DU posting is getting tiresome. But the responses to "A Psychological Expose' of Creationism's Secret Genesis By Peter Michaelson"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_peter_mi_070405_a_psychological_expo.htm were of interest - and indeed are the type of discussion I though we could have on DU when we started the Religious forum, before the atheist takeover of that forum occurred:
From the 3 dozen responses to the article:
Guided evolution because survival of the fit does not explain complicated humans is one response, where the poster notes "You lump creationists as a bunch of emotionally needing beings. Maybe they're just using common sense. You don't believe in God do you?"
another says "You show your ignorance by lumping large amounts of different people into groups such as Liberals and Christian Right, etc. It's like voting for a person just because they are Democratic or Republican, instead of what the person really stands for.What do you have against Christians? It seems to me that you are actually the one with fear. To use your own psycobabble you bad mouth Christians because of your own insecurities.
another: "As Galileo said," the Bible is not about how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven."
An atheist showed support "If children were educated at very early ages in science and critical thinking (rather than immersion in religion), they would have higher self esteem and a deep appreciation of nature and biology."
Responded to with "The bottom line, the crux of the whole matter, is that you can't believe in God ,a creator. The very thought is an anathema to you. The words of the Bible upset you, because they present the truth to you." as his conclusion.
Another: "No sign of a creator? You must be as blind as a bat. Look around you, look at nature, look at the solar system, the laws of gravity, the wonder of reproduction. All by random chance?
Come on.... you can't be serious."
another: "In essence God created cell(s)."
another: "I am both a scientist and a believer in God. I find no conflict in this. I believe God created the blueprints on how things should grow. Kinda like DNA in a human being."
another: "How did the cells come to be, why do electrons do what they do (ask any respectable physicist, they can't tell you), what caused the big bang - a singularity, what singularity...and why. These are questions some people fail to explore deeply"
another: "A good point. Where in nature do you see codes? Rocks and crystals form into patterns based on physical properties - but how can you explain complex codes such as DNA without thinking it through. Do I think humans sprang up out of the ground - NO. I believe in evolution. Where we differ is that I look at the universe as perfectly controlled chaos, a design set forth to bring life to fruition, and I wonder where life may evolve in the future. I just don't let my love of science, and the wonder of creation to take my sights off the fact that there is more to reality than what we can touch, or "see". I have so much more to say, but this is far too big a subject to discuss over the internet. We all have to find our own way."
Another: "Why didn't one species have cells that mutated to form other ways of reproduction? It's by design!"
From an atheist: "If complex things can't come into being by evolution, then where did God come from? Either it is a rule that complex things need a creator, or it isn't. You can't break the rule just once, that's irrational."
another: "I believe God always existed.... a thought that can fry your brain if you dwell on it. I can't prove it. I just take it on faith.... a gut belief if you will. Random processes can create a complex result. With the result not necessarily (and highly improbable) being an intelligent life form."
another: "You might be interested in reading Deepak Chopra's Life after death, the burden of proof. I'm not saying it holds all the answers by any means - but it lays out rational ideas that may be interesting to you, even if you don't subscribe to them. The idea of spirit and soul is not as cut and dry as you are portraying - that you fall into the nutty category, or the scientific category."
another:"Isn't irrational to think the universe sprang up on it's own from nothing - how can a void even exist?" You should at least entertain the thought that there may be more to this life than the physical, and that the "rules" that apply here - like time - don't exist outside of this dimension."
another: "I concur that the conceptual divide will probably never be integrated. I don't see a perfect world with clockwork precision, I see a hodgepodge of related organisms living in a complex web of life on a small planet in a huge universe (free will)."
from an atheist: "I definitely don't want or need Gods of any type... Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Zeus/Oden, Wicken or any other. I find comfort in humanity, and its relation to nature."
Another atheist: "These Christian types are a sick lot and they are screwing up everyone else too! I think Bertrand Russell said that the reason the world is so messed up is because the idiots are so sure they are right and the intelligent people are so full of doubt, or something like that."
another: "Religious texts ought to be used to find meaningful answers/lessons in one's own life, and not to explain the world (life) to others. It is equally silly, however, to declare the non-existence of god(s) to be the truth either. This is unprovable as well, and qualifies as the same dogmatism that emanates from the religiously inclined."
another: "Yes, of course there are psychological forces behind belief in creationism, but beneath even that there is the existential problem of "what is 'this?" -- the drive for 'meaning' and making sense of our being...Even neuroscientists can't answer the question of subjective consciousness. Some say "When the brain become complex enough awareness is turned on itself and that's perceived as consciousness" -- but that's no more of an answer than "God did it". And to say "God did it" is just another deflection -- that's no answer unless you can explain what "God" is -- so all the priests strike out too. The difficulty is not in the answers, but in the questions. One might as well ask "What color is a pound?" or "What would middle C sound like if there was no time?". Or, of course, "If a tree fall in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" and "What is my original face before I was born?". There are no logical answers to these questions because they are not logical questions. Of course evolution explains much of the origin of species, including humans, and along with cosmology and physics offers some explanations of how life itself can develop from basic matter (and that the explanations are not complete should surprise no one: we don't know everything about any subject). Science, however, was never developed to answer existential questions -- or questions of WHY there is a reality, or a subjective existence. Philosophy (including theology) tries sometimes, but it can't -- it relies on the same limited brain we use for simple questions such as "What exactly is gravitational force" or "Will it rain in London on April 8, 2020?".
Sorry, people, but there are some questions which can't be answered, and aren't even rationally valid as questions even if they sound like they should be. If you take away everything until there is nothing left, then what do you have left if you then take nothing away?"