to measure either. The site is probably accurate in reporting what was found–the issue might be what was actually being measured. IQ measures one kind of intelligence–many believe there are several discreet kinds of intelligence, art, athetics, politics, etc.

      Then, what is meant by religious, church attendence, questionairres, etc.?

      More telling, to me, were statements like that top scientists are almost never believers. And, that deep believers almost never even go very deep into the sciences.

      That is something, if true, that spills over and affects all of us. It means that an entire group of people who might contribute to our well being, and in fact, the ability of humans to survive over time, are taken out of the pool because their parents innoculate them with an anti science mental vacine.

      • Henry says:

        Jon:“It means that an entire group of people who might contribute to our well being, and in fact, the ability of humans to survive over time, are taken out of the pool because their parents innoculate them with an anti science mental vacine.”

        In the Soviet socialist state, it was quite the opposite effect. The top doctors, professors, and engineers were removed to a mass grave, “taken out of the pool” by the socialists. Some that clung to their Christian beliefs also were “taken out of the pool”. That flies in the face of your evalootionary model.

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        Jon

        I am talking opinion here, just from life experience. I don’t think if you don’t take the Math, Chemistry, Biology, the traditional science courses, versus Creationism in the university and do well (you know as well as I do C grades don’t count when applying to grad school) You could take Creationism as an elective, you would still have to have all the right courses as well and a very high GPA to get into serious grad programs at any of the major universities, that are turning out productive scientists. Getting into grad school is not easy to get into at any schools, I have attended. The competition is fierce and just a few places in each department to be filled say at Stanford or UC Berkeley, Columbia, Yale, Princeton to name just a few, let alone locally. I think you would have tactical disadvantage if you had that Creationism courses on your transcripts. They may misconstrue your some kind of nut case, you know how political grad school is, you have to get all four members of your committee to sign off on all your work and a personality clash can screw you (I have seen it happen) You need to be a good brown nosier or ass kisser while your there, a miserable five years (or more) To be able to join the club, let alone the job you are shooting for when you start work. Personally if I was a young man or women, I would stay away from those types of classes, unless you are going to teach Creationism at some southern university. I think you would have a better chance to get into a Masters Program in Psychology as a Jehovah Witness rather than as Creationist, at a State School. ( you could read that stuff on the side if you have interest, like us old geezers read books on philosophy or behavioral psychology, read books just for fun or self interest, among other stuff even drier and more boring) but not to us.

        H.P.D.

    • Jinx says:

      HPD, interesting reading about the listed gods and their stories that gave birth to the fledgling christianity movement. It certainly appears christianity borrowed heavily from ‘pagan’ religions and numerous scholarly investigators certainly back up this claim.

      The religion/IQ inverse relationship is totally invalid as presented. You can’t compare such diverse countries, its like comparing banana’s to elephants. It would be much more meaningful if such a relationship between IQ and religiosity were explored with in each individual country (or in cases like the USA , regions). From such a study, your results are only correlational and not causal.

      After such a quick look, its hard to say the site is or isn’t credible but I would suggest checking on the individaul topics and use critical thinking skills to evaluate anything that looks like research.

      Thanks for the post!!

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        Jinx

        Thanks for the review of the site, I agree on IQ things, if it was only that simple. I did get couple of links off of the site. Some historical stuff on Atheism, things I didn’t know. I think whomever is behind this website loves to piss the Christians off and somethings deserve further study

        H.P.D

        • entech says:

          I wouldn’t go as far as to say flaky, spurious website. but I do think it needs a lot more work.

          It does seem to me that you are right when you say its main purpose is to annoy ‘the Christian’. Mind you that is not totally bad although not actually productive, take the man who said it was a flaky, spurious website and check some of his websites, they are not all deserving to be demeaned as cretinist rather than creationist but many are.

          Back to the main purpose being to annoy, I do think Henry has one purpose in life and that is to annoy ‘the Atheist’ and once you realise that that is his purpose and, as I said to Jon -he is not to be taken seriously, then we can all join in the fun. You can only be really upset by someone for whom you have respect and Henry lost any right to that years ago.

          There is, however, one thing Henry is to offered thanks for developing. Although I can’t deny the possibility of a creator I have strong doubts, probably better than 90% against.
          I was prepared to offer some credibility to a Christian version of a creator, not much probably the same 90% against, however Henry and a couple of others have changed that, now 99.999% against.

          Keep up the good work Henry you are much better at deconversion than anyone I know, perhaps you are actually a secret agent for atheism ? :?:

          • Henry says:

            Looking back to your original posts in 2010/2011 before I started on this blog, you were already at 100% rejection (deconversion). Sorry, I can’t even help take the blame for you.

          • entech says:

            Looking back on it you could be close, I was perhaps very close to the tipping point. I do remember you once suggesting that I may have had a Jewish background because even then I was saying the same things, the God of Abraham maybe, the God of Paul probably not. So maybe not a reverse conversion but definitely consolidating a view reached but not quite confirmed, so thank for confirming me (or should that have been Bar Mitzvahing :roll: )

          • Henry says:

            No problem. My conscience is clear.

          • entech says:

            I would have thought that a conforming Christian, trying his best would have no need of a conscience. Any minor misdemeanor would be as a result of the Devil creeping under your guard, more subtile than any other.

            That is the beauty of Christianity, now that I think of it probably one of its major attractions.

          • Henry says:

            entec:“I would have thought that a conforming Christian, trying his best would have no need of a conscience.”

            You reason wrongly.

            1 Timothy 1:18,19 “Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.”

          • Henry says:

            Also, only “trying his best” will lead to failure and filthy rags.

          • entech says:

            OK, trying and succeeding in doing his best. If his best is not good enough who is to blame.
            Do we blame the Devil for subtly creeping in.
            Do we blame God for creating him less than perfect.
            Do we blame Adam for causing him to be born in sin.
            Or perhaps we can fall back on the old standby freewill, that seems to be the cause of everything that goes wrong, why does God permit earthquakes to kill thousands of people, destroy the homes of the survivors, destroy the fields and kill the live stock so that those left slowly starve to death, freewill of course. Except of course if you are a Lutheran, Martin declared that there was no freewill.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“OK, trying and succeeding in doing his best. If his best is not good enough who is to blame.”

            Our best does not measure up. Read the sermon on the mount. Keeping the Law cannot be attained, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law. That approach cannot work in the fallen world. Rather, rely on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Re “Free Will” @5:38, specifically “No Free Will”. Totally false. No free will (ONLY) in the ability to come to Christ without the Holy Spirit. (Bondage of The Will). Beyond that, free will in all else. Feel free. You do now.

  8. H.P.Drifter says:

    Jon

    If you really think about if say ten states decide to teach nothing but creationism we will have enough bag boys and cashiers and fast workers for the whole nation. Factory workers, repetitive machine workers, turning out everything from plastic forks to rubber sandals. Getting into a good school will be a easy thing no competition. There is an upside to everything, No more foreign workers for mundane jobs. Getting a good job in your own field as long as your not a creationist will be easy, you will have your choice of positions, Twenty million semi skilled work or skilled workers, wood workers (my choice) house painters craftsman of all kinds. Believe in Christ there is a good future for you, just don’t ask questions, watch the TV, Enjoy, don’t forget to pay your 10% tithing fee.

    H.P.D

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      H. P. D. 2:09 Texas is already as ways along the path of requiring only creationism, no evolution, be taught. Maybe they can require it of all the huge Univeristies. When its high tech firms need people, they will look in states like ours. When we need floor sweepers, we’ll get them from Texas.

      • Henry says:

        I know of a floor sweeper. He now owns one of the largest lumberyards in town. He pays others to sweep his floors now.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 2:46 “He pays others to sweep floors now.”

          I knew someone would say that. Floor sweepers are valuable people. Our sons cleaned toliets ans swept floors until recently. He has almost a Master’s Degree. My point is you don’t need any formal education to sweep floors. Even people whose Texas schools taught them creationism is where our earth came from will do just fine at floor sweeping.

          • Henry says:

            Outside of research, what good does knowledge of evolution help one in their career? I see English, Math, History, Physics, Choir, Phy. Ed, Chemistry, as helping one in their career. Evolution? Except for the 20 oil field geologists, evolution doesn’t help anyone. It wouldn’t even be good for floor sweeping.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:17 “I see English, Math, History, Physics, Choir, Phys Ed, Chemistry as helping on in their career. Evolution?”

            I understand there is much interaction, growing interaction, between the biological sciences and all the others. Being local, here, you may have read the other day our local billionare, Denny Sanford, has allocated many millions to develop the emerging field in medicine. It is one in which bacteria, formerly considered the enemy of health, were killed in various ways, will now be separated into good and bad. Instead of healing by taking medicines that kill the bad, healing will done by morphing and growing the good which eat the bad. Inevitably, this would involve the fields of math, chemistry, physics and who knows what else. I would call it a field of contemporary evolution.

            Now, I will agree someone can engage in science all week that requires understanding of evolution, can take medicine and enjoy the health benefits that comes from the science of evolution, but go to church on Sunday and praise and pledge belief in creationism. It happens all the time. There are individuals who go around with two opposing views in their heads and do not suffer consequences.

            I just think teaching students there are two opposing ideas that are both true is a bad thing.

          • Henry says:

            I take that back. Evolution, a supposed biological process, doesn’t even help the oil field geologists in ND.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            An entire field of study; evolutionary biology, would beg to differ. But then, Henry, you probably don’t find any use for things like art or music either. Scary and ignorant. What a combo.

          • Henry says:

            r:“But then, Henry, you probably don’t find any use for things like art or music either. Scary and ignorant. What a combo.”

            You really don’t know what you are talking about.

          • entech says:

            Realist now just be told, Henry is actually a very erudite man, a man with wide ranging and catholic tastes, kind generous and understanding of the other persons point of view. In short a modern renaissance man.

            He is also very shy and a good actor because he hides all these attributes so well that you would think he was Josh’s big brother and mentor.

          • Henry says:

            As usual, nothing from the aussie to contribute to the conversation except for a personal attack.

          • entech says:

            And to think I learned it all from you. I am so grateful. ;)

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            Henry reminds me of our great uncle who lived on a farm his entire life, single, of course, and rarely changed his clothes. He couldn’t see any benefit from having plumbing in his 1899 era house so he continued to use the kitchen pump and his chemical toilet until the day he died not that long ago. He used to condemn all the “new fangled” changes in equipment on the farm and generally felt that America’s best days were in the rear view mirror. If it was good enough for his parents, it was good enough for him. Amazing thing is that the only thing he did with his money was pile it up in the bank, never spent a dime when he could have done so many things. Sad, but true. Ring any bells, Henry?

          • Henry says:

            It seems you have a fascination with your childless, unmarried uncle’s money to speak of it publicly. Thou shall not covet.

          • Avatar of realist realist says:

            No Henry, just sorry he saw it as evil and chose not to do good with it while he was alive.

          • Henry says:

            r:“No Henry, just sorry he saw it as evil and chose not to do good with it while he was alive.”

            He supposedly thought it was evil, but yet it was something for which he reportedly took great care. Interesting concept.

          • Henry says:

            Jon @ 3:12:“I would call it a field of contemporary evolution. Now, I will agree someone can engage in science all week that requires understanding of evolution, can take medicine and enjoy the health benefits that comes from the science of evolution,….”

            Artificial selection (purpose). Not so much evolution (randomness).

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:18 “Artifical selection (purpose). Not so much evolution (rendomness).”

            Lots of things are present, in addition to evolution, I will admit. The theory of evolution is present in this kind of medicine, without a doubt. The people fixing cars, sweeping floors those living in mansions all benefit.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“The theory of evolution is present in this kind of medicine, without a doubt.”

            I am skeptical of that.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 6:57 “I am skeptical of that.”

            Feel free. Denny Sanford’s, plus Mayo and a host of others’, will proceed to use evolution theory in health research without your endorsement.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“Denny Sanford’s, plus Mayo and a host of others’, will proceed to us[e] evolution theory in health research without your endorsement.”

            Not quite. They will likely use the principles of natural and artificial selection (micr0 evolution). However, hypothesis of amoeba slithering out of the water and becoming a human (macro evolution and evolutionary theory) cannot be used.

            You are being a little broad on your term “evolution” and making it appear as if Sanford is endorsing the extra baggage you’ve imposed into this issue of macro evolution.

            I’ll stand by my original: Not so much evolution (randomness).

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 9:37 “They will use natural selection and artificial selection (micro evolution)…However hypothesis of amoeba slithering out ot the water and becoming a human (macro evolution and evolutionary theory) cannot be used.”

            I think you are referring to opposition to evolution resulting in new species–a demonstrated phenomenon–that creationists deny. Science today observes “macro evolution”.

          • Henry says:

            So Sanford is going to use evolutionary theory to prevent someone from turning into a new species? Sounds like they will have a successful treatment rate. Should be profitable for Denny.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 10:24 I’m going start fining you for having too much fun here. :)

          • entech says:

            Jon 10:50, yes Henry does have a good time, seems intelligent enough and that makes you wonder if he actually believes half of what he says.
            I used to find him so annoying until I realised that he is not to be taken seriously.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“I’m going start fining you for having too much fun here.”

            Jon, it seems you are starting to see the absurdity of applying macroevolution to daily life.

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        Funny you should say that I just had a carpenter from Texas apply for a job, willing to come from Texas to the freezing cold to work

        • H.P.Drifter says:

          Wonder how Henry evolved in the scheme of things. Did his parents have just bad luck? A question for evolution.

          • Henry says:

            I was raised in a community filled with an over-abundance of mean-spirited liberal democrats with a sprinkling of kind liberal democrats. Unfortunately, HPV, I know how you work.

  9. H.P.Drifter says:

    Entec

    You are so funny, Henry is Josh’s mentor, yes a renaissance man (he should have stayed there). I would have liked to see him duke it out with Machiavelli. They would have probably hanged him for bad manners. Let alone his stupidity. Poor Henry everybody picking on him while he just tries to screw with the conversation adding nonsense for posts. God is going get you and most likely soon. Maybe we can coin a new word here “he must be suffering from (Henry’s Dementia) poor man a fatal disease, starts early, ends late.

    • Henry says:

      More personal attack from the atheist.

      Somebody of an atheist persuasion was touting the “fact” that atheists rely on logic. One can hardly tell with all the logical fallacies slung around by them. Yet, they are the self-proclaimed champions of reason and tolerant of diversity of thought. They are sure pretty smart.

      • Avatar of realist realist says:

        Too many labels; in a nutshell, this is what I dislike about Henry’s attacks. Every atheist thinks in a certain way–all the time.

        • Wolfy32 says:

          No, Every non-devout christian such as Henry himself is wrong… Only the Henry’s of the world are right. Hense why over 5.5 billion people are going to hell, plus the billions of people that had have died and never even heard of christ… Hell will contain probably well over 10-20 billion people. Can we even estimate how many have died? Heaven, if it’s lucky will get anywhere from half a billion to 2 billion. Depending on which denomination is most right. Might be less than half a billion if it’s an obscure denomination that figured it out.

          Henry might have the wrong one. but, for now we’ll let the Henry’s of the world think they all got it right.

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        There is logic here.

  10. H.P.Drifter says:

    Realist

    Henrys off subject necessary to invoke “Henry’s Dementia”

  11. H.P.Drifter says:

    Henry’s Dementia Rights Yeah!

  12. H.P.Drifter says:

    Wolfy

    The one thing about the Christians (HDW) in particular don’t meet the questions face to face. Just reply ” Funk”
    Jon and I were talking about education, creationism as to pertaining to education of scientists (people who generally go to graduate school for advance degrees in their speciality) Now (HDW) comes up with Stalin killed twenty million scientists and Christianity survived. What does this have to do with topic (nothing). What Christians can’t have they want to debunk, what are they afraid of, a break through in science that debunks religion in general?

  13. H.P.Drifter says:

    More (HDW)

  14. H.P.Drifter says:

    Haven’t heard from CD wonder if got picked up in the latest Vatican Money Laundering Scandal?

    Our practicing Skepshiticison doesn’t need much sleep took my nap and there he was, altar fly at it again. (HDW)

    Thanks Entec

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>