Why must creationists and evolutionists fight?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
After following the ongoing debate in the letter to the editor pages of the PR about the teaching of evolution in schools, I am left with these thoughts.
Why is it so hard for religious people to accept that evolution is what should be taught in school? Why can’t parents see that to teach creationism or directed intelligence or whatever, is contrary to the seperation of church and state policies that we hope our government will abide by? After implementing that teaching, what is the next step? Is it mandatory prayer in schools, or education about why someone should be a Christian, or a Mormon, or a Jew, or Muslim?
I am a Christian (and if you couldn’t tell that by my previous articles, then I apologize, I still have a long way to go). I was taught evolution by my science teachers in school. Even my chemistry instructor at BYU-I said he wasn’t going to disagree with the theories of evolution. Why have all of these teachings about evolution failed to degrade my faith? Simple, because I had a mother who taught me about God and his plan. I have faith in God, and I understand that some things I cannot understand, so I will wait until God decides it time to show me the answers.
We cannot know all the answers. There is no scientific proof that God exists. But, those who have faith in God (or Allah, or Buddha, or Tom Cruise, or whoever) do not need scientific proof in order to live the kind of life that their higher power would want for them. Dictionary.com defines faith as “confidence or trust in a person or thing,” and “belief that is not based on proof.” So, people who have faith can see scientific evidence and say, “hmmm… I don’t understand why that appears to be that way, I guess I will just put it on my list of things to ask God about when I see him again.”
So, are you, as parents (or students, or teachers, or whatever) willing to leave the education of your children about personal religious matters to the public school system? I’m not. Should the local majority force their beliefs about creationism onto those who do not share that belief? I don’t think so. Should parents take personal responsibility to educate their children about religion seperate from the world of science? I think so. Will the children of religious parents be harmed by learning in school about evolution, the geologic age of the earth, etc? Not if their parents take responsibility for the religious education of their children, for raising them up in faith, like God commanded them.
Some of the oldest human remains on earth were found just a few miles from Idaho Falls (see the historical marker on U.S. 20 on the way to Arco). These remains are even older than the Bible says the earth is. Does that mean that there is no God, that my faith should be destroyed? NO! I find each new scientific tidbit that I learn about the earth to be faith enhancing. Surely I don’t understand it all, or how it fits into the “big picture” of God, but that’s okay, because I have faith.
So, why are people so threatened by the teaching of evolution in school? There is plenty of scientific evidence to back it up, and we accept that science holds the answers for many of the mysteries of the universe. Are people so weak in their faith that they cannot hold fast to it in the face of evidence to the contrary? Or, is it something deeper and more sinister, a desire to forcer force their beliefs onto those who do not share them?
I’m not saying that the evolutionists are right, or wrong. I’m not saying that the creationists are right, or wrong (personally, my belief in God is enhanced by the evidence of evolution). What i am saying is why must there be this great public debate about something that should remain a personal, private, family matter?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Excellent post Rich! I especially like the part about having faith in “God, Allah, TOM CRUISE” LMAO!!
That was good! 
I’ll post a more detailed reply later when I get the time.
Thanks!
Vote:
0 0 Perhaps the hesitancy by religionists to give credence to Darwinian evolution is that to do so would mean the abandonment of such cherished fairy tales as Adam and Eve and Noah’s ark, to name a couple. Are you, as a student from BYU, willing to do that? Many of your fellow church members (assuming you are LDS) are not.
Vote:
0 0 Rich is not LSD. (and it’s “Adam & Steve” remember?)
Oops…I mean LDS!
Vote:
0 0 Correction to your article. Some of the oldest human remains in “North America” were found near Idaho Falls. They were around 10,000 years old. The oldest modern human remains are over 150,000 years old. These are in Africa and Asia. The oldest remains easily indentified as havig humanoid traits are from Africa and are over five million years old depending on where you draw the line of ancestry.
Vote:
0 0 Does anybody know how accurate “carbon dating” really is? I know it’s our main source of telling us how old skeletal remains are, but I don’t really know much about it. I was just wondering if it’s really as accurate as they say it is.
Vote:
0 0 I once saw a bumper sticker that sums up my thoughts on the issue:
I believe Evolution is one of God’s tools.
Not that catchy, but you get the point, right? Most of the contention between fundamental Christians and secular “science” types is the strict interpretation of Genesis, Exodus, etc. Essentially, it comes down to the Torah - and why not? We’re not going to be able to pit science against the Beattitudes, so let’s pick an easy target - mythology. Yes, Genesis is a mythology. Before we argue semantics, Genesis is just a mythological as, say, George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Of course, the events didn’t occur as we tell them, but that’s not important - we tell the story George and the Cherry Tree to illustrate something about our first President. So really, it’s not the details that we should argue, it’s the ideas that the story presents.
It’s the same throughout history - especially after WWI, myth-making is essential in allowing a nation (or people) to come to terms with tragedy, its history, and its identity.
So the stories presented in the first books of the modern bible shouldn’t be taken at face-value, but as a mythology of a people that were trying to understand God. I personally believe that the bible (at least the more ambiguous, earlier texts) are inspired by God, written by man, and understood by few. In thinking of the mythology in this way, it is possible to accept both science’s model of the world (ever-changing as it may be) and religion’s (ditto.)
However, let us not forget that it wasn’t that long ago when all of science accepted the Ptolemic model of universe, with its sphere of fixed stars and Earth at the center of the universe. It wasn’t that long ago that we believed the world to be flat, or when we were utterly ignorant of the existence of Chromosomes. We tend to forget that science is a tentative process (to quote my biological Human Concerns professor), and that little is actually “proven” in science, but observed, tested, and understood more clearly.
To sum up, science proves nothing, nor does religion. They are two separate, sovereign disciplines which should respect and complete each other - not negate and argue.
Why can’t we all just get along?
Vote:
0 0 First, Chris671 is correct, I am not LDS (for more info on that, see my earlier article “The social pressures of Mormonism”) and thank you for thinking that i’m funny.
Dingus, thanks for the correction. It has been several years since my ISU “Cultures of the Great Basin” Anthropology Class. I should have been more specific that I was referring to remains of Homo sapien and not earlier versions of man like Homo errectus or others, to which I think you are referring. If I am still incorrect about that, please let me know (again…)
Also, please let’s not turn this into “Creationists are stupid, and this is why” kind of thread. No one has really addressed the questions that I posed in my article. Please, let’s respect each others beliefs. It is possible to debate w/o bashing your opponents on a personal level.
My opinion on Chris’s question about carbon dating is: Carbon dating is accurate if the levels of Carbon 14 on the planet have remained constant, with no spikes or depressions that would alter the linearity of the baseline. If carbon 14 levels have/had changed at some point, then that would change the accuracy of that method. But again, I could be wrong.
Vote:
0 0 “Carbon dating” is used as a catch-all phrase in popular culture. There are many radiometric dating methods using different isotopes.
Generally, Carbon 14 dating is useful for dating things younger than 50K years, and can’t be used to date things like rocks or metals. There are other methods used for those types of materials. Carbon 14 dating has been double-checked through other dating methods, including tree rings, and found to be very reliable (as long as no contamination has occurred.)
The Creationists I read are opposed to Evolution Theory because it invalidates the very core of their faith: death came to the Earth through the Fall of Man, and only Jesus Christ can save you from that (spiritual) death. But Creationists also include physical death in the Fall, so if there was death on Earth before then (i.e. evolution, descent with modification) it calls into question the basis of their religion.
They also seem to very offended by the idea of apes & humans sharing a common ancestor. They often throw out the phrases like “My grand-daddy ain’t no monkey!” 
I’m by no means a Christian, but this is what I’ve learned by reading the Creationist/IDer philosophy.
Vote:
0 0 Yeah, Jeremy,
But if religion had had it’s way, Galileo’s ideas would have been completely stifled. Religion has a rather sordid history of opposing the progress of man’s desire to understand the material nature of his universe.
I suppose we could “all get along” if it weren’t for the various religions wanting to control our minds and indeed the whole world.
Remember it wasn’t science so much as religion that made the interpretation that the Earth was the center of the universe. Scientists who opposed such views did so by jeopardizing their lives in that dissent.
Vote:
0 0 Ronin,
Glad to hear you’re not LDS. My question is this…why would you, a non-member of that church, go to school at BYU? Wouldn’t that be akin to an agnostic like myself going to Bob Jones U. or Jerry Falwell’s Liberty U.? It certainly couldn’t have been for the academic excellence of that institution (BYU), they’ve fired all the professors who were considered “intellectuals”.
Vote:
0 0 Sure. But when Galileo created his model of the universe, who was paying him? That’s right - the Catholic Church! After finding problems in their current calendar, the Vatican commissioned Galileo directly to create a new model of the planets - thus, why we have the Galileo Model we pretty much stick to today.
Now, when you say “religion”, who are you talking about? The Jews? Catholics? Wiccans? It’s easy to make blanket statements like “religion hinders science”, and sometimes, you can even substantiate those accusations with evidence - but the truth is far more complicated (and interesting!) Galileo got into hot water with Cardinals hungry for political power - and in persecuting Galileo’s model, they got just that (much like the school board in Kansas is doing now). It was a power-struggle more than it was an issue of dogma.
I do agree that there are big problems within mainstream Christianity (which is why I don’t associate with mainstream Christianity) but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath-water!
I do take issue with your third paragraph, Meso. Religion is trying to control the world? If Christ so desired, He would have been king, but he turned that down in exchange for God’s will - no, it’s not religion that seeks control. It is the cowards who hide behind the pages of bibles, who use Holy scripts to spread fear and hatred, who use their positions of religious authority for personal gain.
I believe that Simonists have a special Hell in store for them someday. I take comfort in that. But for God’s sake, let’s put the blame where it belongs - on the individual, not a blanket concept!
Vote:
0 0 I believe BYU has value in teaching a trade or skill the same as any secular school. Just ignore the seminary classes.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
Are you then suggesting that Islam really doesn’t want to impose their theocracy on the world, just some of their leaders do? Glad to hear that, now we can relax and “all get along”.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
I find it interesting that you think “science proves nothing” (your #7 post). Are you questioning the validity of Einstein’s relativity, Newton’s mathmatical explanation of gravity, quantum physics or the myriad of scientific discoveries that have so greatly expanded our knowledge of the universe? What the hell do you mean, science proves nothing?
Vote:
0 0 Modern humans as in Homo Sapiens date to 160,000 to 190,000 BP. Home Erectus to the austrailipithocenes range back to the five million year mark and beyond. Noth America has only been inhabited by homo sapiens for 12,000 years (or 25,000 if you believe some evidence like suspected fire pits, bones with possible tool marks etc). Carbon dating is accepted as being very accurate. It is backed up by geologic and other dating methods. I’m sorry but anyone who has actually studied science knows that a strict creationist view is not compatible.
Vote:
0 0 Meso - I say science proves nothing because, as I stated in that same post, “science” is tentative - it offers explanation that beg to be revised, tested, sometimes discounted, etc. We say things like “science proves this or that” but in reality, science doesn’t “prove”, it “explains”. This isn’t my opinion, this is standard curriculum for anyone taking even the most basic science courses at the college level.
The concepts you mention back up my point - for example, Relativity is a good blanket explanation for how the universe works as a whole - however, modern science has found issue with Relativity (specifically, it breaks down on the nano level.) So, a new theory has been presented, one that has been called “string” theory. Newton’s law of Gravity is just that - an explanation. It is not a proven concept, but an observation interpreted mathematically. Quantum Physics … well actually that’s hundreds of years away from even reaching the explanation point! Quantum physics is purely mathematical conjecture - honestly, we can’t prove a damn thing in quantum physics yet!
So do you understand my point? In saying “science proves nothing” I’m not emphasizing the “nothing”, but the “proves” - it is tentative and often speculative by nature, and if we understand this, it makes it much easier to grasp the “bigger picture” of reality.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
Do mathematical solutions provide proof for you? If so, then you must agree with what science has proven in many of it’s conclusions.
Remember, Aristotle required observation of phenomena for “proof” of its’ existence. Plato, on the other hand, showed us that different people observing the same phenomenon could offer differing conclusions and therefor the only objective results would be those that could be mathmatically proven. Too bad religion doesn’t require a similar litmus test.
Quantum physics may not be “proven” sufficiently for your tastes but it seems to suit Bill Gates’ palate. It’s made him the richest man in the world. It also accounts for a third of the GNP of the U. S.
There are many “givens” in the world of science: the mass of an electron, the gravitaional constant, the speed of light, Planck’s constant, etc. etc. These are mathmatical proofs of scientific conclusions.
To suggest that “science proves nothing” is most irresponsible on your part. Get yourself enrolled in some science and math courses while you’re there at ISU or maybe you should just Google-fundamental physical constants and see some of the results of that search.
Vote:
0 0 “science proves nothing” is a direct quote from Dr. Farrar at ISU, professor of Biological Sciences.
Vote:
0 0 ps Explain your argument about Quantum Mechanics. I believe you’re mistaken comparing the state of an atom at rest with computing power. I fail to see the physics of probability in any of Bill Gate’s empire of businesses.
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
Quantum theory governs the behavior of the integrated circuits (chips) that are essential to computers.
Maybe Dr. Farrar needs a refresher course on scientific constants. Yes, the gravitational constant as proven by Newton’s mathmatical calculations is a “given”, in the world at large and I would hope at ISU as well.
Vote:
0 0 You’re born. You live. You die. The world goes on.
The end.
Vote:
0 0 Hey Jeremy,
Speaking of probabilities…what are the odds that Chrisr671 will post some more inane witticisms before this topic is concluded?
Vote:
0 0 Jeremy,
I’m still having trouble with your post #7. Equating the first books of the Old Testament with mythology, you state, “I personally believe that the bible (at least the more ambiguous early texts) are inspired by God, written by man, and understood by few.” Correct me if I’m wrong; but are you saying in effect that God is teaching us through the use of mythology, or in other words, inventing stories that are meant to placate our intellectual curiosity? If this is, as you say, understood by few then I would definitely qualify for that part. If your God had sought instead to teach me through science, logic and common sense then I would be more susceptible to His word…But mythology, superstition and magic just don’t have the appeal to me that scientific reasoning has.
Vote:
0 0 You really need to lighten up Meso.
Vote:
0 0 Thanks Chris, you just won me $20.
Vote:
0 0 Glad I could help! I’ve won a number of bets from you as well. It’s amazing how you just can’t pass up an opportunity to make a snide comment whenever there’s somebody that has a point of view or opinion that’s different than yours. It never fails…every post that you comment on, you’re bashing or putting down somebody.
That was the whole point of comment #22, I knew you wouldn’t be able to pass it up!
You have a great night now…and don’t spend that 20 all in one place!
Vote:
0 0 So, now that we have established that we are all arrogant jerks who have no tolerance of differing opinions, is there something that we can actually DO to help people be more tolerant? To help people understand that the secular classroom isn’t the place for religious education? To help people understand that it’s okay to be a creationist, or an evolutionist?
Bashing someone’s belief in God isn’t going to make this issue go away. Cramming one view down someone else’s throat isn’t helping, no matter what the view is.
I am reminded of an argument from my philosophy 101 class. If there is no God, but I believed in God during my life, what have I lost upon death? But, if there is a God, and I did not believe in God during my life, then what have I lost?
Vote:
0 0 I was taught one theory in school and one in church. What is the big deal? The older and wiser we get, we make our own decisions based on our beliefs and life experiences. I hope my children do the same. What is wrong with teaching “this is one theory xxx, this is another theory xxx”? I don’t think it’s a lot different than health class where we were taught you could choose to have sex, use a condom, or wait, etc. At least we all paid attention to that discussion! Yes there does need to be some degree of separation b/w church and state but I’m not getting into that area now.
It never ceases to amaze me how grown adults continue to jab each other and make stupid smart-a** comments. Kind of like the jerk on the playground who keeps poking others with a stick. Grow up please! Or move on!
Vote:
0 0 Hey, New in town,
There are two schools of thought on the Holocaust. The one, verified with first hand accounts, photos and courtroom evidence (Nuremberg). The other school of thought, mostly propogated in countries like Iran, say that the Holocaust is a figment of our imagination, a non-event, if you will. Accepting your logic, it would be altogether fitting that we teach both versions in our childrens history class.
Sorry, I just can’t buy that argument.
Vote:
0 0 Good lord, you sure are skilled at taking someone’s comment and turning it into a complete bunch of nonsense. Let’s compare apples to beach sand, shall we?
I don’t recall bringing up the Holocaust. But thanks for the history lesson, I’m sure we all are dying to be educated by your perfect knowledge of what is right. A little more tolerance of opinions of others goes a long way, don’t you think?
I think you’ve made a lot of immature, uncalled for comments to people. I can steer you to some pretty raunchy websites if it’s your style. I think this site has a little more class though. Oh well, your image, not mine.
I appreciate the maturity of several other posters here. Keep it up!
Vote:
0 0 So what have we learned from this discussion?
Nothing.
That’s depressing. I guess we’ll just go on fighting like little boys then. Shoot, even those who want to make peace are shouted down.
What a brave new world that has such people in it …
Vote:
0 0 Oh come on…where’s your fighting spirit. Bring something to the table other than worn out cliches and time worn witticisms. We don’t need peace here we need combatants who can make a point in this battle but without the childish name calling. All I’ve done is challenge your ideas. Admittedly it’s in your face but the least you can do is respond with some thought out retorts.
Vote:
0 0 Well, meso, we have a problem. When an idea is presented, you don’t exchange ideas, you attack. You try to shoot down ideas.
For example, I’ve stated many, many times that when I say that “science proves nothing” I am simply clarifying the intent of science, not demeaning it as a whole. And yet, all you can come back with are hateful accusations of what I did and did not mean, you attack my sources (Dr. Farrar), and simply act arrogant and mean-spirited. Not conducive to healthy debate.
I’m curious, though - what are your education merits where you believe to know so much more than the rest of us (including a professor at a University)? I don’t mean this hateful, I really do want to know? Do you have a degree in the field of scientific inquiry?
However, here is my final argument: I believe in science as a way to understand how nature is. I believe in religion to understand why nature is. Is that vague enough?
Vote:
0 0 ‘Nuf said, Jeremy,
I didn’t mean to cast dispersions on your beliefs, I just wanted some spirited debate. Sorry you were offended.
Vote:
0 0 Not offended, just tired.
Vote:
0 0 Its one thing to have a spirited debate, and another to constantly put down someone elses beliefs, opinions or comments just because they differ from your own. SOME people have a way of doing that in every post they make a comment in.
(obviously I’m not the only one that notices this)
Vote:
0 0 Rich’s final question was, “…why must there be this great public debate about something that should remain a personal, private, family matter?”
I think most mainstream scientists would agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately, it was Creationists who tried to insert their dogma into science classes. When they lost in the SCOTUS, they just changed their “theory” to Intelligent Design & tried to get that accepted by local schoolboards (see Dover, DE & Kansas cases.)
Google “wedge document” to understand how they view these actions in relation to the “renewal of science & culture.”
I think it’d be great if folks could seperate the two concepts & treat them in context. But as I said before, there’s a minority in this world who feel threatened by science, and are compelled to fight it.
Vote:
0 0 Am I seeing and avoidance on meso’s part to answer to his educational background? I do find it interesting that he knows more then all of us and experts. Maybe meso can direct us to his doctoral thesis so that we can worship at his altar and gain from his immnense intelligence.
Vote:
0 0 My question is, how can someone NOT believe in evolution?
After all, the bible was written by European royalty. They just picked what they wanted in the bible. The topics they found contradicting, they took out from the bible.
I’m not trying to offend anyone either.
Vote:
0 0 Doug - I would be interested to the information you are using to get your information.
The Bible was “written” by many individuals over the course of thousands of years. It was “translated” by multiple individuals, most from the Greek texts, but others (like Tyndale) from the original Hebrew. Royalty had very little to do with it - in fact, King James had nothing to do with the King James Version of the bible! (On an interesting note, there is plenty of information on this at the Ink and Blood exhibit! /end plug)
Look, it’s not like the Bible was the result of someone sitting down and saying “well, let’s start with Genesis and work from there”. It was the result of many, many books (and scrolls) being passed down from generation to generation and then, thousands of years later, finally put into one book by Europeans.
And if they wanted to remove anything contradictory, they did a crappy job. And I’m saying this as a Christian!
Believe in the Good Book or not, but for heaven’s sake, try and understand it before you write it off!
Vote:
0 0 Meso, I want to compliment you and encourage you to continue to do exactly what you are doing here in these threads, which is trying to educate irrational religious folks as to why they’re being foolish by accepting the trash they’ve been fed since childhood.
That being said, I think you have approximately zero hope of actually converting anyone. This is not to say that you should stop. More people like you and I need to stand up and be heard at every chance and denounce the idiocy of religion and religious thought.
I don’t believe I will see it in my lifetime in America, but it would be great to see something like this “Ink and Blood” exhibit travel around not glorifying the biggest book of lies and misrepresentation in the world, but as an exhibit showing “This is the kind of superstitious nonsense that people USED to believe in before everyone woke up and saw how silly it was.”
Now, to the rest of you.
First off… this idea that we “all just need to get along” with religion is absolutely wrong. Religion is MASSIVELY deserving our our derision. To “respect” religion, and “accept” that people should just be able to believe in any silly notion that they want to is counterproductive. To say such things is to let religion worm it’s way farther into our lives, because I guarantee you, that religious people will not stop trying to push their beliefs on the rest of us. NO I say! Religion, religious ideas, backwards thinking, antiquated morality, all of that.. that needs to be called out for what it is at every chance! LIES! SUPERSTITION! IDIOCY! And, it needs to be shown for what it is towards children at a young age, before the brainwashing and teaching of superstition takes hold and is unbreakable.
Teaching children religion is simply child abuse. A child is in no way capable of forming opinions on religion. The reason why the idiocy of religion is perpetuated is due to parents teaching children lies from an early age. It is a disgusting practice.
The final nail in the coffin of religion for me came when I realized the truth of “first cause.” This is what everything hinges on for the supposed “truth” of religion.
The argument of first cause is this: How did the universe begin?
For religious people, the answer is God. For scientific people, the answer is “We don’t know for sure, but the Big Bang is as close as we’ve come so far.”
The religious person asks, where did the energy and matter for the big bang come from? And where did that come from? (Infinite regression)
The other side asks, “Where did God come from? And where did that come from? (Infinite regression)
Both sides can ask the same of the other, but the bottom line is, what do you believe is the “first cause.”.
Now, as much as we don’t understand about the big bang, or how everything was started, realize this: We as humans are not capable of visualizing or realizing how incredibly BIG the universe is, or realizing how LONG it’s been around. But, that number is incredibly huge, on both counts. It is within our grasp to understand though, that given enough time, enough space and the right conditions, that the beginning of life is possible. When you add in the facts of evolutionary theory, it’s quite possible to see how we have come to the point we are at as humans on this earth.
It’s incredible to be sure, but it’s logically possible.
Now… on the other side…the first cause is some kind of super-being that just popped into existence. This super being, in a completely unknown way, created the entire universe, and everything in it. And, that super being is omniscient to the point that it knows what every one of the billions of humans on this INCREDIBLY insignificant planet is doing and thinking every minute of every day. And, supposedly, this super being has no other way to communicate with us other than supposed “divine inspiration” of a select handful of humans from only a few thousand years ago. It gives us no proof of it’s existence, yet it wants us to worship it and follow certain rules, otherwise, when we die, we go to hell to burn and scream and suffer eternally.
Pretty ridiculous.
For those of you would use Pascal’s Wager as an argument, realize where you live and how you were brought up. If you were born in the Middle East, you would have a COMPLETELY different view. If you were born as a Viking, or in Ancient Greece, or in South America a few centuries ago, you would have NO IDEA about this supposed Christian “god”. What if YOU are wrong? What if Allah is the true god? Pascal’s wager is simply apologetic nonsense.
This idea that faith is somehow virtuous has got to be decried as false at every opportunity. Faith is not virtuous. Faith is not reasonable. Faith is wrong. Religion needs to die, so that intelligent humans can move us as a species forward, and try and figure out a way to keep us from extinction.
So much to say on this subject, and not enough time or space. But, that’s a beginning.
Vote:
0 0 MasterVodo does make some valid points.
Vote:
0 0 MasterVodo - I will attempt a civil counter-argument to your rant, which may be difficult, based on the vulgar display of disdain your original post was.
First, I would like to comment on your derision toward the “Ink and Blood” exhibit - the one that “glorifies” the “biggest book of lies”. First, the exhibit does little to glorify the book, and in fact takes a very balances, secular view at the history of the Bible. Second, if you were to visit the exhibit or indeed perform any independent study of the Bible, you would realize that the History of the Bible has played a powerful role in the shaping of our present world. First, as the exhibit does a great job of illustrating, William Tyndale’s use of modern English in his translation of the book set a precedent for the English language we know today - indeed, his transformation of middle-English into the direct, clear style we know today helped to influence such great writers as C.S. Lewis and Shakespeare! So even if you lack respect for the Dogma within its pages, to discount the Bible as anything less than the most influential text in history is ridiculous!
Next, your argument that religion is inherently wrong or wicked is fallacious, hateful, and, simply, wrong! I will concede that there have been many terrible circumstances arising from the misuse of power in religion (I imagine a circle of Hell reserved for crooked Popes, if God’s justice will grant me the satisfaction. However, I doubt there will be room in any one circle for such a number.) However, to discount all spiritual, mystical, or worshipful activity based on these abuses is a bit rash, don’t you think? First, you forget the multitude that has been done in the name of religion (or, spirituality if the term suits you.) St. Francis’ compassion, Mother Teresa’s striving to cure the ills of the world, even Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Mohemmed, etc. - all figures inspired by God’s love and strove to provide that love to the world! Lest we forget that it was Muhammed who united Jews, Christians, and Muslims under the divine Medina Constitution (indeed the most perfect in history, later perverted by the misled Ali.)
So, my friend, it is not religion that is deserving of your derision, but human nature, our own lust for power and greed for superiority that has caused such terror in the world - for heaven’s sake, not religion! Have you forgotten the horrors committed by secularists in Communist Russia? In a unified Spain? Just as much blood has been spilled in Man’s name as has been done in God’s, I assure you.
Next, you open the Pandora’s Box of creation - and bring up one criticism of natural creation with it! Consider the laws of Thermodynamics, two of which are very applicable to our discussion - first, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only transform. Second, systems move from order to disorder, not the other way around. Both of these laws, accepted by the scientific community, negate natural creation, ie the “Big Bang”. First, in order for matter to appear and disperse, we have to assume that nothing existed before the matter appeared (else we agree that matter has always existed, and we negate ourselves once again.) So, where did the matter and energy come from? One cannot argue that it just appeared without violating the first mentioned law of Thermodynamics, so we must argue that the energy existed in another form before it was transformed by the Big Bang - but, then, where did the energy come from before that? We must, as you say, spiral into infinite regression.
Now, you use the same argument against God - if God created all things (including the energy needed for the Big Bang?) then what created God? What you fail to understand about Judeo-Christian belief is that we believe God exists outside of reality, indeed transcendent of it, and therefor is not held to the same laws as natural processes (in other words, God created the laws of Physics and therefor is not bound by them, but them to Him.) So in the Christian point of view, there is no infinite regression, because God created the concept of infinite regression, and it is therefor bound to him, not the other way around.)
This argument reminds me a lot of the arguments posed by Richard Dawkins, as most of your criticisms remind me of. I fail to see the veracity of the arguments - maybe someday, when I am much more cynical and bitter, I will be able to relate, but until then, I can only defend the reason behind my faith based on my own interpretations.
Your passage about God caring about all of the billions of people on Earth at once troubles me - not because of the content, but the language you utilize. Be mindful of how you use words - lest we forget Dante’s damning of those who abuse language to the sixth circle of Hell! (humor intended.) Can you not make an argument against a belief in God without employing such inflated diction? Indeed I could make such an argument against science that would follow the same pattern:
“You really mean to tell me, that just by ACCIDENT, over millions of years, that by CHANCE, through the utterly random mutations and divisions of cells, that we have gone from one single cell to the billions of cells, the incredible diversity of life, the complexity of our world, the interdependency of our ecosystem, based on CHANCE ALONE? That’s utterly RIDICULOUS! You are robbing the universe of its wonder to shrug and blame our present state on a gamble.”
So you see what I’m saying? Reducing complex systems and broad ideas into such simplified, childish terms is abusive to the ideas at hand and disrespectful to your audience.
Your last argument is essentially valid, but I don’t see how it disproves the existence of God. If Allah is the true God, I will kneel before Him. If Elohim is the true God, I will serve Him. If it is Yahweh, then I will love Him. If you are right, and we are simply natural creatures with no creator … then it doesn’t matter, and when the lights go out, even as I prepare to meet my maker with my last breath, then the world as I know it will just melt away into oblivion, along with my mind.
However, my life is enriched by my faith, and my Christian religion has made me a better person in all respects. I hold to my belief in Christ (which I was not raised with, by the way) and it takes me to places that I never dreamed possible (all good). What is so wrong and horrible with that? If I am wrong, I don’t care, because my life is fulfilled in my faith. What is your life fulfilled by? If it is science, then I hope you live for it all your days, and I hope it makes you truly happy. Oh, and I will never degrade you for it, or call it wrong, or say that Science needs to die.
I hope someday you find the kind of peace that allows you the same tolerance. I will even pray for it, if that’s okay with you.
Vote:
0 0 THIS is exactly why I think we should not have talk of religion on this website! You’ve got one person on the extreme right hand side that will never budge on his belief in Christ, and another on the extreme left hand side that thinks it’s all made up since there is no concrete proof that God or a “higher being” exists. Nobody is going to change anybody elses mind, so why argue about it? Ooops…sorry! Why “discuss” it. One person wants to believe in his “higher power” theory, and the other wants to believe in “we’re all just here” theory. It’s an endless debate that will go on and on until the end of time, or until judgement day. (whichever comes first) I think the holy rollers have the thought process of “it’s better safe then sorry”. Which you can’t blame them really.
Vote:
0 0 You say that you’re against this kind of discussion, and yet you end your comment with a snarky comment about “holy rollers”.
I have zero problem with anyone’s point of view or whether or not you want to participate in a discussion of such an inflammatory nature - but at least, for the love of God, represent yourself in a real way! If you don’t want to deal with a discussion, the beauty of a Democracy is that you don’t have to. It works the same way on this site - if one discussion offends or bothers you, simply cruise over the link. By contributing with your post, you’re making it clear that you were interested enough to contribute, so let’s not kid ourselves here - as much as we may believe that these kinds of discussions are pointless, we enjoy them.
Vote:
0 0 I hope that MasterVodo replies to your comments, Jeremy, but I have a few questions for you.
While you list a few influential people who you claim to have done good in the name of religion, isn’t it true that they could have been just as compassionate w/out religion? IOW, why do you think it was their respective religion(s) that made them perform their acts of charity, human rights support, etc? Mother Teresa could have helped the poor to die with dignity w/out the RCC, Ghandi could have liberated India without Hinduism, and Mandela didn’t need to be religious to overcome apartheid.
I’m also curious about your position regarding Thermodynamics & the Big Bang. Do you really think they negate each other? Fascinating, since mainstream science doesn’t share your opinion. You do realize there was no “before” the Big Bang, don’t you?
Finally, I agree with MV about the dangers of religion, although I’ve mellowed a bit in my presentations. Here’s a quote from Sam Harris that sums it up better than I ever could, regarding moderate religions:
“While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God.”
Vote:
0 0 Answer to question one: Yes. However, MasterVodo’s thesis is that Religion has not redeeming virtues and should “die”. However, many people throughout history have done great things in the name of Christ. Would they have done these things without being exposed to Christ? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I happen to believe that the Spirit of Christ compels people to do good things in His name. I may be wrong - but what evidence have we to argue with?
Second question: Indeed, in theory, the space-time continuum began at the Big Bang, but again, it begs the question what caused the anomaly to begin with? Nothing happens, in the scientific realm, without cause (see Newton’s first law). So, while the Big Bang is, at best, a vague theory, it cannot explain why or how it occurred, only make observations about how and in what fashion it may have occurred. In other words, as MasterVodo explains, you have an issue of infinite regression - if time didn’t exist before the bang, what was there before the Bang? Theoretically, nothing? But a basic rule of logic is that something cannot come from nothing. For example, if I gave you a tiny box that was seamlessly sealed with nothing inside (ABSOLUTELY nothing, mind you), and asked you to make something be in it without opening it, what method would you use? You couldn’t manipulate something inside the box already, because there’s nothing in there. You couldn’t put something from outside the box into the box, because it’s seamlessly sealed? So, how long would it take to make something appear in the box? Time doesn’t matter, because time won’t affect there being nothing in the box, see? It’s the same argument with the Bang - some argue that the universe must have happened, because given enough time, everything is possible - but if there was nothing to begin with, there will be nothing over time, because … well, you get it. I’ll avoid circular logic.
Perhaps science has not observed the problems with the laws of thermodynamics and the nature of our universe because there has not been that particular individual to articulate the issue - then again, perhaps I’m utterly incorrect about this observation! Maybe I know nothing about thermodynamics, even less about our universe! However, in my studies this far in my life, the nature of our universe begs an intelligent force behind its creation. The inconsistencies between what we know about our reality and what we think we know are too far gaps for me to leap - and, at least for now, the bridge that closes that gap is God.
You end your reply with a quote from Sam Harris - probably the second-most quoted Evangelical Atheist (you like the term? I’m fond of it) in my experience. It seems Harris cannot reconcile religious moderation with his atheistic views, so he simply shrugs it off as pointless and essentially unimportant? That’s not playing fair. If he’s going to rage against any and all religion (or, rather, mine, as he liked to do in Letter to a Christian Nation), then he should not make allowances for those of us who approach our God with a sense of humility. It’s all or nothing - are we all fools or not?
Vote:
Why must creationists and evolutionists fight? Beats working.