South Korea Will Revisit Plan To Nix Evolution References in Textbooks 286
After reports that South Korean had "surrendered to creationists" by removing references to evolution in several textbooks, openfrog writes with this excerpt from Science Insider that indicates the fight is still in progress: "The South Korean government is poised to appoint a new committee that will revisit a controversial plan to drop two examples of evolutionary theory from high school textbooks. The committee, to be led by insect taxonomist Byoung-Hoon Lee, a member of the Korean Academy of Science and Technology, has been asked to re-evaluate requests from a Korean creationist group to drop references to bird and horse evolution that they argue promote 'atheist materialism.' At the same time, about 50 prominent Korean scientists are preparing to present government officials with a petition, organized by the Korean Association of Biological Sciences, which calls for rejecting the proposed changes. 'When these things are done, I think it will turn out that after all Korean science will not surrender to religion' says Jae Choe, an evolutionary biologist at Ewha Womans University in Seoul who helped organize the petition."
Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does anybody else get that the theocrats are seriously getting on a fetish where they attribute everything negative to non-believers?
Not to mention how they try to get us to believe they are persecuted martyrs for their faith.
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That beats the hell out of the usual 'stand in your cushy position of power, influence, and not a little wealth, and whine about how persecuted you are' technique.
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see any of that in local churches. That's more of a TV Evangelist thing. More of what I hear in my local church is how blessed we are. If you look at it critically the poor in America often live better than the Nobility did in the middle ages. It's all a case of perspective. I have a middle class life, between my wife and myself we make about 100K a year. It's not a tremendous amount but yet I own two vehicles, a 2000 square foot house that is comfortably heated and cooled. I have cable tv and internet for entertainment and have never missed a meal except by choice. It's a very comfortable lifestyle and yet so many who live as I do complain and whine about what they don't have. It's human nature I guess to always want more and more. I'd like more myself, I'm only human but I don't forget to be thankful for all I've been blessed with. Even more important is the freedom I enjoy to live my life as I please. The only limitations I have on my success is my own ability and initiative. I could no doubt have done better but maybe the fact that I am so comfortable limits my drive to strive for more.
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see any of that in local churches. That's more of a TV Evangelist thing.
One problem with atheists is that they don't go to church. So they judge Christians by the kooks they see on TV, and think that represents normal Christianity.
For the record: I am atheist/agnostic (depending on your definition), buy I still attend Church somewhat regularly because my mother-in-law is a devout believer and invites us to go with her. In the interest of family harmony, I oblige. I actually enjoy the music, and the potato salad at the potluck lunch is great. I never get trapped in uncomfortable discussions, because there is one thing that church going Christians almost never talk about in casual conversation: Christ.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think that they perhaps judge Christians by those they know personally?
By your standards perhaps Christians should attend Synagogues to understand Jews and Mosques to understand Moslems, auditing sessions to understand Scientogolists? How many of these have YOU done? What have you done to understand atheists and agnostics?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm Southern Baptist but I have been to a few Catholic services with friends. A little different to what I'm used to. I think I'd like to attend a Jewish service once just to see how they worship. I've seen tons of pictures of Muslims bowing towards Mecca but I think it'd be interesting to attend an actual service. The few Muslims I've known were nothing like the kooks you see on TV.
Re: (Score:3)
It was fairly interesting, but then I noticed on their website [google.com]: We believe that the lost and sinful man must be saved, and that man's only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesu
Re: (Score:3)
Weak willed moron, who doesn't have any understand what the words of the Christ are about, talks high and might about how stupid he is. No wonder you are an atheist, just about everything else would've required you to make a choice.
A great poet-philosopher once said "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Think about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me you arent claiming to be Christian, or a follower of Christ. Calling someone "stupid" for not being christian when you yourself could only know salvation by the mercy of another is some kind of supreme hubris, and it would be a shame if you were offering this up as what it means to believe.
I consider atheism (and false religion) to be foolish, but calling people of any faith "stupid" for what they believe leaves some kind of a foul taste in my mouth-- I am sure that of all the things Jesus w
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:4, Interesting)
I consider atheism (and false religion) to be foolish
And believing in some magical being that can revive his son three days later instead of not letting him die in the first place doesn't look like bad science fantasy literature? Especially since nothing he's ever done can be accounted for by more than a 2k years old book?
Come on. A little common sense people.
A couple of points (Score:4, Informative)
Three things are pretty well established (among both psychologists and economists):
a) Perceived happiness equals actual happiness (If we look at the brain activity near pleasure centers, we notice that how happy people say they are has very strong correlation with active those areas are. So if Antti from Finland rates his happiness at 60 and Ted from USA rates his happiness at 70, it's likely that Ted is actually happier and it's not just that they would have different scale due to culture, language, social class, etc...)
b) Absolute wealth increases perceived happiness only up to about 2000 dollars a month (If we look at countries below that threshold, average income correlates strongly with perceived happiness. Above that limit, very little)
c) Relative wealth to your peers increases happiness constantly (Look at essentially any country and you can bet that the wealthiest quarter is happier that the poorest quarter, even if the poorest quarter about reaches the threshold mentioned in b)
I don't have the time to write all evidence/arguments behind the above claims but if you're interested, I do recommend either the British economist Richard Layard's book Happiness: Lessons from a New Science [amazon.co.uk] (note: despite the name, it isn't any new age / self-help book) or getting up to date on the basics of modern psychology [youtube.com].
That being the case, it's a bit silly to make comparisons to medieval times and look at absolute wealth. Sure, we can say "Most of the poor no longer need to worry about starving to death in western countries" and that is a huge, happiness-increasing thing over the middle ages. But comparing their absolute wealth to aristocrats is more or less useless, because they are likely to be a lot less happy than the aristocrats (due to having low wealth and status relative to others instead of being considered the privileged elite of the society).
Also, you're pretty comfortably middle class so when people talk about the poor, they don't talk about people like you... but that's getting a bit offtopic.
Re: (Score:3)
The only limitations I have on my success is my own ability and initiative.
*And privilege. Your most accurate prediction of success is the success of your parents. The most accurate prediction of your wealth is the wealth of your parents.
It would be nice if we lived in a pure meritocracy but we're almost universally dependent on the success of our parents than we are on our own innate ability or drive.
I see this in my own life. In college I had a car and could focus on my school instead of working. As a result I got all my work done and was able to network with my classmates.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Are you poor?
Re: (Score:3)
I love the concept as I know exactly what he's talking about. This is not only limited to religion, but appears in many guises over other political causes as well. For example, I've been involved in debating Finnish language policy pretty much all my life, and our Swedish-speakers are a prime example of this -- they have probably the most well-protected position as a language minority in the world, but they essentially scream holocaust every single time everyone does not do EXACTLY as they say, and most imp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it just me, or does anybody else get that the theocrats are seriously getting on a fetish where they attribute everything negative to non-believers?
Not to mention how they try to get us to believe they are persecuted martyrs for their faith.
Rating this to "zero" is a clear case of someone with mod points to burn and no ethics what-so-ever. It might be sharp, but there does seem to be empirical evidence that followers of an organized religion seem to want those who oppose them to disappear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it just me, or does anybody else get that the theocrats are seriously getting on a fetish where they attribute everything negative to non-believers?
Not to mention how they try to get us to believe they are persecuted martyrs for their faith.
Rating this to "zero" is a clear case of someone with mod points to burn and no ethics what-so-ever. It might be sharp, but there does seem to be empirical evidence that followers of an organized religion seem to want those who oppose them to disappear.
OP is an anonymous coward, rated zero by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or a sign that someone recognizes melodrama and an ignorance of what a theocracy is, as well as some kind of a strawman.
The phrase "atheistic materialism" doesnt have to mean "we're being persecuted at 2nd-century-Rome levels", you know. Its actually a pretty accurate description of any system which denies the possibility of a supernatural.
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like so see the theory that man created god taught in schools. Why is this controversy not discussed? Teach the controversy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Grow some thicker skin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because even the fairest most honest criticism is treated as being disrespectful, even heresy.
And yes, I do want freedom from religion, because it turns out religion IS used to take away a lot of freedoms. All in the name of our own good.
Re: (Score:2)
freedom of religion ultimately stems from, and is dependent on, freedom from religion. as you would not want to be imposed on, you cannot impose on others. woten-> you vs you-> me.
removing the chaff from the wheat is oftentimes the issue. Your everyday bible is an excellent source or morality, if you ignore all the immorality in it.
I personally disrespect religion as i disrespect a lot of things. If I can't feel free to talk about this topic as any other topic, then i'm giving up my freedom of speech
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the martyr thing is built into virtually every Abrahamic faith out there. They'll scream persecution when they are trying to strip our rights, change curriculum to a more religious view through pseudo-science (Intelligent Design is just rebadged Creationism).
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Informative)
Non-believers are SINNERS. Religion means fighting non-believers and taking power FROM them in Allah's/Yahweh's/FSM's name.
If you are not of a sect, it is your enemy (in a large or small way) like it or not and never forget that. If they had the power they would kill you or torture you into submission as they did before secular enlightment weakened the hold of superstition.
In some places where they roll Old School, denouncing religion can still get you murdered.
Re: (Score:2)
> Non-believers are SINNERS.
Everybody is. So what? According to the (unproven of course) NT the Christ says: "nobody gets saved except through me". But no human cannot tell Him whom to save or not, it's HIS prerogative. Mt. 19 -> Jesus looked at them and said, âoeWith man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.â
> Religion means fighting non-believers and taking power FROM them in Allah's/Yahweh's/FSM's name.
Luke 9:5 If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your f
it's been that way for 2000 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Christian churches have been blaming the ills of the world on "pagans" and non-believers for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Usually, churches lump communism, materialist, and atheism together, but easily switch sides when that doesn't work out. For example, the Catholic church in Europe allied itself with Hitler and other fascist and military dictators against the "atheistic communists", but then after the war, when that turned out to be unpopular, blamed the fascists themselves for being atheists.
It's pretty simple to see why: Christianity starts with the premise that morality and decency is identical with belief in, and submission to, God. Logically, all non-believers must be either evil or at the very least misguided. Furthermore, no matter how bad the crimes of the churches or Christians are, they are either excused or atoned for by belief in God, or the people in question are retroactively declared not to have been "true believers" in the first place.
The only thing that changes over time is the group that the church is willing to extend the label "believer" to. Sometimes, it may include all Abrahamic religions, sometimes only Christians, and sometimes only specific denominations. It mostly seems to depend on political expediency.
Re:it's been that way for 2000 years (Score:4, Informative)
Not good history there. The Catholic church did execute concordats with fascist Italy and Germany, but these were definitely arm's-length agreements whose only purpose (from the church's side) was to secure some basic operational rights in hostile political environments.
In Italy, the Lateran treaty with Mussolini established the Vatican city-state and closed the book on issues, such as reparation for the seizure of the papal states, going back to 1848.
In Germany, the church was more or less officially in opposition to the state since the Kulturkampf of Bismark. In the face of the much more aggressive ideology of the Nazis, the Church did waffle a bit in signing the Reichskonkordat of 1933, but it can be argued that the terms were the best available. It should be noted that it was only the Catholic-majority areas of Germany that did not endorse Nazi rule in 1932.
In neither case could it be reasonably argued that the church and fascist states were "allies".
Re:it's been that way for 2000 years (Score:4, Interesting)
You need to read up on your history. The Catholic Center Party in Germany (headed prelate Kaas) didn't "waffle", it cast the deciding votes installing Hitler as a dictator of Germany and ending the Weimar Republic. Both the Nazis and the Catholics told you why in their speeches: they were allies in their fight against atheistic communists and for the promotion of traditional Christian values. In addition to dealing with Hitler and Mussolini, the Catholic church also supported Franco and other right-wing dictators, for the same reason.
And they didn't just get some "basic rights", the Catholic church negotiated itself a sweet deal (permission to teach in public school, tithing through the Nazi tax collectors, salaries of church officials paid by the Nazi government), while the people the Catholic church had traditionally persecuted itself (socialists, communists, Freemasons, homosexuals, Jehova's witnesses) were already being carted off to concentration camps or just disappeared outright. All the church had to do in return is give political support and have its priests swear allegiance to the Nazis, and it did.
If gaining money and power in return for acquiescing to the torture and murder of your fellow human beings isn't the essence of moral corruption and moral failing, I don't know what is. But to the Catholic church, the lives of the people carted off to the Nazi concentration camps were, despite all their speeches, worthless since they weren't Catholics.
(The moral failings of the German protestants were different but no less serious.)
witches to burn (Score:2)
all religions need witches to burn and people still burn witches today, literally and figuratively.
Re: (Score:2)
sure sure, but I did say: literally or figuratively.
Every religion hates competition, and it's competition that is burned (be it atheists or other religion followers or some other groups) of-course sometimes it's literal, sometimes it's done figuratively.
Do the Wicca followers try to use their perceived magic to have some advantage against other religions and groups?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Atheist will twist theory to fit facts
Coincidentally, that's exactly what theories are for.
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everything an atheist thinks about is about science. Atheists also think about the human experience, how we relate to each other and to our world and how we can make like bearable for ourselves and others. We just try not to involve our superstitious beliefs into that process, and manage hypothetical assertions with some degree of rigor. If that makes me a "materialist", so be it, even though I did to choose to be called that. On the other hand, if "materialist" is a code word for "a selfish jerk who is not like us saintly believers and who will be up against the wall when the theocratic revolution comes", then I beg to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
If that makes me a "materialist", so be it, even though I did to choose to be called that.
I don't get it... What's so bad about being called a "materialist"? Mind you, I have only passing knowledge of the philosophical meanings, I've never really studied it (my philosophy professor was lacking... she seemed to believe that philosophy was about who could better ridicule opposing point of views), and I end up conflating materialism and physicalism together.
We just try not to involve our superstitious beliefs into that process, and manage hypothetical assertions with some degree of rigor.
I don't think that /makes/ you a materialist, but your overall post makes me think that you are nonetheless.
Disclaimer: I'm not a native Englis
Re: (Score:2)
But ordinary English speakers will often take the other definition. They'll take it to mean 'concentrating on the accumulation of ownership of stuff rather than on social relationships, personal achievements, intellectual matters, helping people, being a good member of society and so on'. Spoken about scientists especially this is plainly ridiculous. But it's hardly beyond some people to exploit the ambiguity.
Re: (Score:2)
No. "Fact" does not equal "true statement". Statements about facts are true, if and only if they describe the facts correctly, like in the example Alfred Tarski has given: "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. Facts can be checked. True statements can be proven. If a statement can't be proven true and neither can its contrary, it's called "undecidable", not "true". If something can't be checked, it's not a fact, it's just an allegation.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not worth organizing your life around, then. If you want to drink tea in outer space, you had best bring your own teapot. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two definitions of materialism. If you're a philosopher (or presumably a theologist) and take it to mean simply 'not dualism' then linking it to atheism is nonsense. Plenty of people who don't believe in gods have other superstitions which make them believe in spirits (such belief seems to be a bit of a default position for humans), and it wasn't so long ago that it wasn't obviously plausible that a human could drop out of the operation of a purely matter-based brain. And you don't need to be a dualist to be a theist. It's perfectly possible to believe that god will give you a new body and brain on judgement day. There's nothing remotely negative about materialism.
But ordinary English speakers will often take the other definition. They'll take it to mean 'concentrating on the accumulation of ownership of stuff rather than on social relationships, personal achievements, intellectual matters, helping people, being a good member of society and so on'. Spoken about scientists especially this is plainly ridiculous. But it's hardly beyond some people to exploit the ambiguity.
But the original was presumably in Korean. So who knows what it meant?
Re: (Score:3)
"But ordinary English speakers will often take the other definition. They'll take it to mean 'concentrating on the accumulation of ownership of stuff rather than on social relationships, personal achievements, intellectual matters, helping people, being a good member of society and so on'"
There's a third "ordinary" interpretation that is -I guess, given their North neighbourghs, the one working here: "atheist materialism" == "damn communism".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What has North Korea got to do with communism? Even China is closer to being communist than they are, and to call China communist is to totally misunderstand the term. They aren't even Maoists, much less communist.
North Korea is just a hereditary dictatorship. The normal term for that is monarchy.
For that matter, I never even heard of communism being successfully used on even the scale of a large village. The Oneida Community was about the largest I've ever heard of that was successful, and even that fa
Re: (Score:2)
"What has North Korea got to do with communism?"
You talkin' to me? (with de Niro's voice). I didn't mentioned "communism" but "damn communism".
"For that matter, I never even heard of communism being successfully used on even the scale of a large village."
You should listen more carefully.
"many features of communism that just don't scale."
Beware you words: times are changing. Maybe what didn't scale in the past, do scale now.
"What we in the US tend to call communism is any group the the government didn't li
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:5, Informative)
I am a Korean and I just looked up the Korean articles. It meant "not dualism" as you explained in your first paragraph. If I was to translate the word literally, I would have translated it as "theory of materials" or "theory of matter".
This is what they said (translated as literally as I could):
"The underlying concept of evolution is materialism. The theory of evolution considers people's minds as a consequence of materialistic behavior, and if this is taught pupils will form incorrect understanding of the world. Pupils will end up thinking that because materials are recycled, taking lives is not committing a sin. The same can be said for abortion and selfishness."
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? [Mods: MOD PARENT UP] (Score:2)
Thanks. That makes quite a difference, and makes the quote more of a specific allegation and less of a generalized insult.
"The underlying concept of evolution is materialism. The theory of evolution considers people's minds as a consequence of materialistic behavior, and if this is taught pupils will form incorrect understanding of the world. Pupils will end up thinking that because materials are recycled, taking lives is not committing a sin. The same can be said for abortion and selfishness."
If so, then they either misunderstand what a mind is or are worrying that teaching will not get it across appropriately (to which a cover-up is hardly an appropriate response). IMO, a human mind is a phenomenon which drops out of the operation of a human brain. A brain is not a mind. A human mind is the real target of moral rules. Moral (not legal) murder is to end a human mind outside o
Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a very large number of Buddhists who would deny the link between atheism and materialism. (Admittedly, lots of Buddhists are also theistic. I've never been able to understand why, or how they reconcile it. And I say this as a materialist pagan...which also confuses a lot of people.)
IIUC, in traditional Buddhist thought the "gods" and "spirits" are delusional creations of the observing mind, and thus, while you should acknowledge them, you shouldn't believe in them. This makes sense to me. It's a spiritualism I can accept without a qualm, even if it isn't what I believe (which is actually about the same thing seen from a different perspective). Personally, I consider the mind to be a delusion, and the "gods" and "spirits" to be the underlying bricks out of which it is built, as a program is built using frameworks and libraries. And the whole thing is based on a material substrate (the brain, for people, or the computer for programs).
Note that neither of us, neither the traditional Buddhists not myself, consider gods and spirits as real. But while they consider the world to be illusion, I consider the mind to be illusion. In some sense its the same thing, as in both cases what we perceive isn't what's really there. I consider my belief better, because it has experimental evidence. They Buddhists, however, consider that evidence a part of the illusion of matter. Thus Bayesian reasoning cannot resolve initial bias, and doesn't always even converge. Still, the viewpoints agree over much of the range of evidence.
Do you need to believe that a god is real to be spiritual? I believe that a god is real in the sense that a subroutine is real. Do the avowed theists, who go to church on Sunday and ignore the rules of their god during the rest of the week have more actual belief? I've only rarely met an avowed theist who actually lived by the rules prescribed by their god. The claim of belief is not the actuality of belief, not even if they convince themselves.
Certainly I don't understand the connection between evolution and any formally described religion. The mosaic laws, e.g., say that you should honor your god before all others, but they don't say anything about believing in evolution (admittedly, if they'd thought about it they probably would have, but they literally couldn't think about it). Evolution isn't a god anymore than a light switch is. It's a description of an observed regularity (well, several observed regularities) in the physical universe. Nowhere in the bible, not even the new testament, does it say that one should ignore observed regularities in the physical universe. It does claim that god can set aside those regularities at a whim, but that's a very different claim. (One that *I* don't believe, but that's a separate matter.)
So. I see a clear link between materialism and my belief in gods, spirits, etc. And I don't consider myself an atheist, even though I do consider myself a materialist. I believe the gods to be more real than my perception of the keys that I am currently striking to write this message. This isn't to say that they are more real than the keys at some un-knowable level of reality. They aren't. The material level is the basis out of which ALL is created. But they are more real than my conscious mind.
I'd say the problem here is ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Korea Association for Creation Research's motto is, "Don't let facts get in the way of a good tithe."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like smartphone fanboyism?
Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Korea [wikipedia.org]
Only 53% percent of South Koreans claim any religious affiliation, and 55% of those are Buddhists.
Need some Korean person to explain.
Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I encountered some of thes bozos in the middle of the Great Rift Valley last year. The community they were assigned to convert was already deeply religious. They (the crew cut Americans) assumed that the 'heathens' were godless. Big mistake.
There was one thing that the British Missionaries of the 18th Century realised pretty early on. That was that you had to blend the local beliefs with christianity to get anywhere. Thus they were successful in converting the locals. I was there on a VSO assignment. It was interesting to watch as they tried and failed to convert the locals to their version of christianity. This was the 'evolution is bunkum' brand.
The missionaries forgot that just down the road some of the oldest human remains ever discovered had been found.
When their mission failed they turned their attention to those of us there helping with water conservation. They got equally short shift from us. I'm a lapsed catholic but two of the others were muslims of Pakistani origin. Still they tried. You have to applaud them for that but despite the promised that we'd all rot in hell they failed to make any converts.
When they'd gone, the whole community had a party to celebrate. It lasted three days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"That was that you had to blend the local beliefs with christianity to get anywhere. "
Sounds rather difficult to reconcile Evangelicals with Christianity though.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read that sentence a bit further, especially the part about: "These numbers should be treated with some caution, however, as (with the exception of Christianity) there are few if any meaningful distinctions between believers and nonbelievers in Buddhism and Confucianism, which comprise more of a set of ethical values than a religion."
This can reflect in being that in S.Korea, that the number of religious people are much higher than actually reported.
Re: (Score:3)
"These numbers should be treated with some caution, however, as (with the exception of Christianity) there are few if any meaningful distinctions between believers and nonbelievers in Buddhism and Confucianism, which comprise more of a set of ethical values than a religion."
You're saying that there may be a larger number of people who follow a Buddhist or Confucian set of ethics than reported by these figures. A man following a Confucian ethical system would have a strong sense of duty to his parents and lord (or leadership) while a Buddhist man might feel a sense of duty to the world around him, of which he is a part. Neither has a strong stance on creationism. I don't see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Korea [wikipedia.org] Only 53% percent of South Koreans claim any religious affiliation, and 55% of those are Buddhists. ... So my comment is: What? What's going on here?
Need some Korean person to explain.
I'm not Korean but I know something about Korea: 1) Those numbers are probably out of date. There are large numbers of Koreans converting to Christianity every year. 2) Korean Christians are very active and organized. Korean Buddhists not so much 3) The "no religion" Koreans aren't usually atheists, they're agnostics who don't really care much about religion. Often they have Christian family members and are perfectly happy to go along with their family members in religious matters as long as it doesn't inco
Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (Score:5, Interesting)
* First a disclaimer: I lived in Korea for 4 years, and I am married to a Korean.
One of my wife's relatives passed away while we were living in Korea, so we went to attend the funeral. Approximately half of the family was devout Christian, and the other half were mild Buddhists / agnostics. Because the person who died was Buddhist, it was decided by the Buddhist side of the family to have the funeral in a Buddhist format, which might I add, has been practically the cultural standard for hundreds of years in Korea.
But the Christian side would have absolutely none of it, not even to be respectful to the Buddhists, which was a source of contention at the funeral. They waited until the end of the ceremony, not taking part in any of the prayers, or even the the respectful bows that are common enough, then begun their loud prayers and other Christian themed actions.
I am an atheist, but I knew better than to shove my (lack of) beliefs upon others, and just go with the flow at the funeral, why can not others do the same? To this day that funeral is still a source of discontentment between the two sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reporting on this was overblown. All that was issue was two examples -
Not removing the subject from the textbooks -
Re: (Score:2)
That got me thinking... How can I get a religion to become against teaching of math without simultaneous teaching of its practical use in schools?
Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (Score:4, Informative)
A Korean person explains:
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-evolution-in-korea.html#more [blogspot.com]
Make your own decisions about his reliability, of course, but he does have the advantage of being able to read the Korean-language media.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for clearing this up. The original article needs to be updated.
Re: (Score:2)
Genesis For The Modern Age (Score:5, Interesting)
Genesis For The Modern Age
Re: (Score:2)
Then as the forces within the stars created heavier and heavier atoms the energies generated within became great. Greater in fact than the Force of Gravity. Where upon the very Stars themselves exploded spewing the atoms out in great clouds into the void.
The fusion of Iron-56 into larger elements is energetically unfavorable, and the star is unable to resist gravitational collapse. You've got it backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
The Real Story (Score:5, Informative)
Creationists need to meet their maker (Score:3)
This kind of crap just gets on my nerves and under my skin. What knowledge needs to be supressed? Knowledge of explosives? Knowledge of sharp things? How much knowledge has to be removed before there is an end to this feeling that there must be a removal of knowledge?
A God threatened by knowledge is no god at all.
Re: (Score:2)
God is not threatened by knowledge; people are threatened by deceit.
Darwin's comment on "Intelligent Design" . . . (Score:2)
In his autobiography, Charles Darwin reported that he was almost denied the chance to make his historic voyage on the Beagle on account of his looks, in particular, because of his nose, which was large and somewhat bulbous. Darwin himself later used his nose, facetiously, as an argument against intelligent design, writing, "Will you honestly tell me . . . whether you believe the shape of my nose was ordained and 'guided by an intelligent cause'?"
Leonard Mlodinow, in Subliminal
More about bad theology than bad science (Score:5, Informative)
Hermeneutics [wikipedia.org] is the approach one takes to interpreting a document (such as the Bible, for example). Literalism is one approach to Biblical hermeneutics in which one assumes nothing in the Bible is meant to be read allegorically or poetically. I think young-earth Creationists hold this view, which in their mind places Christianity squarely at odds with any science that gives us life older than ~ 6000 years.
I think one appealing reason for literalism is the assumption that as the Word of God, the Bible is meant to be easily understandable to every well-intentioned reader, and that's only possible if the plain reading of the text conveys the intended meaning. I.e., if you need to be a scholar of ancient Greek and Hebrew literary forms to understand it properly, something is amiss.
However, literalism is not generally accepted as a valid hermeneutic by most Christian theologians, as far as I know. I don't know all of the reasons, but I think one of them is that when read in the original Greek, Hebrew, and/or Aramaic, some books of the Bible very clearly are written in idiomatic forms of the day that most certainly were poetic or allegorical.
I think the truth is that just as a number of scientific might explain the data collected so far, so might a number of interpretations of certain parts of the Bible fit established theology, worldly observations, and hermeneutics. Those who see science (including carbon dating of fossils) as a threat to their religious beliefs may be more attached to a literalistic hermeneutic than is appropriate.
How can KOREA, of all places, deny evolution? (Score:4, Funny)
surrender (Score:2)
> I think it will turn out that after all Korean science will not surrender to religion
Right. It will surrender to politics. Some improvement, that.
Re:Why are these things opposites? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the problem goes deeper than that. I do not think you have to be a religious fanatic in the minority to have at least some qualms with evolution. In most religions a creator god is the major feature. And without that, what is even the point of a God? While science cannot ever really disprove a God, if evidence can win you over then science has already made one useless. And if God did not creator man, then what is he? Some powerful Alien who has been tampering with Earth's history (in none mira
Re:Why are these things opposites? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why couldn't God create evolution? If I'm God, why would I want to create a universe that needs to be micromanaged? A real God would just snap his fingers and create a universe that does everything it needs to do, including creating humans to worship him, automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Because science has already shown that the universe did not need a God to have evolutionist. The only place for God left outside of known science is like 1/9999999999999 of a second after the big bang and before, the rest we know has a scientific explanation (more or less, there are a few wholes).
An Insecure God (Score:2)
I think that last bit would require a seriously insecure god.
That would explain so much about the Old Testament.
Re: (Score:2)
And what qualms with evolution do you have? Be specific here.
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like a true believer. Why does God have to be something? Has it ever occurred to you that the idea of God is created to just confuse you or for you to confuse others?
Maybe religion was not meant to fool anyone at the beginning. But it is has evolved into a way of life and many are making a living out of it. The ingenious thing about religious leaders is they ask you to disprove God and to prove everything else. As there are always things unknown to humanity, like aliens, they can always find a way
Re: (Score:2)
So if they say God started the big bang, you'd believe it?
The idea of God is to legitimate religion so that it is not out of influence or some people out of job. The harm is it makes people vulnerable to manipulation by forcing people to accept illogical thoughts. This is a powerful weapon for mediocre people to control smart people.
For example, you say you are OK with the idea that God directed how flies adapted. But can anything directs without transfer any information to the flies that do the actual thin
Re: (Score:2)
they're opposites because evolution is opposite to literal interpretation of the texts and opposite of traditional interpretations of the text.
creationism as in something that can't be observed as separate from natural evolution isn't really the thing on the table here. and really, if it were who the fuck would give a fuck since then it would be just defining Fortuna as the one great true god?
in your version where both evolution and creation done by a god could co-exist you would have to do pretty broad int
Re: (Score:2)
Some religions and science are oposed because the people of those religions decided they need to destroy science. There is nothing to interpret.
Re:Why are these things opposites? (Score:5, Interesting)
It *IS* religion versus science. Science can exist with or without religion. Science does not exist because of in spite of or in any relation to religion. Religion, however, exists and is most powerful in the absence of science. The more knowledge is accumulated, the less religion works or makes sense at all. Just as children learn not to be afraid of the dark, people learn not to be afraid of their futures and understand the causes and effects of things that go on all around them.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? How so? We learn what we need to know about religion, its leaders and its followers best by their actions. What is it they most try to limit, control, censor or suppress? Ultimately, it is "change" they are trying to fight. We see the same desperation in the **AAs, the old tech leaders and more. They all attack the same things -- knowledge, research, new ideas... progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something strikes a nerve doesn’t make it ignorance, arrogance or bigotry. Religious explanations always give way to science. Evidence always beats faith. We learned what causes thunder and stopped believing it was supernatural. Evolution is a fact so we no longer need to believe that we have a special place in the universe or that it was "created" for us.
Re: (Score:2)
While you do seem to have morons by the truckload, you don't have a monopoly on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it the other way around? If there is a God then he/she/it can just remake humanity if it dies out (isn't that the plan anyway?)
If there ISN'T a God, then once we die out we're gone forever.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because this "god" is unlikely to be your "God."
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, it is a very religious land. Their religion is the worship of the Glorious Leader, like so many dictatorships.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called Juche [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, that's the current Roman Catholic position. Or, at least, it was a few years ago when I was talking to a then-deacon, now-ordained friend of mine.