Continuation of a Discussion:

between Joe and Russ--taken offline from "The Pope Resigns" (all are of course welcome!)

Joe, your last post in bold, answering my previous statement was as follows:

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

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Joe.  I find that many of my liberal friends, (not meaning, you here)

I'm not sure how to take that Russ, don't you consider me a friend?

Hell, I actually believe in evolution! 

There you go mixing science with your faith.  Evolution is not something to believe in.  It exists as one of the best substantiated theories in science whether you buy into it or not.

Seriously, when you adopt a label or support a slate of candidates, generally, you throw yourself into a pot that contains some pretty unattractive ingredients.  Thus has it always been with politics and religion.

Agreed!  Cheers

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

I do indeed consider you a friend!  I might well have placed my parenthetical expression further down in the sentence to make it clear that I was only excepting you from those who might hypocritically apply the standard that one ought not to stereotype one's neighbor. 

As for evolution, I, of all people, who usually try to be so rigorous in my language, most certainly used the term "believe" far too loosely.  As you point out, one does not "believe" in scientific propositions--rather, one substantiates or refutes them to whatever degree of probability one can--and you and I have no argument that the "theory" of evolution has been substantiated to a degree sufficient to consider it proven.  While I find it unfortunate that anyone would consider its proof a threat to their conception of and faith in a supreme being, as an atheist myself, I find it difficult to criticize whatever epistomology they have adopted to support their beliefs.

When one considers the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in their connotations for general social values, I believe it is fair to say that the former group includes far more folks who view religious belief as, at best a sham and at worst, a hindrance to progress and progressive values--whereas the latter includes far more who view it as an absolute set of values which alone stands between Mankind and perdition--whether here or in a next life.

And guess what: Both are right!

While I have spent my entire life holding what I characterize here as the "liberal" view--the most radical definition of which was provided by Marx: "...the opium of the People..." I have to say that when a society becomes totally secular in nature, much is lost--not only much that is negative in nature, but much that was beneficial as well.  True, in a secular society that has the advantage of a small, homogeneous population, the lack of restraint in the form of religious sanction does not necessarily lead to civil chaos, but in a large country consisting of a melting pot which has not been entirely successful in melting its various ingredients into a homogenous recipe--the values and restraints once provided by religion are not so easily replaced.

And as the Existentialist philosophers and their writings indicate if nothing else--materialism has left some serious voids in World society...

...but not in you and me--because we like good music! 

Best regards,

Russ