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?
Related posts:
Loading ...
{ 83 comments }
Why must creationists and evolutionists fight? Beats working.
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!
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.
Rich is not LSD. (and it’s “Adam & Steve” remember?)
Oops…I mean LDS!
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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”.
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!
I believe BYU has value in teaching a trade or skill the same as any secular school. Just ignore the seminary classes.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“science proves nothing” is a direct quote from Dr. Farrar at ISU, professor of Biological Sciences.
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.
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.
You’re born. You live. You die. The world goes on.
The end.
Hey Jeremy,
Speaking of probabilities…what are the odds that Chrisr671 will post some more inane witticisms before this topic is concluded?
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.
You really need to lighten up Meso.
Thanks Chris, you just won me $20.
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!
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?
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!
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.
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!
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 …
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.
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?
‘Nuf said, Jeremy,
I didn’t mean to cast dispersions on your beliefs, I just wanted some spirited debate. Sorry you were offended.
Not offended, just tired.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
MasterVodo does make some valid points.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
So…where did “God” come from? Where is the proof that he,she or it, even exists? Why would someone or something make a world as beutiful as ours and not give us any real clue that he made it or that he even exists? If only those people that worship him will be the only ones enjoying an everlasting life in a place called “heaven”, isn’t it unfair for those people who know nothing of him and don’t know to worship him? Will they burn in hell forever because nobody informed them? How do you know YOUR religion is the one that should be believed?
And isn’t ALL religion pretty much based on fear? ie: “If you don’t do this or that, you’re going to burn in hell forever?”
It’s all rather far fetched.
Question One: Where Did God Come From?
- I believe I made my position clear in my original reply. If you want to question my stance on what’s already been established, feel free, but I don’t want to sounds like a broken record.
Question Two: Where is God, Anyway?
- I don’t make a habit out of speaking for God, but here is my personal theory. Let’s say, God exists, for the sake of argument. God wants us to come to Him, of our own choosing, our motivations in becoming His children once again. Now, why good would it do for God to step out into the open and reveal himself to all mankind – then, suddenly it seems ridiculous to even doubt God’s will … and then, why live? Without mystery, live is essentially pointless, right? It’s stasis, it’s stagnant, and meaningless. In my view, life is the process of coming to know and love the spirit of God, to accept Him, and in turn be accepted by Him. Like I said, these are my words, not God’s.
Question Three: Who will Go to Heaven?
I don’t have the answer to this one, but I believe that God is good and wise, so I will allow Him to disperse His justice as He sees fit.
Question Four: How do I know my religion is right?
I don’t. I believe. That’s all I have.
Question Five: Isn’t religion all about fear?
Christianity teaches that Christ died so that all people may have life and experience God’s love. Hell is for people who rebel against God (if you follow the logic, if God is Love [see the book of John] then rebelling against God is embracing evil. So, Hell is a place that embodies Godlessness, loves evil, and rejects Godly Love. I find nothing wrong with that, do you? If heaven is for people who love God, then why would someone who doesn’t love God want to go there? If you’re not a lover of evil, then you have nothing to fear from God’s justice, correct? So it’s not an issue of fear, it’s an issue of being mindful of the kind of person you become in life – for the kind of person you are in life will influence the kind of person you are in the afterlife.
[Disclaimer: Again, I do not claim to know everything about God, Christianity, science, life, even myself. My responses are based on my own experiences, beliefs, and interpretations. I do not claim to be an apologist or representative of the Christian religion. I represent myself, and that's it.]
Bobbie Sue:
And isn’t ALL religion pretty much based on fear? ie: “If you don’t do this or that, you’re going to burn in hell forever?â€
It’s all rather far fetched.
Kerry:
If this assumption were the case, then yes, I would agree it is farfetched. But your conclusion is only as strong as your assumption, and I disagree with your assumption. GRIN!
Best,
Kerry
Master Vodo:
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.â€
Kerry:
Have you personally yet seen the exhibit, and thus speak from personal knowledge, or is this your uninformed diatribe said in ignorance about that which you know nothing of? Just curious…..
Best,
Kerry
We all have our “assumptions” which of cource we’re entitled to. But it is reasonable to believe that NONE of us know for sure one way or the other. Because in the end, all of it is really “hearsay”. Words of certain men or groups of people passed down through the ages that some choose to believe and other choose not to believe.
Think about a story or an event that happened a week ago. You hear one story from one person and a slightly different story from another. As time goes by…the story constantly changes little by little. So how can we believe what suppossedly happened thousands and thousands of years ago?
Like I said….”farfetched”.
Farfetched is the assumption I reject, though I hasten to add, but of course, you are free to hold to a “farfetched” assumption as you feel the need…….
Best,
Kerry
I guess what I am saying is, you really ought to come and see the exhibit and learn about the magnificent impact in our lives because of Tyndale’s enormous mind creatng our very English we read right now everyday in our books, and this from his concentrating on the Bible, and producing a magnificent volume of education for us all to enjoy. No Tyndale, no Shakespeare, and THAT would have been all our losses!
And the Bible is not just an entire pack of lies from one end to the other. I don’t know where you got *that* misperception, but you’re simply wrong. I’ve made quite a study of it through the last 30 years of life, and just don’t see it in that manner which you present as if it’s the truth and sum of the matter.
Bobbie Sue:
So…where did “God†come from?
Kerry:
It might help, perhaps, if you first defined God…….what do *you* mean by that term? Thanks.
Bobbie Sue:
But it is reasonable to believe that NONE of us know for sure one way or the other.
Kerry:
Interesting…….. so you assume that anything you know, the rest of us can, but what *you* don’t know, then neither can anyone else? Are you seriously proclaiming this as the only rational way to look at things?
Lively debate. I’ve enjoyed reading through the replies. And thanks Ronin for bringing this topic up.
My opinion on the subject.
I hope those Christians who are are passionate about creationism being taught are ready to respect the reasonable fairness of teaching ALL (known) creation stories – as well as sharing an atheist viewpoint.
I would not want my school aged kids being taught the Adam and Eve story as “truth” ANY more than a Christian would enjoy his / her kids being taught a Pagan belief as “truth”.
If ALL creation stories could be taught as “ideas” wouldn’t that be integrative?
My opinion is – I’d be fine with that since I am of the belief that religion is the “story” but there are many stories, all are valid. One person’s truth is another person’s superstition. As it should be. We do not all share the same cultures or environment so isn’t it reasonable that we all don’t share the smae beliefs?
Some Christians become offended if they hear the term “creation myth” as applied to the Adam and Eve story but when they hear it in relation to Native American, Ancient Greek, or Celtic creation stories they don’t think it’s a problem calling THOSE stories “myths”.
I believe ALL stories are myths to explain life’s condition. Myths don’t make or break a “truth”, they simply explain a phenomenon.
I know many active Christians and quite a few of them have absolutely no trouble integrating evolution with their creation story. I can see why – the two do not seem mutually exclusive to me either.
If we are to teach creation as a plausible concept of how we all got here – then let’s be intelligent about it and teach as many creation myths as we know of! I think this would be a wonderful way for young minds to embrace holistic thinking – after all – regardless of religious choice we DO all share the same planet with all the fixings.
Way way way back in the day when I was in fourth grade I was given an assignment to compare and contrast three cultures in Ancient South America. To this day (over thirty years later) I recall interesting distinctions between them all. It did not destroy my faith to learn these things, it helped me form my own thoughts. Isn’t that what we want for our children? Isn’t that one of the reasons we offer them options in shcool and life?
Those are my thoughts.
Thanks for listening!
Gypsy
Well said, Gypsy!
Gypsy obviously hasn’t watched Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel.
(kidding all in good fun)
Thanks JeremyPlo!
scoobysnax – I’d like to see those guys try to bust a creation myth or two! Now THAT would be interesting tv! I wonder if poor old Buster would be involved. Or one of those pig carcasses.
LOL…Buster would be busted!
scoobysnax –
Aren’t they on something like “Buster Nine” by now?
By the way, I want to tell you this. I have a Subaru Outback that we named “Scooby Two” (I had a Subaru before this one) and when we fuel it up I say I am “feeding my car its scooby snacks”.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Now that I consider it – I just compared you to gas. Not very nice of me, is it?
Just kidding, of course. I’ve only been around a few days so I don’t know much of anybody yet – but you seem like much more than a bag of gaseous mass! Maybe?
Gypsy
MasterVodo,
Wow, I don’t feel like the lone black-sheep of the family anymore. I just got back into town and jumped on this thread to see some great new posts. Yours was a breath of fresh air, I must say.
Speaking of the immensity of the universe, the farthest visible objects in our universe happened approximately 14.5 Billion light years ago. At the rate our universe is expanding, those visible objects (assuming they are still around) are now more than 42B light years from us in actual distance. If 14.5 B light yrs. is just the observable portion of our universe, it begs the question: how much of it can’t we see? And if this is but one in countless universes (multiverse), which many physicists propose, then the distance to the next universe is not even reachable at the speed of light because the space between us is expanding faster than the speed of light. Many physicists suggest that selection is responsible for Many of those universes that have survived long enough and with just the right variables to have produced intelligent life (like ours) with the ability to comprehend, even in a small way, the enormity of it all…and perhaps ask some of the questions posed here.
Gypsy, you had an excellent post (#58). I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see posts like yours. I had almost given up hope that there were people like you and MVodo around. Thanks for taking the time to express yourselves.
Gypsy, there’s one thing bothering me. You say you agree with your Christian friends who haven’t a problem integrating evolution and creation mythology. These folks are deluding themselves. It simply can’t be done; fairy tales and myths are for kids. We adults cannot afford ouselves the luxury of “warm fuzzy” feelings over stark reality.
meso –
Let me explain how I understand that certain types of Christian thinking could integrate evolution and creation.
On the first “day” (left up for interpretation) deity created light, the next day deity created water and earth, the third day deity created grass, trees, flowers, etc.
And so it goes. From an evolutionary standpoint, that can certainly make sense (especially if one thinks in terms of the biblical creation story MYTHOLOGICALLY). Evolutional theory suggests that there was mass, then form, then creatures, etc. Each “day” biblically could be (for example) viewed as a slice in time of a million years or more.
In most creation myths that I can think of off the top of my head right now – deity or deities created the world and all its inhabitants by various strokes of “evolvement”.
That’s how I can see where some Christians can integrate their creation story with evolution. Some can’t – one example being those who claim we could not have evolved from apes – but not ALL Christians are opposed to the idea. One I know of suggests that “God created apes then from that form created humans in His image”.
I believe that when stories are left open to interpretation that a good, solid, healthy imagination can make ALL kinds of connections.
I see nothing “fairy tales are for kids” about that. Fairy tales are often for adults too – Star Wars is a good example, the classic story of light battling dark. Fairy tales teach, explain, and intergrate an understanding of the world.
As you may recall, originally classic fairy tales (before they were beaten into submission by Disney or Christianized – making all the wise women into bad witches, for example) were used as teaching tools – in a time when most did not know how to read. Adults and children alike sat by campfires and heard tales about Boogeymen, Creation, Animals who talked to Humans. In my way of thinking, it would have been a most excellent way to learn!
I’m a fan of fairy tales. I think in our stark reality we REALLY would do well to consider the value in them.
I’m not a Christian, never have been, and in all reasonable liklihood never will be, but I see a lot of value in the biblical stories (I read them AS stories, not as Literal Truths). I think most times those of us non-Christians who have trouble with Christians are simply speaking two separate languages of “Truth”. If we can take the “T” out of truth and turn it into a Tool of Transformation – then we could all risk learning something new and integrative!
As you remarked the universe is a vast place of which we probably have merely a tiny glimpse. It is in that glimpse that myths live and breathe. That’s what I enjoy contemplating.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Meso:
fairy tales and myths are for kids. We adults cannot afford ouselves the luxury of “warm fuzzy†feelings over stark reality.
Kerry:
The world renowned, and well decorated degree holding scholars (between them both a mastery of over 20 languages), Mercea Eliade and Joseph Campbell is the corrective to such invective against the truth of what mythology is, and is all about. Your view is woefully inadequate.
What you fail to realize is that the stories *are* the way to understand the truth from all the myths.
Best,
Kerry
It’s been a week since I posted my rant, and to be honest, this website had slipped my mind. Thank goodness for bookmarks. I stumbled back upon this link, and then remembered “Oh! The Ink and Blood rant! I wonder if anyone responded?”
I’m very happy to see that people did in fact respond. Meso, glad to see you back and in the conversation. Homeslice, thanks for the compliment… I hope you say more in your next post. ooh_child, Bobbie Sue, keep fighting the good fight with logical questions. Gypsy – pick a side my friend! Haven’t you heard? We’re in a war. You’re with us or against us. No sittin on the fence. Do you want to embolden the terrorists? Don’t be unpatriotic. Embrace your atheism!
The rest of this I guess is for JeremyPlo. Since you have the longest posts, this may take a while.
Where to start?
Let’s start with the Ink and Blood exhibit. You say it is unfair of me to categorize it as a glorification of the Bible. In response, the simple fact that there IS a traveling exhibit of it would tend to prove my point. Also , you enthusiastically defend it and the supposed “good” it has done. I ask you — does your exhibit show the negatives associated with the Bible, or just the positives? Is there anything in the exhibit that tells of the massive suffering that book of fairy tales has caused? If so, then I stand corrected. If not, then my original premise is valid in saying that the exhibit “glorifies” the Bible.
It is quite true, and we can agree that the Bible has done it’s share to shape our world moreso than any other book save perhaps the Koran. I would be quite foolish to say otherwise, wouldn’t I? While I concede that point, I say to you that much, if not most, of that history-shaping has in no way been good. In your post, you focus on the perceived “good” the Bible has done, and nothing else. You are picking and choosing what you want to present, and ignore the ugly pink elephant in the room, which is the violence, murder, sexism, bigotry and intolerance the Bible, Christianity, and religion has caused, and continues to cause. I like the works of C.S. Lewis, Shakespeare, Tolkien, etc… as much as the next person. However, the appreciation of art and literature that has been inspired by faith in no way makes the Bible, or the ideas expressed in the Bible true, moral or useful. They are completely separate things, and cannot be used to prop up the Bible as necessary.
Yes, I say religion is “inherently wrong or wicked”. For good reason! It’s based completely on faith and superstition– the belief in something without any evidence. It teaches people to ignore reason, to not deal with reality, and to not think rationally for themselves. ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ******* (Which I will address forthcoming).
Here’s a quote from Dawkins that I have always liked:
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
And another good one:
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
Onward!
You speak of many famous characters – Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc. and the good they’ve done in God’s name. ooh_child made my point for me in saying that anyone can do good, and in fact, I will go further to say that if someone DOES do good without religion, what they do is much more noble. Why? Because religion teaches people to do good for 2 reasons: #1, Fear. Fear of what will happen to you after you die if you don’t. And #2. The promise of reward after death. To do good, not because you’re worried about an invisible father figure looking over your shoulder, but because of your own altruistic instinct is much more noble. It is also more noble to do good without hope of reward.
Is good done in the name of religion? Most certainly. Is it all done for the right reasons? Not by a long shot.
This next part is going to be enjoyable.
I love it when religious people trot out the “God is outside of time” argument. I really do. ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ******* Augustine (about 1700 years go) is credited with the “revelation” i.e. he was the first to make it up, that God is outside of time. This gives religious apologists the ultimate “out” for having any kind of rational discussion. To paraphrase Dawkins again, they just declare by fiat that God is outside of time. No evidence. No logic. No credit to the fact that even modern human beings have no way to even conceptualize what that even means, let alone some brainwashed monk 1700 years ago. Yet, they trot it out anyways as a big “Aha! Trump Card! I win!”. Have you ever noticed how condescendingly they do it too? Gosh, that’s aggravating. “Now, you see little boy, what you’re not understanding is, you have to accept my made up bit of nonsense to understand God.” Pffft. And you wonder why atheists see you as anything but delusional?
For the record, I am a big fan of Dawkins and Harris, because they are leaders in the fight against religious delusion currently, and their books are so helpful in sharpening my ideas into statements that help defend my beliefs. Being an atheist, and ranting on internet websites is not my #1 purpose in life, and does not consume my days. For them, well, right now that is pretty much their job, and they’ve had years of study and experience to refine their arguments. So if I lean on them for help to explain things, I make no apologies for that. The best part: they use logic, fact, science, moral philosophy and rational argument to make their points. They are much more credible than using faith, superstition, 2000+ year old texts and the “I just believe it’s that way” excuse.
Continuing…
I bristle when I come to the next part, which is a Christian’s idea of what evolution is. The simple use of the words “ACCIDENT” and “CHANCE” are red lights ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ******* when it comes to evolution. And then you have the gall to use the words “childish” when your explanation is this invisible super-being is to blame or credit for everything! God has been used an excuse for human ignorance since the concept was ever made up! And not just the Christian God, every God! Whatever primitive people didn’t understand, like say, lighting, has been credited to God.
Here’s a quick link to the entire “God of the Gaps” theory, which JeremyPlo freely admits he believes in. “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”
I’m not going to post the whole thing here. It’s worth reading though, and shows the continuing irrelevancy of religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Is your life enriched by religion? I’m sure you think so, and I’m sure that there may be many positives to your life. Has anyone seen the South Park episode “All about the Mormons?” Great episode. You should check it out. At the end, the little mormon boy pretty much says the same thing as JeremyPlo does, about “I don’t really care if it’s true or not, I have a great life.” (paraphrasing, since I can’t post the entire quote due to forum rules.)
The point is, that yes I agree that you can be religious and live a “moral” life… but that does not make an ounce of what you believe true. What it does mean is that your delusion is what is causing you to behave that way, not “God”.
****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *******
A quick note: I hate the term Evangelical Atheist, because it denigrates Atheists.
And finally, (yes, this is a loooong post, and I’m almost done ranting – time to get back to work)
A quick note about the Bible.
It is often commented on that atheists really wonder if Christians actually know what the Bible says. It’s kind of funny, but in the last year or so as I’ve seen Harris and Dawkins debate other people, and point out the horrific tales, and supposed “morality” of lets say the Old Testament, the religious people get pretty shy and tend to say, “Oh, well, we don’t believe in the OLD Testament.” Well sorry guys, is the Bible the word of God or isn’t it? The Old Testament and the New Testament are all part of the same book. And, if indeed, you PICK and CHOOSE which parts to believe, and choose which parts are supposed to be taken literally, and which ones are supposed to be mythology, or allegories, or whatever, then you cannot claim that any of the book is “true” or “factual” or even relevant. What is relevant is your mechanism for CHOOSING which parts of the Bible you think are valid and moral. EVERY (sane) person has that capability. Religion is in no way necessary to be a moral person.
I also hear this argument that science cannot explain or give reasons “why” to so many questions. Well, duh! That’s not it’s role. Science in itself is neutral. But, it can certainly prove a large part of religion wrong. Moral philosophy (which is older than the Bible) is the best field in which to find answers to “why” for many questions. Astronomy, genetics, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology all have their own parts to play in explaining the world and the universe. Religion retards their advancement. That needs to stop, and the way to stop it is to call out religion for what it is: ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *******
That’s the end of the rant. Here’s a footnote though that I wanted to include from Sam Harris. It’s a bit political too, but has to do with stem cell research and the supposed “morals” of Christians, and illustrates how religion and religious thinking slows the progress of humanity, and also shows the hypocrisy of a supposed “moral” religious stance.
“Embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that “human life starts at the moment of conception.” Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. The truth is that President Bush’s unjustified religious beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.”
I thought I’d just throw that in as food for thought.
Thanks for reading, and I hope some of you got some enjoyment from it.
-MasterVodo
Most excellent post Mastervodo!
Great quote by Sam Harris that I think applies here:
“There is no way around the fact that I’m advocating a certain kind of intolerance, but it is not political intolerance. I’m not saying that people should be jailed for their religious beliefs. I am saying, however, that certain beliefs are so lacking in merit that there should be no question of our “respecting†them. People who claim to be certain about things they cannot be certain about should meet resistance in our discourse. This happens quite naturally on every subject but religion. For instance, a person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying. We must find a way of criticizing and marginalizing bad ideas, even when they come under the cloak of religion.”
There are so many places, not just this website, where criticism of religion is censored or deleted.
I am not a diplomat. Nor am I a weak politically correct drone. I write what I think and feel. The fact I was edited shows this idea that Sam is talking about, where religion is protected from criticism, and we are told that it must be “respected”, when in fact it is so deserving of our derision.
Thank you once again Homeslice. Your posts are short, sweet and to the point, aren’t they?
I agree with many of your views as well Mastervodo. And it is ashamed you’ve been censored once again and so many times on your recent post!
It’s funny how posters can talk about their beliefs in whatever religion, however, once someone comes along and gives an opposing point of view (against the majority) peoples nickers get all in a twist!
I understand that some of what I said was against
#2. Do not personally attack, name-call, put-down, or bait other guests, races, genders, or religions.
So, the mod is just doing what they’re supposed to. But, my point still stands that the end of #2 protects religion from criticism.
For Snackpak: Well, it was a verrrrry long post. I suppose I should be grateful it was only edited 5 times.
MasterVodo,
Great post, as always. I’m sorry to see your comments censored. Apparently Joe is leaning in the same direction as our home town paper, in that he feels that those with faith are more deserving than those of us without it. But I suppose if that were true he wouldn’t have censored Kerry Shirts in the religion blog. At least he’s attempting to be impartial. It’s just going to be difficult to select the right words without ruining the content from here on out.
I am reminded, by your post, of the debate between Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes a few years back in which the subject of morality and religion were debated. It was so good I bought the tape. I would be glad to loan it to you if you haven’t already seen it.
A tip of the hat to you my friend, you are the voice of reason in an otherwise complacent world. I’ll raise a toast to you at the local watering hole this evening.
Best Regards,
Meso
Maybe I should make it clearer that phrases that appear derogatory or a put-down are being edited.
There is a difference between objective argument and subjective put-down, right? We’re trying to reduce and eliminate the subjective put-downs, but your speech is protected when delivered as an objective argument.
Kind of the difference between saying you think a religion is misguided because of x,y,z vs. saying people believing in a religion are (insert common derogatory term here).
The subjective put downs will be eliminated, objective intellectual points will be kept. They can be objectively refuted, and therefore add to the discussion value.
Subjective derogatory terms really cannot be objectively refuted.
Does that help?
Thank you Joe for the clarification. I shall try and proof-read my posts better next time following those guidelines.
I should note that there is a great new book out on the subject right now by Pulitzer-winner Edward Humes. You can find it at this link, if you’re interested.
mastervodo -
You wrote -
Gypsy – pick a side my friend! Haven’t you heard? We’re in a war. You’re with us or against us. No sittin on the fence. Do you want to embolden the terrorists? Don’t be unpatriotic. Embrace your atheism!
I write -
I’m not atheist!
To some, I’m worse than an atheist – I’m one of those the bible says should not be suffered to live.
I do however promise not to turn anybody into a toad for not joining my faith choice, and since I believe “hell” is in the mind of the beholder – I shan’t be casting any of ye into outer darkness either. You can do that on your own, or not, as you like.
You’re welcome!
I’m just enjoying this debate.
You know, I just noticed the incredible religious bias on the ads on this site.
“Creation or Evolution? Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet!”
and
“Evolution is a Lie
Free short video shatters evolutionary theory”
What kind of false religious propaganda is that noise? Is this whole site just a front to promote religious dogma? Why are there evangelical fundamentalist ads all over the place on this site! Is this site run by that lying “think-tank” the Discovery Institute or something? Just on those two, for example. What completely false advertising! PROVE creationism? EVOLUTION is a LIE? Is this bizzarro-world or something where everything is opposite of what it actually is?
This offends and angers me! In the comment rules, it protects criticism of religion, and on the SAME DAMN PAGE, has ADS that I assume this site gets PAID for displaying that CLEARLY are religiously biased, promote religion, and full of lies and falsehoods. What’s up with that?!?! Is this site publicly funded at all? Are any tax dollars used to support this site?
Also, #5 in the terms of use “5. No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.”
So, I guess the only religious proselytizing that can be done are all the ADS posted everywhere! What blatant hypocrisy!
MasterVodo, do you not see the “Ads by Google?” printed right next to each ad?
Have you not heard of Google ads?
Do you not know how they select ads?
It is contextual, it scans the text of each page and delivers ads based on the conversation.
Go to other articles on IdahoFallz.com and you will see different ads related to those subjects.
“Is this site publicly funded at all? Are any tax dollars used to support this site?”
ROFLOL Ahem, no, this site is not publicly funded, it is privately and poorly owned, thank you.
Tax dollars, that’s funny.
Sorry if this was covered in the above 79 or 80 comments. I didn’t have time to read them all………………but just maybe….God created evolution…..
Its interesting to think about.
Ken Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God” doesn’t propose God creating evolution, so much as having it as his modus operandi…… an interesting read.
I also rather enjoyed John F. Haught’s “God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution.” He rightly points out how lousily religionists argue against evolution when its obviously occurred.
He also shows how the supposition of scientific thinking people that evolution has taken God out of the equation is biased and wrong headed thinking as well.
He tries to take a middle road between the two approaches. I thought he did a bang up job. A “big bang” up job – GRIN! Sorry I just couldn’t resist ya know…….
Best,
Kerry
Funny thing about life. . .it’s offensive.
I don’t think life is offensive, I think its people’s attitudes which causes offense. Life is the most *precious* gift we have…….. I rather enjoy being alive…….. But I think I understand what you were trying to say……..
Comments on this entry are closed.