Over one Why Evolution is True, there is an interesting post about the compatibility of science and religion. It's interesting to see how people can accept both, but they don't, they simply hold two different views in their heads and because they ignore the real differences they think they are compatible. Ignorance is truly bliss!
I also like this line: When you compare science with faith in this way, ask yourself this: would you rather live in a world in which there had been science and no faith, or a world in which there had been religion but no science?
Best,
Brett
26 comments:
I know I am probably gonna irk both parties, but I honestly could not imagine a world without both, and I would not like to live in a world without both science and religion.
That makes me sound like a jerk, I know. But I am not someone who would force my beliefs on someone, but I would debate their beliefs. The fact that there are extremists is down to their attitude, not my beliefs.
I am kind of dissappointed with the debate presented, and sort of feel that Miller may have been having an off day. There are other debates where he has held his weight, and this feels like a day when he was not on top of his game, which is dissappointing.
Miller, I feel it needs to be said, is one of the most pro-evolution guys on the planet. And I do not mean intelligent design, but rather actual, 100 percent evolution.
He feels that the notion one must choose one or the other is bull, that there does not need to be a choice in science and belief. And I feel the same.
But on the other hand, I feel that the argument that he presented for religion was flawed, very flawed, like he himself had not given much consideration towards it. Another thing is that he often debates people in person, so without the one to one arguement, he may have been lacking. Watching him lecture makes one better understand him, and allow one to counter argue his point.
NOt that I am agreeing, or disagreeing with his point, just that some people are better to debate in public, whereas others can debate in an article and one to one.
I feel religion at one time was a necessary evil. Humans needed to fill their insatiable curiosity with explanations for the things they couldn't understand. As we grew as a species, culture and and eventually science developed.
We could then replace the supernatural theories with what were the best observable, testable explanations for the time.
Religion and belief in the supernatural were a necessary part of our evolution, but like so many other unnecessary traits we are slowly evolving out of them.
People are leaving the church and organized religion by the tens if not hundreds of thousands. New generations of intelligent, logical, culturally aware, non-superstitious people are being born all the time. It's only a matter of time before the old guard raised on a legacy of hatred, bigotry and superstition dies out and humanity can take another step towards true understanding and enlightenment.
I am not naive though. I realize that narrow minded views, hatred and bigotry will be passed on by some to future generations. That is inevitable, but I think we as a species can now actively take part in our own evolution and work to rid ourselves of this weighty, completely useless, appendage.
Science has disproved some superstitions, but it has not hurt religion. As science has gotten more refined and our learning has increased in scope and accuracy science has actually helped true religious beliefs, not disproved them.
If I worshipped a primitive sun god for everyday dancing in the sky, then science has disproved that sort of thing, there is no dancing sky deity; we now know the sun is a ball of burning gas. If a particular religion never made any claims about the sun being a living being then that particular religion is unaffected by the dancing sun deity idea being disproved; in fact it removes one false religion from the playing field.
Christianity, my religion, makes no claims which science has disproved. Even if all Brett believes about Evolution was true or proven (which it is not), it would be like saying because I can ride my bike from point A to point B it rules out the possibility of anyone making the same trip in a car; evolution as a theory can not prove or disprove the possibility of God existing. The Bible does use poetic language or common speak, today we still say the same sort of thing like, “The sun will rise at 6:45 AM,” no one states that is an unscientific statement, we understand language usage. Chris and Brett tend to argue against the miraculous; that because science says miracles are unnatural they are impossible; which ignores the definition of miraculous- God often does miracles because by His nature he is not tied to the laws of nature.
You might say, “Well doesn’t that open the door to any and every crazy belief and just allow you to tag on the end, ‘God did it’?” This is the crux of the matter, the good stuff, the type of discussions I love to have, but the logic and reason needed to get here is essential as a foundation. Unless reason and logic is in play there is a tendency to keep saying things like, “Miracles are unnatural, so I refuse to go any further,” which eliminates even touching on these deeper truths because we are operating off of two different rules for rhetoric.
If I worshipped a primitive sun god for everyday dancing in the sky, then science has disproved that sort of thing, there is no dancing sky deity; we now know the sun is a ball of burning gas.If a particular religion never made any claims about the sun being a living being then that particular religion is unaffected by the dancing sun deity idea being disproved; in fact it removes one false religion from the playing field.
No Steve, you worship the deity that supposedly magically created light and darkness, day and night on the first day without thinking to create the Sun, Moon and the rest of the stars till the 4th day.
Which of course hasn't been disproven yet and is completely plausible and logical. Congratulations! you win a shiny new chunk of logic!
Unfortunately, one could twist anything to suit their needs. Be it evolution or even a cup of a coffee. The latter seems ridiculous, but then, having read Alex Haley's interview with Malcolm X for Playboy, it did happen. And will continue to do so. Malcolm X, when speaking about black people, called them strong, but said that every drop of white blood in them made them weak. Then he used the coffee analogy, where he said 'Think about it. If I have a cup of coffee, what do I most often do? I put some milk in it to weaken it. White people are weak'. Now he probably referred to them as 'White Devils', but such is the way of the world. Any excuse to say one is inferior to another.
I mean, look at the mock racism towards Red haired, or 'Ginger'people. No religion there, but somehow those of us who are non-red haired can often feel superior. Crazy.
I mean, look at the mock racism towards Red haired, or 'Ginger'people. No religion there, but somehow those of us who are non-red haired can often feel superior. Crazy.
Hell no! ;) I gravitate towards red heads. I'm a fan and am crazy jealous. :D I know it's crazy and has zero grounds in reality, but I just innately feel that red heads are automatically more interesting than anyone else in the room.
By the way, I am just pointing out how humans, as a race, try to dodge the blame, and instead try to blame it on something, or use something to their advantage. Frikking annoying.
Take evolution. A fact well established at this stage, one that, as far as I know, does not have any negative connotations. We have not established a superiority based on one race or the other, and we have found that each gender has an advantage over the other, in different areas.
But what if we said that homosexuality was against evolution and nature? LEave religion at the door, as well as God also. Lets just say that a scientist, who was more than likely covering for his own insecurities, said that homosexuals are non-productive in nature because they sire no offspring, and they cannot aid the human race without non-natural means. Now as we know, such claims are ludicrous. Completely, as every individual must play a part in how this world is run, no matter their orientation. We are not one collective conciousness, but rather individuals. I remember in recent times, a scientist said that children, outside the womb and already born, cannot choose whether they live or die, so therefore, they have no rights. If one wished to euthanise a child, the child, because it cannot communicate, has no choice in the matter. Now many human beings with any sense of morality, and beyond religion or belief, would do a double take at that thought. I personally believe that if someone wishes to end their life, and being of sound mind and body, should be allowed do so. But a child, just because they have not been given the chance to learn languuage? Against.
“Now as we know, such claims are ludicrous. Completely, as every individual must play a part in how this world is run, no matter their orientation.”-M.O.R.
(sorry, every time I use html code for italics it doesn’t work for me on blogger)
This statement is unfounded and not provable, so unless we want to accept it at face value anything built off of this assumption fails. Why must we accept every form of sexual orientation at face value? Why is to insist on moral ethics for sexual conduct ludicrous?
You are making value statements with no anchor.
Chris, thank you for your input, but it illustrates Biblical ignorance of the sort I just stated hinders actual conversation. Do you understand why the Bible Genesis account is written the way it is or do you immediately jump to silly comments about magic and the foolishness of the Creation account? See I’m not sidestepping, I’m actually asking you to get on track, but if you like you can just keep slinging pointless and unfounded slurs, it does seem to amuse the like minded.
Steve,
Brett and spend 99% of our time here calling you on BS while you simply walk away incredulous, hands dripping brown, stinking, saying "What BS? I see and smell no BS here. I'm sure have all kinds of excuses for the biblical creation story but it all comes down to the author or authors simply didn't know. They recorded what they thought was factual information.My point was you state that if science can disprove claims made by a religion(such as a primitve sun god) then that religion is falsified and can be removed from the playing field.
You go even further to state "Christianity, my religion, makes no claims which science has disproved" and I called you on it. And that was only one instance. No one is making unfounded, pointless slurs. I'm calling you on BS and if anyone is off track it's you.
I get Snarky with you Steve because you refuse to even glance sideways at your own BS. Your claims and statements are continuously contradictory and blatantly ignorant. When someone calls you on a detail you don't like, you try to get all paternal and scholarly and claim that we simply lack the knowledge and understanding of what something REALLY means. You couldn't be more condescending if you patted us on the head and told us go outside and play with the other kids while the adults discuss grownup issues.
Christianity specifically and organized religion in general bring nothing new to the table. They are at their roots stubbornly, unchangeable and uncorrectable.
They arrogantly claim we KNOW! the truth and always have, we have a direct line to and are in the favor of the powers that created everything, therefore what we have to say cannot be challenged.
Time and time again though, Organized religion has been called on it's BS claims and it's importance in our lives.
In my opinion, until organized religion can put forth something resembling new, progressive ideas in stride with the times and culture we live in, it has no place at the table when discussing anything having to do with how we should run our lives. It is an archaic, mostly barbaric, poisonous, world view and should have a stake run through the remains of it's black, decaying heart.
G & F (although are we ever really free? Seems like there is always some freaking thing controlling us. Whether real, or imagined, as in "Ooh my, what will the neighbours think?" that often springs into mind. Never mind the thoughts that they may not care.) Sorry, digressing.
I personally think that one may believe whatever they wish, as long as that does not infringe on someone's rights. As Brett said, if someone believes that we should throw feces at each other, as long as one consents, then so be it.
But if someone tells you to, literally, go out and kill someone because of what they said conflicting with your own views...I think the only one needing help is them. Just look at how Salman Rushdie had to flee his own country when a fatwa was put out on him. That is just dangerous. Plain and simple.
Religion has, for too long, held an unchallenged sway in the world. For too long many folks have not been able to challenge it, and many governments have realised, far too late, I may add, that a division between religion and government is vitally important. America, sadly, is still and infant in terms of how old it is as a democracy, and still has yet for the majority to recognise the dangers of a government that is combined with religion.
Ireland, despite it's faults, learned that decades ago, where we elected known atheist politicians to powerful positions. The sad thing is that in America, the chances of a known atheist getting elected are minute.
Chris,
I agree with everything you said. And with M.O.R. as well (I just wish he'd answer the question;P)
Steve, so it's OK for science to disprove other religions and you accept it BUT when it disproves yours it's wrong? How convient for you. Science has disproven the Flood, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Garden of Eden ect. So why are you still defending it if as you say we can "Remove it from the playing field"? Do you see how illogical that is?
As I have said before, science can't disproved this new deity that a lot of people not pray to, but the Christian, Jewish and Muslim god has been falsified.
Best,
Brett
M.O.R
Yes, no one is completely free(we have laws). Whether or not God exists though and if I actually have to listen to what people think it say's is one less thing I have to worry about.
I am also of the mind that people are free believe whatever they want. Unfortunately with those beliefs inevitably come the people who think you should believe the way they do as well. Of course when it comes to the Abrahamic religions, it's not just a passing idea...it's a moral imperative.
Couldn't agree more with you, Religion has been the 500 lb gorilla on the block for waaay too long. It's scary, but I read comments all the time from Christians who would like nothing more than to live in a Theocracy and I know there are members of other faiths who would drool over the prospect as well.
I would even go so far as to say that if a self professed atheist some how got elected president, there would be an unprecedented amount of protest, riots and assassination attempts. Every faith bearing member of our government would make it their goal, to block any productive activities the president may attempt to do. They would just generally try to fuck up the presidency so they can say "See! See what happens when you elect an atheist" to make sure it never happens again.
That may sound a bit conspiracy theory, but I truly think the Christians would see an atheist president as worse than a Muslim or even a Satanist. I can just hear it..."Well Muslims and Satanist are evil and misguided, but at least they believe in SOMETHING!.
I forgot to address this.
We as species and specifically the U.S. as a melting pot of cultures, absolutely do NOT accept every from of sexual orientation at face value. You know this as well as I do.
Bestiality, Pedophilia, Necrophilia, all of these are considered non consensual and and harmful in one way or another. Homosexuality between consenting adults hurts no one(unless they want it to)
Moral ethics for sex should only go as far as consenting adults want it to go. The church and religion have no place in an adults sex life unless they want it there.
Let's try this one more time Steve. What is YOUR(not Gods) specific problem with Homosexuality.
I'm starting to think that the repeated avoidance of this question is an admittance of either having no problem with homosexuality beyond God. Or having a personal problem with it "because it's yucky and wrong and that's just the way it is"
Chris where exactly am I side stepping and refusing to look? I have repeatedly looked at the Genesis account, because that is what we are discussing here. Brett repeatedly tries to disprove it for being scientifically incorrect, the fact Genesis is not written as a scientific account and it isn’t attempting to convey a scientific explanation, this safeguards it against such an attack, it isn’t sidestepping-that isn’t a failing it shows it is historically accurate for when it was written. The first verse starts out “in the beginning God,” so we are not looking at an account of science, not a how explanation, but a who. You must look to see if the account is self-contradictory. Is saying God does things only a god can do self-contradictory. No.
It seems to come down to, your side saying the Bible doesn’t give me the facts I want. Because it doesn’t explain what I want. It doesn’t explain all I want either, but that is true of all books.
Remember at the core is a story designed to be relatable and relevant to all people for all times from all cultures in all languages. Brett says it fails because it is not written from a 21st Century Post Modern Darwinist Naturalistic viewpoint. Historical works must be judged by standards specific to the works, that isn’t me talking that is how Palaeography works. By using the wrong stipulations and then saying it fails shows the problem is’t the manuscript, it is the misunderstanding of how to approach the book. The Bible is not a biology book, it never tries to be, and it never claims to be, it is a historical record of the interaction of God and man, it is designed to help people know the purpose of life in a deistic universe.
“Science has disproved the Flood, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Garden of Eden”-Brett
Again this statement shows you do not understand the Bible, but more alarmingly you don’t understand science. Science is a generic term for multiple areas of study. I don’t know if you’ve ever worked for a large corporation, but seldom is there a unity among all the branches or even within the branches. This comment is so poorly thought out it is hard to really take it seriously. For instance we’ve discussed in some detail about the recent archeological findings which are building a case for the Exodus, how can you ignore these findings, or even if you don’t agree with them not recognize how incredibly foolish it is to say “disproved” as new museum exhibits are prepared supporting the exact opposite. I’ve asked this before, but humor me, do you understand the limits of science in making historical one-time event statements.
“Science has disproved the Flood, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Garden of Eden”-Brett
And for the record remember all of these events we have discussed in the past (except for Babel-perhaps.) Multiple times I've given Brett links (and sent him audio books even) if he cared to research these accounts. It can hardly be said I haven't provided the necessary evidence. There is a big difference between ignoring and something not existing.
Brett always says researching Biblical information is a waste of time. I see this study method as being somewhat problematic.
Still maybe someone else might like to take an honest look. Any takers?
Chris,
You do raise some good points on homosexuality. We are kind of getting buried here on this blog post. Perhaps Brett could find some inflammatory anti-Christian pro-homosexual topic for this Sunday? I would love to discuss this specific point as a topic rather than an offshoot of why science and religion compliment each other.
Steve,
I have looked into your 'research' and it's all bunk. It's crap that has been disproven over and over again, even in a court of law for crying out loud. OR it's by people claiming to be 'scientists' but really have no dea what they are doing, like those people on Ghost Hunters or Finding Bigfoot. By taking an idea and looking for ways to suport that idea your are doing it WRONG. These are the same people who claim the ark is on Mt. Ararat and that the Grand Canyon was caused by the flood. It's been disproven. Why should I bother to keep looking into it again if the only proof they have is the same 'proof' they had before. That's just well... stupid.
And now the genesis account is just myth? So no Adam and Eve then and no original sin. So no need for Jesus to be the son of god (especially considering that the offspring from parthenogenesis in mammals are always female.) So how is this not sidestepping now? You've never said this was all myth before. Could it be because science has irrefutable proof?
No the book is not a biology book in any sense of the word. But it's true because we simply can't understand it? BS. Total and absolute BS. If it was even remotely correct on how life evolved, or the origans of man, or hell even the Hebrews (which, if it's a HISTORY book, should be fairly accurate) then you'd have a leg to stand on, now you're sidestepping and making up excuses. Nice.
Yes Steve there are many branches, of science that don't always talk, but it's funny how all their effort leads to similar conclusions. Old earth, evolution, and no need for a deity (no evidence for one as well.) And we have not discussed the Exodus 'finds' because there aren't any that can be tied to the event. It takes 7 days to walk across that desert, it's not very big, and how long have they been looking? What have they found? a few scraps. Sure People left Egypt, I'm sure it happened all the time, but the Jews were NOT slaves and they didn't go en mass. You're 'History' book is wrong again and again disproven by Science. Funny how this Exodus is supposed to be true yet the book before it is a myth? Where's the cut off Steve, what's just myth and what's real? That's right, I simply don't understand the book, it's far to 'complex' for anyone but you and your specific religious sect to understand. BS. If this book is soooo accurate then why all the inconsistencies? I mean the creation story, even if it's simplified should get the animals in the correct order right? If it's sooo right, why toss out al the other books? Why have 4 different origin stories for Jesus? You read comic for grying out loud, this it the SAME thing.
The fact is Steve, you don't understand science and how it works. You have show repeated ignorance on it and then try to use it when you think it supports you. Of course, you cast it off as wrong when it doesn't. Science is only limited by the evidence. Which doesn't support you. It's why the science and religion can't coexist happily. One provides evidence based truths while the other is a mythology that has long since run it's course. It attacks science and expects science to bow before it. The science tells you how it's done so you to can test it. Your book doesn't do that, in fact it relies on brain washing you to ask another brain washed person for the answer?!?! A male of course cause them women aren't smart enough. Ugh.
No post this week, I'm finishing up a book
Best,
Brett
Steve,
Everyone knows, and even some Christians will admit that the bible is not scientifically accurate(Money grubbing, exploitative assholes like Hamm, Cameron and Comfort aside)
Anyone who thinks that a collection of narrative scrolls written centuries before modern science was ever conceived of, contains any actual science is delusional or has an agenda.
My point once again was
I'm simply trying to get you to see the hypocrisy there Steve. You don't get away with claiming different standards for different religions. You don't get away with claiming that because science has certain understanding of the Sun and other stars now, that any religion that worshiped them as Gods is automatically falsified. Only to turn right around and say "well Christianity and the bible are exempt from that because the authors purposely wrote in poetic prose, they knew exactly what they were doing."
Only to once again down the road state " The bible is the unerring word of God and everything contained therein is completely accurate."
Finally you definitely don't get the luxury of picking and choosing what you see as factual to suit your needs, expecting everyone to go "Oh! OK, sounds good.
I will agree with you on this, the Bible is full of metaphors. In fact I think God is nothing more than a metaphor describing humanities need and desire to have power and control over one another. The innate need to push their ideas on others as moral imperatives and the innate need of others to be told what to do and what they believe.
Last thing on Homosexuality.
People have the absolute right to believe an old book that says Homosexuality is wrong. They every right to think it's "yucky and just plain wrong" People have the right to not agree with Homosexuality for whatever reasons they see as valid. No one is saying you HAVE to be flag waving attendee of the next Gay Pride Parade. No one is saying you HAVE to go out and be friends with and like every homosexual you meet.
Where my problem lies is when said people think Homosexuality needs to be abolished, or that a law should be put forth prohibiting ANY performance of such activity simply because they don't agree with it. My problem is with parents who perpetuate that hate and bigotry with their children because they think it's the right thing to do.
My problem is with anyone who feels the need to force their morals in to my or anyone elses bedroom, or on someone elses mutually consenting, age appropriate, relationship.
Time to get educated about homosexuality, for folks willing to hear it.
Taken form the 2007 documentary For the Bible tells me so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQSx3OCrXQ&feature=g-vrec&context=G226e07fRVAAAAAAAAAg
As one character says, why make someone feel wrong for something they cannot change? What good does it do?
I'm not going to go out and big it up at the next Gay Pride parade, but I am going to support their right to have one. Even if they are SOOOO 10 years ago, girlfriend. ;)
Brett, I never said myth; didn't even hint at it, at least not as it is used in today's language. Myth is almost always thought to be closer to a fairy tail than truth. Genesis is absolutely true. 100% true. But it isn't written in a way where it gives us many testable components for detailed "how" studies. It paints in broad strokes and uses poetry and song. Again, it really concentrates on the "who" question and purposely doesn't answer the "how" questions. So it does sound like you understand who it is talking about, so I guess it is effective at what it was designed for. You seem mostly upset at the lack of how's it answers which it is not designed for. So it is accurate and trustworthy, but it achieves this by not touching on the areas you demand it answers. That is a pretty good picture of a lot of Christianity; God gets to call the shots and getting angry about it doesn't make much sense. Don't confuse that with not getting any answers, you just have to be humble and pursue God in the way He chooses not according to your demands.
MOR,
What do you do when they do change?
Does that contradict your notion they can't?
Steve
"What do you do when they do change?
Does that contradict your notion they can't?"
Changed or guilted and bullied into denying how they truly feel. People are quite adaptable and can on the surface put up with a lot when they feel the overwhelming social pressure to do so. Just look at at the 3.5 billion or so Christians and Muslims around the world who have no problem swallowing someone telling them they're a fundamentally flawed, worthless piece of shit unless they bow down and worship the supposed creator of all that is.
Are they changed? Doubt it. More than likely suppressing their sexuality. And why would anyone make them suppress what they are?
Why be so cruel?
In fact, it is this negative attitude to homosexuals that led to forced castrations in certain areas of the world. Enforced by the dutch region of the Catholic Church. Possibly gay? Then down to the local Catholic psychiatric hospital for castration, where one's signature was forged and their testicles hacked off. And this happened as recently as the 1950's.
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2012/03/forced-castrations-reportedly-found-in-roman-catholic-care/
Sorry about that I read into it a bit much. I was hoping you might see how silly it is to say something clearly based on other mythologies is fact.
And no it doesn't give How, it gives a childish and patently wrong origin. So how can I take it seriously when it's dead wrong on so many other things as well? If it were true or even truish then parts would have to be real, testable. The fact is it's wrong and we can test for it. History, biology, geology, archeology, astronomy ect, all things that have been proven to work, disagree with a book written by people with little to no education 3 thousand years ago… Sorry but any sane person who isn't brainwashed could see this doesn't add up.
You're far to caught up in the Who so see that the How doesn't fit. If it's all supposed to be correct then why aren't the How parts? It's plainly false, if the WHo really did write it, even through humans, then he would have gotten the basics of the How at least partial correct. It's not. Again you ignore the How because you WANT the Who to be true. I understand the Who just fine, it's a great way to control people. IT's got you fooled beyond reason, meaning you can't be reasoned with cause you refuse to even entertain the idea that it might not be all true.
And Steve, the people who stay 'changed' always seem to be the real religious ones. People who 'change' and then leave the church always seem to change back. So are they really 'changed' or are they just afraid like Godless says? I doubt you'll see the logic in that but I know it's more personal than anything else.
Best,
Brett
Post a Comment