Evolution theory invents atheism
Of course Atheism, as we had inferred earlier is totally dependent on evolution and scientism in order to explain its very existence. (The Scientific Case Against Evolution)
It’s curious the stories people concoct in their heads to defend their illogical outlooks on life. I’ll concede that it’s reassuring to live in an age of human development where we have a widely available theory that helps contextualise our short lives. The theory of evolution seems essentially logical to me, as it does to the great majority of religious believers in the world. Science, evolution and religious belief are by no means mutually exclusive.
But if scientists discovered something tomorrow that invalidated the whole theory of evolution, it wouldn’t dent my atheism. It would simply mean that humans don’t yet understand much about our existence (which even with the theory of evolution in working order is undoubtedly true).
The existence of the theory of evolution in this age certainly helps some people overcome psychological barriers to removing religion from their lives. It offers an alternative ‘creation story’ to satisfy curiosity and to fill what might be a void in understanding. The fact that the vast majority of societies and cultures have their own distinct and loopy creation/existence story reflects only our curiosity and thirst for understanding as a self-aware species with seemingly more advanced communication techniques than other species on this planet: we tell creative stories and pass them down through generations.
However, most importantly, atheism isn’t something that was ‘invented’ with the advent of scientific theories to replace a god. And it is this painfully deep ignorance about how societies have developed, about how the rest of the world is and was, that makes these kind of childish statements on pseudo-intellectual Christian web pages worth calling to account.
To the author of the quoted page, I suggest you get your head out of Christian apologetics nonsense and go travel around the world, read genuine history books and learn about the world around you in a meaningful way. You may not lose your religion, but you might be able to contextualise it in a more honest and fact-based understanding of life, which always leads to less harmful doctrine.
But if he travelled the world he might *meet* people, like these Australians on a train
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s hilarious! And is it a Christian video?? Why are they sharing that embarrassing display? Perhaps I should have added that listening would be required on this journey….
LikeLike
I think it’s the guys video, TORCH OF CHRIST! Powerful name.
LikeLike
Talk about captive audience. He did not realize what someone objecting his preaching said about going to talk on the steet, where people are able to either stop and hear him out, or evade him, if they do not want to listen.
He did not ask people wether they wanted to hear him. He did not even respect the plead by the elderly man like his holy book demands him to do. What a jerk!
What has he got against whales? Whales are uder a threat of extinction, humans are not. How are the issues of abortion and saving whales opposed to each other, nor mutually exclusive? Is there some limit he thinks about how many issues people are able to care for?
The dude is deeply disturbed and has no sense of illness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw another one on Twitter a few days ago. Seems he’s carpet bombing Sydney. This time he was in the city screaming like a madman. Girl in a flower shop told him to shut up.
LikeLike
To be fair, I would be equally perturbed about having to listen to a lecture in which I had no choice to flee-
If a guy (or gal) stood up on a bus, subway, seaplane, aeroplane, whatever, it would be distasteful, even if I agreed with the content.
Evangelism of any nature, whether it be preaching about politics, sports, ecology, geography, history, atheism, moo-isms, etc, or dare I say Christianity, should be in a venue where people have the right to run away. In a closed environment such as that, just seems out of place and void of decorum.
It would be just as bad for an atheist to stand up at a funeral in which he knows nobody- and start lecturing people ‘there is no God.’
LikeLiked by 5 people
Good points ColorStorm! I have been to a number of Crhistian weddings and funerals. Me and other atheists in those events sit quietly at the back of the Church. Respecting the religion of others (our belowed friends and/or family) includes not disturbing the ritual, but also not really participating in it. Because that would be faking it. Yet, participating in the event of grief in a funeral and in joy in a wedding as an ivited guest.
Preferably any attempt to offer one’s ideas and values would be in a situation the other person is invited to join and they come willingly and knowing, that they will be subjected to such offers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Being civil seems to be a lost art eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed Color Storm, indeed. Or, perhaps, it has always been a rare art? Generally speaking people are quite polite to each other, but here in the wonderfull world of interwebs we try to express ourselves so briefly and compactly as we possibly can, that we may come at each other a bit bluntly. Even when we try to be polite and civil. It is not a new set of skills to be civil, but it is new to many of us, how to do it online.
Then we have the likes of the dude on the video. Methinks it does not reflect their religious affiliation, nor non-affiliation, that their social skills are lacking. It is kind of sad. He propably thinks both that he is doing the right thing and that he has every right to do so. I have seen this sort of behaviour in Christians, Muslims and atheists alike and propably there are his sort in every group of people who hold their own ideals so high, that they have a yearning to share their message with everyone else – Even if they have to shove it down the throats of others by a bit of force.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But if scientists discovered something tomorrow that invalidated the whole theory of evolution, it wouldn’t dent my atheism. It would simply mean that humans don’t yet understand much about our existence (which even with the theory of evolution in working order is undoubtedly true.”
That is an expression of faith and a commitment to a self-made religion.
LikeLike
I love it that so many widely dispersed human societies all over the globe came up with exactly the same name for God (one off) and Heaven, and all used the same prophet/s and Revelations.
(This, for anyone not too clued up, is what is known as sarcasm. BUT—
—can anyone refute it? Please give it your very best shot …)
LikeLike
I think the name could differ, but a common message and ritual would be impressive! Something unusual that can’t be accounted for, like everyone should wear blue and hop on one foot at the full moon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although I like science I would posit a third (and my)reason to be an atheist—Observing Christianity and comparing the doctrine and promises to the outcomes since it’s inception.
As a Christian I actually knew very little about evolution—only what was drawn from a poisoned well.
Turns out for some good reason I decided to go line by line and compare what we see versus what we are told. A domino effect collapsing the theory of evolution would do nothing to right religion.
They’ve had 2000 years to reach their objectives and nothing. Evolution does nothing to change that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point! You should pop over to the post and make it directly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will do.
LikeLike
I posted this, but I doubt he’ll free it:
You and I and every other great ape shares identical damage to a portion of our DNA that was caused by a simian virus. Not a human virus. Simian. If we were created, why duplicate this now useless piece of DNA in all the great apes?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Mine is waiting it’s freedom too. We shall see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure your challenge will be accepted, the other commenter tore them to shreds.
LikeLike
Be interesting to hear his explanation.
LikeLike
Just to be a thorn in VW’s side, she writes, ” Science, evolution and religious belief are by no means mutually exclusive.”
Umm.. the methods of science/evolution and religious belief are incompatible, which is why these subjects have to be compartmentalized and separated from interacting in the same brain.
You can sometimes find religious belief without creationism but you can never find creationism without religion. That is the only ‘engine’ – religion – that empowers any confidence in the model of creationism and this is the case because the method of science puts this claim to the test and finds it 1) without any evidence from the real world and, 2) in conflict with and contrary to the overwhelming evidence the real world supplies to empower confidence in evolutionary theory. One holds the belief in some form of god-producing creationism – a fundamental aspect of every religion that has a Creator – not because it is inclusive with science as VW suggests but in direct contrast and conflict to it. Religion and science are exclusive when addressing any claim about the real world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many people who follow religions are happy to accept scientific findings alongside their beliefs. Your understanding of how they process this is irrelevant.
Let me give you another example. Real world evidence tells me that as human societies evolve and we understand more about each other, we are more careful to address previously misunderstood inequalities by modifying our attitudes, vocabulary and behaviour towards marginalised groups. And yet in conflict with and contrary to this overwhelming evidence, middle-aged dinosaur white males (mainly) with privilege issues adjust their blinkers firmly on their heads and consistently, in every generation, submerge themselves in the delusion that progress and understanding stops with them.
Curious, isn’t it?
LikeLike
There is no ‘alongside with’ space available between creationism and evolution. The two are polar opposites absolutely and irrevocably at odds. You’re just asserting the two are compatible because some people can maintain compartmentalized and contrary beliefs in both and then making the mistake of assuming the contrary models themselves are therefore compatible. You’re wrong, but you’re not alone. It’s the same argument put forth by theists that because some scientists are religious, therefore science and religion are compatible. And it’s just as incorrect to think this supports the compatibility argument… unless you also are willing to accept that just because some Catholic priests are pedophiles, therefore pedophilia and Catholicism are compatible.
LikeLike
<<>>
True statement. Creation is the science of truth.
Evolution is the religion of fools.
LikeLike
Thanks ColorStorm, that really adds something special to the discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure.
There is more weight to those few lines than all of your godless heroes books put together.
LikeLike
Seriously CS…you need to record some of your comic musings. This is gold. You could win a Grammy with such cutting edge material.
LikeLike
Good idea. I see a sort of Christian Waiting for Godot
LikeLiked by 2 people
While I like the phonetic similarity “God”ot, I suspect it will be more like Waiting for Guffman though. CS is very much like an actor in a bad musical, waiting for the ultimate critic to tell him that he’s good, but of course the critic never shows up. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Cue last scene, Withnail & I
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have not seen that movie…I looked it up though. It looks like my kind of comedy!
LikeLike
A truly, truly superb film.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take that as a compliment S-gill, so tkx
LikeLike
You should. I love your material. It’s edgy in a way only a flat-earther can be.
LikeLike
Eh, I stay away from FE’s; too much drama. I prefer the simple, much more deeper; where people tend to avoid the obvious.
But I do so enjoy the word ‘plane,’ as in horizontal, ‘level,’ as in sea level, and aeroPLANE, as in traversing something horizontal.
See how obvious? How simple? So deep as Everest as is high? It would be a terrible thing to accuse the mighty K-2 of the preposterous offense of moving from its foundation, or spinning like a wacky amusement park ride.
I say if you want to get a few laughs or dizzy, go see a circus or roller coaster.
Sit on your porch some night gill and ponder these things and consider if perhaps you were spoonfed theories and assumptions which have never been seen, tested, or proven.
LikeLike
Or I could consider what a person who doesn’t understand physics might come up with as a model for the solar system. There’s no poster boy more qualified to be part of a “stay in school” marketing campaign than you.
Also for the stage, I think you should do your comedy with a pipe. I think it would be more hilarious.
LikeLike
Tkx anyway S-gill, I’ll pass on that offer. Your physics heroes have already changed their minds a million times; heck, even the great god DeGrasse Tyson said the earth was once the size of a pea……………
Perhaps you can now see why I rely on logic, facts, common sense, evidence, and of course scripture which all agree.
You keep your useless theories and clever guesses, guesses which will be replaced by more lying PhD’s. 😉
And the truth will still remain the truth. Truth has the property of water. Level, unassuming, and always correct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DeGrasse Tyson did not say the Earth was once the size of the pea. Please share that link.
What he did say is that the Earth is sort of pear shaped because it’s slightly fatter in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere.
So at the very least, please be right about what somebody has changed their mind about, don’t exaggerate on the number of times, please use an example where they’ve actually changed their minds, and please remember that changing one’s mind based on new evidence is a sign of intelligence. Ignoring evidence to keep your worldview intact, something you do like a meth addict, is a sign of insanity at worst, foolishness at best.
Your comedy stems from your ability to use words like logic, facts, common sense, and evidence while at the same time demonstrating you have no idea what they mean.
Also we’ve also determined you don’t know much about water. It’s getting hard to keep track of all the things you don’t understand.
LikeLike
I suggest you do your own research gill. I’ll not do your ‘googling.’
I know all about Tyson’s idiotic ‘pear shaped oblate spheroid ‘ speech, and I also know about his stupidity regarding a ‘pea’ or a ‘marble,’ you know, those bite sized nuggets?
He is a clown of the highest order, and represents atheism and lying science perfectly.
LikeLike
I already did the googling and didn’t find it. I guess it’s fine if you just want to make things up. Your religion is made up so it’s definitely the kind of thing you’re wont to do.
LikeLike
Do u think I am going to waste my time sifting through all his utube junk to make u happy?
I have good ears thank God.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t care what you do. You are either a huge con artist, an idiot, or someone with the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the world, so I expect you either are making it up (con artist), didn’t understand at all what you heard (idiot), or your brain translated what you heard into something that fits your fantastical narrative of the universe (cognitive dissonance). It’s multiple choice…you can pick. I really don’t care what the answer is, I just like to give you choices. You know…God giving you free will and all.
LikeLike
In a court of law -gill where facts are king- u would be apologizing in a NewYork minute for such false accusations.
Even our host here may diss you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But since u believe in a serendipitous creation with no design or purpose, why would u care if the earth was once an infant and wore diapers?
Then it grew up… and became a man; and oh, don’t forget to add water, blood, and bones.
LikeLike
I care about consistent processes. How the Earth formed is quite interesting so I like to know what it was before to what it is now. As long as the explanation is consistent with the laws of physics, I’m find with that. I also like mysteries because that means there is more to learn. No design or purpose is required to get aesthetic joy out of what is.
You’ve made a claim about Neil DeGrasse Tyson with actually providing evidence. Why should I get dissed for calling your bluff. You never provide evidence for your claims, just make comic statements like “Then it grew up… and became a man; and oh, don’t forget to add water, blood, and bones.” Classic.
LikeLike
Oh come on, you’ve got to find some room to be impressed with his art. It’s art!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha…I do appreciate some good art!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m interested in this conversation about peas. I think dear lion you have confused the discussion about the earth being somewhat pear shaped, with a Neil Armstrong quote about the earth looking like a pea. Easy mistake to make when your primary concern is that neither object is flat.
LikeLike
Sorry Violet, but I have confused nothing-
Others may confuse Neil Young with Neil Armstrong, or DeGrasse with Mike Tyson, I have not.
I included this link V because I don’t appreciate being called a shyster- a con- a liar if you will. I tell the truth, as uncomfortable as it is for some people. I hope some of your readers appreciate this.
As to Tyson, listen to the vid if you can. I’ll spare you the exact minute/second said ‘quote’ is referenced, so that you will suffer as I did. the man is excruciating painful in his ‘KNOWING’ things that are unknowable.
And btw, tell Gill to watch the vid too- maybe, just maybe, he will rethink the ‘size’ of the earth, and how it grew up into maturity……………..
(and forget the FE topic- irrelevant at the moment, but I luv how AS A SCIENTIST, he dismisses someone with a better brain that his.)
LikeLike
Thanks for the link! That’s very helpful to the conversation. So he doesn’t say Earth was the size of a pea but that, in line with the big bang theory, once the whole universe was the size of a marble. I can see how if you are suspicious of science and not a scientist yourself that could be challenging to accept. But could you accept that your god could have designed the universe so it started as an infinitely tiny and dense fireball the size of a marble that exploded to reveal the early universe? And your god left clues to show scientists how he did it? I’m unsure how the two stories can’t be compatible. After all, the Jewish creation myth in your Bible is accepted by the Jews as pure myth. It’s kind of weird to take the creation myth of a particular culture as your own a few thousand years later and insist it’s literal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha yeah, /I was extremely generous giving DeGrasse the benefit of earth’s size………since the ENTIRE universe was allegedly the size of a half inch marble!!!! lol
But what you are missing vi- is NO MAN or WOMAN can know the SIZE……..as he so presumptuously asserts. He then claims his knowledge is science, but /I have explained already, that true size is observable, testable, and repeatable.
In this he lies. He assumes, and it is the height of stupidity to call this science. As to compatibility of your supposed ‘myths’ with science, I really don’t care what is accepted by the Jews who claimed the Torah as theirs.
They should be so embarrassed, as Acts chapter 7 tells why perfectly. But of course Genesis is actual factual, and literal.
And clues as to the age of the beginning? Too funny, since the Creator is from everlasting to Everlasting, so no, that knowledge is His; you may want to start with at least giving Him the courtesy of existing first; science 101 as it were.
But at least you looked at the vid- hope it wasn’t too stressful.
LikeLike
Why can no person can know the size? Why do you believe your god wants humans to remain in total ignorance about how the universe was formed?
Very interesting you disregard the myth’s origins so lightly and insist it’s factual.
LikeLike
@ColorStorm. Let us get one thing straight. It is fundamental, so it should humour you. It will also help anybody who actually gets it to understand the reality around us better. Science changes all the time. A good scientist may change their minds again and again as you have noticed. That IS what makes science reliable. A bad scientist takes the first results or their opinion about them and digs in to a trench to defend their notion regardless of any further facts.
This may seem a bit hard to grasp, if you begin from the standpoint that you have access to some ultimate truth, that explains everything. However, make a note that a person who accepts gods as mysterious, in that not all that they do is or even can be understood by mere humans, has NO such access to any ultimate truth. Do they? They may pretend that they do, but the fact that they are able to tell it to themselves does not make it so. If you do have a method of knowing what is truly true, then it should not harm you to test your method. Should it?
Truth does not change, but how much of it we do know changes all the time. Even if the method at arriving at truth would be reading the Bible, the scope of what the Bible teaches and how one sees it greatly depends on how much of the book has been read, what quality translation are we addressing and to what sort of cultural experience is the reader comparing the book. Correct? Science is a bit similar to that. One may change their perspective to a particular chapter or issue after having studied a bit further. That is how science works, it accumulates information. Reads on the world around us, like a Bible scholar reads on the one book. Would you expect a better interpretation of the meaning of the Bible by someone who has read the entire book in context to the culture in wich it was written, or by some random fella who has read one chapter? No matter how faitfull the latter dude is to a particular interpretation of the book?
How do we come to the truth about anything? If we do not know where our keys are, we go and look for them. Right? Having faith that they are on the kitchen table does not put them there. Testing the hypothesis may reveal if they are there or not. The conclusion where the keys are should be based on evidence of where they are, not on mere gueswork, no matter how much faith one puts in their own or some other persons guesses.
The difference between religious truth and scientific research is just that. The scientist may change their mind according to where evidence points, while the faithfull religious person is tied to their preconception, or the preconception of a person who wrote some “scriptures” no matter what the evidence may point to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tkx for your time and thoughts raut-
Will address when it’s convenient.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve given CS far too much logic and information for him to process. He isn’t able to actually have conversations like normal people. He tends to sound like he is conversing in a totally separate conversation than the one you are having with him. Also, it’s best if you talk in metaphors. Not that the conversation becomes much more productive, but since he only talks in metaphors at least it’s more fun. Also making sense, doesn’t go very far with CS. I guess we all have to try at least once. I remember that one time I thought I could have a productive conversation with him. Good times. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Swarn Gill, well I know what you mean, but I have had some interresting conversations with Color Storm. We do come from very different cultural backrounds and traditions in understanding reality and expression. Yet, to me the internet is a method to reach out to different people, not just to create my own bubble of agreement.
I am willing to reason with anyone who is open for conversation and at the same time I learn how other people think, why they think what they think and how they have come to their conclusions. I am willing to share what has worked for me in reasoning what is real and what is not. I do not expect rapid results, or that people even get to change their minds in favour of my views, when people face their identities. Because after all we define our identity through how we come to conclusions about the reality. I have been wrong about a good number of things in my time, and what intrigues me, is how people come to different conclusions. I want to share what I have found to be a good method to evaluate reality, but I am no atheist “evangelist”, by any means. So, I am not out there to get them/save them, or what ever. Not, even though I think we would live in a better world, if less superstitious nonsense guided what people choose. I have not found any reason to think, that the human race is consisting of egoistic psychopats, that would disregard other individuals without divine commandments about whom one should kill or not, rather that we are a social species able to work together for a better future. The problem seems to be, most often that the judgement of people on what is a better future, is clouded by all sorts of bad social survival traits, culture and tradition to wich we kling on in desperation and that we often disregard the old bad culture before we even know what would be a better choise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree and appreciate your perspective. Just with CS, I’ve literally not been able to make an ounce of headway into getting him to actually respond with any degree of rationality to questions I’m asking. At best it’s evasive, at worse condescending. But if you’ve made headway with him, then by all means continue! I was just feeling bad that you wrote such a long comment to someone who will not consider your words with the kind of attention they deserve. But maybe he responds better to you.
LikeLike
@Swarn Gill. I do not know if I have made any difference, but I have on occasion enjoyed the conversation and insight to what it is to believe in gods, anyway. I wrote a long (sorry about that) comment and someone did considered my words with the kind of attention they deserve – that someone was you. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
@raut-
Not sure where to put comment so here.
The vid I included may be helpful to you as well, because Tyson speaks of HOW we arrive at conclusions through SCIENCE, but neglects to see that his very conclusions are loaded with presuppositional bias.
He has already determined the outcome then tailors his opinions to suit this theory. This is not science, which science demands results based on things observable, testable, and repeatable. He fails miserably in this.
You say science is truthful but changes all the time. No. That’s a bad mix of ideas. Technology may change, the rotary phone to the wireless phone for instance, but the science of speed and time do not change during a day. There will always be 24 hrs in the day, see the difference? Science is not incompatible with truth that does not change. How many ‘scientists’ swore they knew the age of the earth or universe, only to be contradicted by each other in the name of science; yet they were all correct? Truth is not so chaotic.
When Tyson says the ‘universe was once the size of a marble,’ did you get that? The ENTIRE universe was once the size of a marble, he loses the very credibility he is trying to present. There is NO WAY he could test this THEORY, an honest man must agree with me on this, while at the same time he would accuse someone like myself as being a stone age dunce.
Seems he is on the wrong side of science, where I demand evidence; he is happy in his assumptions and calls those assumptions truth. Sorry, this is not science. He traffics in speculations. Period.
As to your own idea raut that many people ‘interpret’ books differently as to God, rest assured, there are many wannabe knockoffs, but God has no competitor. For instance, ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, He made the sun, moon, and stars, He made whales, He made man and woman,’ there in nothing to interpret.
How did He make whales? I don’t know. I am content saying I don’t know regarding things that are unknowable. But I do know God’s word is consistent with Himself, and the laws of nature, logic, facts, reasoning, all agree with scripture. The Creator has not left us in the dark regarding Himself, that all His ways are excellent, and instead of cursing or doubting Him, we should be thanking Him for our next breath.
Lastly, DeGrasse here is embarrassingly lacking in ability to see his own shortcomings, and is guilty of posing as a scientist- the eight minutes are a perfect representation of a ‘teacher’ which neither knows his material nor the arguments of a worthy opponent. His dismisses Eric Dubay because Dubay knows more science that DeGrasse ever will.
LikeLike
Hi ColorStorm, I think you have a point in calling out how scientific facts are presented on some occasions. Phrases like “our best understanding at this point in time suggest…” or “all the evidence points to…” would make delivery of scientific theories more accurate. I have a similar problem with the vocabulary in nature programs suggesting that species ‘choose’ certain physical features in order to achieve some advantage. “It seems that this feature has developed due to the advantage it gives them in X” seems much more sensible and accurate to me. Although possibly not to you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine if you will /violet a college track runner with a broken leg declaring himself the winner against Usain Bolt in a hundred meter dash—-
………..long before the race began. In his wildest dreams maybe, and this is precisely what the likes of DeGrasse and kin do- they ‘arrive’ at the finish line and declare ‘facts’ before they consider, that SOMEONE else may be faster than them, smarter, wiser, more scientifically astute, etc
This is why I can’t stand those ‘assumptions,’ yet, he calls someone like me an idiotic because I do not get on board with his ‘science.’
sorry Vi, I can not get on board with such withcraft as DeGrasse is pretty much a shaman.
‘WE KNOW the universe was once the size of a marble…………………’
And he tested this how? He knows this how? Ate you listening SGill? This is not science, and any TRUE scientist MUST agree.
LikeLike
@ColorStorm, did you notice, that Neil deGrasse Tyson was using that thing about the size of the universe specifically as an example of unintuitive, but researched fact. You may think it is a great wonder (even too great for you to take it without swallowing) for the universe to have been as small as a marble, because it seems so extreme difference in size alone to what it is today, but you should realize, that the claim that the universe has once been the size of a marble is even philosophically a less extraordinary (not as in rare, but less likely) claim, than that a thinking entity from beyond time and space designed the universe. That is simply because the universe can be observed to exist, while entities beyond time and space can not be observed. The notion that the mass of the universe was once compressed to a tiny room, no bigger than a marble is therefore possible within the physical boundaries of the observable universe, while the possibility of thinking entities beyond time/space is very unlikely, since all we know about the ability to think is that it arises within material universe through the process of evolution in electrochemical processes in physical brains as a survival trait of material animals. We have absolutely no observation of it appearing as a super- or otherwise unnatural phenomenon. Do we?
The claim that deGrasse Tyson is making is based on observation. As in forensic research, we may not be able to reproduce the event we are researching, because the we can not murder the person who has once already been murdered again just to test how it happened, or because we can not kickstart the universe, or compress it to be any smaller than it is. Yet, we can come to fairly reliable results of what has passed, by observation and calculation. That is how cosmology works. The observation, that has lead us to think (with our physical brains), that the universe was once as tiny as a marble is, that the universe is expanding. The galaxies are like tiny dots on the face of a balloon, to wich someone is blowing air into. The conclusion is, that to provide such energy, wich sends vast galaxies to hurl themselves through the void and away from each other would most likely be released as an event where an extremely compact mass, was released to expand. This event at the beginning of space and time is often referred to as the big bang, wich is more a metaphorical name than a very accurate description of the event. As in forensic research it is possible to calculate the size in wich the mass of the universe must have been compressed from the mass, speed and acceleration of the galaxies. Now, because I simply do not enough time to explain this in more detail, I have here cut some corners, but I hope you get the gist and give me the benefit of the doubt. There is plenty of material on this issue to be found out there, if you are actually interrested to find out if the claims made be deGrasse Tyson are factual, or not. That is before judging them on the face value of the claims being extraordinary or somehow untestable in your own personal capacity.
I think it is good, that you have found your critical mind when examining the claims of scientists, now maybe you shall apply the same scrutany to claims some ignorant superstitious folks from fairly primitive cultures made to explain the universe thousands of years ago. Perhaps you have found those claims reliable not so much because that they fit your observation, but because they are a part of your particular cultural heritage? To be critical about claims other people make is good, but before you decide wether you believe them or not, please do look out on what they have found those claims. Are they founded on empty claims about nothing verifiable and asked to be held on faith, or if they actually represent a result of scientific research and what that research actually was and how it was met by peer review. There is a greater world out there for you to find, if you bother.
I hope, that if you were in a decisive role, you would not accept a spirit wittness in a court of law, but rather relied on the evidence provided by the forensic researcher, regardless wether if the spirit wittness fulfilled your cultural expectations and personal bias, and the evidence presented by the forensic science seemed unintuitive and based on mere observation rather than a full live action recreation of the murder. Or would you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, that was meant to be (even too great for you to swallow without evidence).
LikeLike
Violetwisp’s ‘alongside with’ was in relation to religion and scientific findings not between evolution and creationism. You seem to be making the assumption that all religious people believe creation myths associated with their faith are factual.
As someone who is religious, I’m curious what contrary beliefs I must necessarily hold yet believe are compatible. I’m only aware of a single model. Perhaps you can enlighten me on what I’ve compartmentalised to allow me to believe religion and science are compatible.
LikeLike
Barry, I know your religion is Quaker and you say you don’t believe in any god but endorse the idea of shared values that are equivalent to certain selected attributes others claim belong to their gods or god. This shared sentiment is the course of you claim to being ‘religious’. So you find it comfortable to claim to be religious so that you get to straddle this fence and pretend you are in the religious tent when you wish religious companionship yet can leave the tent at a moment’s notice and claim no relationship whatsoever to anything any religion endorses that might reflect badly on the religious… other than your cherry picked attributes you share… attributes, I should point out, that when examined in detail almost always align with what most of us atheists simply call human secularism. No woo necessary in either case. I see this as a religious enabler who can conveniently find protection from religious excesses without having to challenge it directly but who can rationalize belonging to both religious and non religious camps in effect whenever the mood strikes.
So yes, Barry, you’re very religious… nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean, know what I mean?… so any criticism leveled at those who believe in some aspect no matter how remote of unnatural guided intervention by some supernatural agency in historical fact you deflect with your magical Quaker shield and claim such belief is not inherent to religion because, hey, you’re religious – it says so right there on your Quaker membership card – and yet do not share this fundamental religious belief (which is EXACTLY why I say earlier that you can SOMETIMES find a religion without creationism, although the defining qualities of that woo-less religion are usually so benign and/or widespread that one can hardly assign any independent meaning to it whatsoever). Oh, what a surprise! How handy, eh? And look how very tolerant it makes you seem, able with a wag of the tongue, a nudge and a wink, to bring a legitimate criticism of creationsim – something that ONLY comes from religious belief – to heel, that YOU are religious and yet YOU have no problem with evolution and so therefore RELIGION has no inherent problem with evolution. And that’s why I mentioned that it is the method of science that is incompatible with and contrary to the method used to support religious beliefs. You do not have to defend your ‘religious’ beliefs with this religious method because the beliefs you claim make you religious not, in fact, sourced from religion. That’s how you can appear to straddle this fence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Are you aware that you can only think in pigeon holes? You’ve designed a limited number of boxes that you believe you can squeeze everyone into. And you know everything about everyone and the boxes you believe they inhabit. It’s astounding. And painfully long-winded. Painfully. Really, painfully. Barry doesn’t fit in your boxes (actually, most people don’t, because they are nonsense) so he’s a bloody fence straddler trying to look tolerant. Just as well your pigeonhole box viewer can see through all that….wish it worked in under 50 words. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I responded with equivalent tone, VW.
Aren’t you surprised when someone claims to be religious but doesn’t believe in any god? Don’t you think this fact regarding Barry’s religious claim might colour his otherwise pointed response to me… that because he’s religious that this doesn’t interfere with accepting scientific knowledge?
I think it’s quite germane when we’re talking about claims made about the real world – the world of science – as somehow compatible with different claims about the real world produced by the religious. Isn’t that the point of criticism I have raised with you?
Barry is not a ‘typical’ religious person and his ‘religion’ is not a typical religion but an extreme outlier and I think this needs raising. You’re not going to raise it. Barry’s not going to raise it. So I do. And then I have the temerity to explain in more than 50 words why this matters, why this makes Barry’s comment highly questionable in merit responding to my criticism.
LikeLike
I know many religious people. They don’t find science and their beliefs to be mutually exclusive. Barry asked you to clarify what you think he has compartmentalised, and he got a 1000 word insulting diatribe challenging his assertion of being religious, simply because it doesn’t suit your pigeonhole. Mirror, Tildeb. You’ll see in it one day.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that you attribute motives to others that have no basis in fact. It’s why you remain in moderation on my blog. In your comment above to which I responded, you stated “some people can maintain compartmentalized and contrary beliefs in both and then making the mistake of assuming the contrary models themselves are therefore compatible”, and I asked to you enlighten me on what contrary beliefs I might falsely believe are compatible. Your claim that I move in and out of some “religious tent” appears to expressing the same thing using a different metaphor, and still with no supporting evidence to back it up. As for your “nudge nudge, wink wink”, no I do not know what you mean unless you’re implying that I use religion as a “feel good” exercise.
I was a Quaker long before I discovered Quakerism or the Religious Society of Friends. By that I mean the values I hold and how I express them in my life were there decades before I knew anything about Quakerism. Those values I hold very dearly, and evolved from a very specific incident that has had a profound effect on me, and even after more than 60 years colours how I interpret the world around me. I make no claim that the event was supernatural, even though it felt very much that way at the time, and using words to describe it makes it seem that way to some who hear the story, even today. I’m satisfied that it was the result of nature plus nurture plus a traumatic realisation that people can hold beliefs that are in every way contrary to my own. In no way did it have any supernatural source.
It is through that experience and other experiences, some similar, and some not, that I claim to be religious not, as you say, through “shared sentiment”. It’s those experiences, and their effect on how I perceive the world, how I live as a consequence of those perceptions, and the passion with which I (mostly) live it, that explains why I consider myself religious.
I have no doubt that had I lived pre Enlightenment, I would have explained what I experience as being caused by a supernatural agency, that agency being dependent on community and era within which I lived. But I live in a post Enlightenment, post Christian society, and attributing what I experience to supernatural agencies is no longer rational.
What I experience and what I claim it feels like is that there is a source which is outside/beyond me, that fills me with a sense of the divine, that, for want of a better word, is God. What I do not claim is that it is any of those things. It is my experience, and my response to it, not the beliefs I hold that are at the foundation of why I consider myself religious. The fact that I don’t attribute those to a supernatural agency is because circumstances provide me with a wider set of choices, and for that I’m grateful. I would like to think that if I did hold a belief in the supernatural, I would hold similar values, ethics and morals as I do no now, but that’s entering into the realm of speculation.
As to my beliefs, I am a Quaker because of the beliefs I hold. I do not hold those beliefs because I am a Quaker. I hope you can understand the difference. I hold those beliefs due the environment within which I grew up. My beliefs are “seasoned” by religious experience. They are not a product of it. I am tolerant, not because of any religious motivation, but because I was enveloped in a tolerant, accepting environment during my formative years. Religion has nothing to do with tolerance, mine or anyone else’s, which is why I find your response rather disingenuous and condescending.
You are convinced that I turn a blind eye to much (or some – I’m not sure which) of the harm that religion is capable of. I disagree. For a start, like all Quakers, I find the concept of “original sin” unconscionable. I build from there. You will find I’m just as intolerant of religious prejudice as any other form of prejudice. I am just as intolerant of religious excesses as I am of other forms of excess, including but not limited to nationalism, racism, monetarism and political dogma. However, I welcome and appreciate alternative perspectives, be they religious or otherwise. You are convinced that religion consists of nothing more than “woo”. I am not.
LikeLike
When we talk about the incompatibility between religious beliefs and scientific understanding, we’re not talking about your values. We’re talking about what informs the difference between religiously arrived at beliefs that model the reality we inhabit and scientifically arrived at confidence that models the same reality we inhabit. Surely you can appreciate this difference in how the models are informed – one by faith-based belief and the other by evidence-adduced confidence – because there really is a blunt difference in methods. Religious belief works from assuming the conclusion while scientific understanding works by demonstration. It is this difference in methods that produces incompatible results. That is why the issue of believing in a Creator that creates the world we inhabit is antithetical to to the explanatory model called evolution of how life changes over time by various natural mechanisms. There is no middle ground; either one believes in the religious sense in the creationist model at some historical point in time – meaning a guided interventionist and unnatural result – or one has confidence in the evolution model – meaning an UNguided non-interventionist natural result. There is no middle ground. It’s one or the other. That’s why the two are unequivocally incompatible and yet we find people all the time pretending they can have their religious belief in a Creator and eat the scientific evolution cake, too. Presto! Compatibility.
But it’s not.
They can only do so if they compartmentalize their religious beliefs here and those contrary scientific understanding there and never the twain shall meet in one coherent model of understanding this real world.
So when you offer yourself as an example of how the two – religious belief and scientific confidence – can be compatible METHODS, I call foul because you simply assign your values to be an equivalent ‘religious’ state of belief. They’re not. They originate from you. As you take pains to explain, your values are not adduced from any religion or religious methodology but simply match up well to the values esteemed by Quakerism! That doesn’t make them religious, Barry, even though you can insist until the cows come home that you assign them to be so.
Your question, then, about how do your ‘religious’ beliefs – meaning in your case your VALUES (that were admittedly not adduced from any religion or specific religious teachings dependent on a faith-based assumption of confidence but just so happened to match up with Quakerism… something similar to not believing in any gods or god except the god behind the gods or god – making Karen Armstrong so proud, I would think) – interfere with scientific confidence misses the point of understanding why religious beliefs that ARE caused by faith in some religious belief (like creationism) really are incompatible by method with scientific confidence in understanding this world (like evolution). And not just incompatible are religious claims about this world we inhabit but whose proponents and apologists and accommodationists reliably cause all kinds of mischief in attaining any understanding contrary to or in conflict with the religious explanatory model.
LikeLike
I’ll need to study your reply in depth as I always find your replies too wordy to the point of being incomprehensible. That’s a limitation on my part especially when attempting to work through a migraine at 4 o’clock in the morning. .
But I would like to point out that not all religions have a creator. Within Māori mythology, there is no prime creator. The universe evolved out of nothingness. The earth mother and sky father were the result of that original evolutionary process.
I would also point out that the method of scientific understanding as we now practise it through evidence adduced confidence is a relatively recent phenomenon. In previous millennia there was no distinction between the methodology used in religious and scientific enquiry.
Finally I’m not very familiar with the works of Karen Armstrong. I’m more familiar with those of Sir Lloyd Geering.
LikeLike
Written explanations require words. I don’t just comment. I explain why my comment has merit for consideration. You should not attempt to follow the explanation when your in the midst of a migraine because it’s not as easy as the usual fare. Some people find it valuable to understand why I sport the opinions I do.
You have no need “to point out that not all religions have a creator” when I have said as much twice now. What I have explained is the incompatibility resides with the methods used to produce a model – an explanation – of the world we inhabit. The religious method imports a faith-based answer and uses that to then model the world. This is a static method. The scientific method collects evidence and adduces an explanatory model to account for this evidence. This is a dynamic method. These two methods are opposite. And so when an explanatory model offered by the religious who have used the religious method to produce it comes into contact with an explanatory model offered by the scientific who have used the scientific method to produce it, and the explanations are in any way different, then we have a built in incompatibility. Religious models have no connection to the real world. That’s why the religious method never has and probably never will produce any knowledge about the world we inhabit. It is a broken method from the start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lordy, you’re so arrogant it can be painful. People tell your responses are awful to wade through and you come out the other side with some sense of inflated intellectual importance.
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein
Or as I prefer to express it, if you can’t explain it simply, it’s pure hot air.
LikeLike
Wasn’t that Penrose?
LikeLike
Either way, the salient point is made. Although I do get that you are a fan of his ranty blocks of big words. Einstein, Penrose and me all know the difference though. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too bad you can’t summon the effort to address my criticism of your claim about compatibility. I’m almost sure that would be more interesting for the consideration by others than this straw man ranting about my writing style and tone and personal shortcomings.
LikeLike
Not a straw man, an aside which you would do well to reflect on.
Religious models have no connection to the scientific world, but you missed the key point – as we currently describe and understand it. Seems obvious enough. Gods can always live in gaps, there will always be gaps, we’re ants in this universe. Of course, some people go even further to create gaps by dismissing the parts of science that don’t suit their god as they imagine it. But many don’t, and are content to leave religion to explain feelings or desires or phenomena we currently don’t understand. No compartmentalisation required.
LikeLike
What religious claims have no reference to this world?
It seems to me that philosophically you are claiming as did Stephen Jay Gould this old trope of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) and so, because religious and science claims DO NOT overlap, therefore the two are compatible.
If only.
What I have found is that religious belief – meaning beliefs that are created and sustained and exported from that religion – cannot help but overlap. And so the key premise of NOMA is factually wrong: there is no separation of magisteria whenever a believer utilizes any religious belief to affect some real world issue. Therefore there is always incompatibility because the methods for each are incompatible methods of ascertaining what is true about the real world. And this is demonstrable when we look at knowledge about the real world as belonging wholly to the method of science because religious belief has produced none. There’s your incompatibility in action.
LikeLike
I can’t account for your black and white view of the world Tildeb but can only as always suggest some self reflection. Life is never all or nothing, black or white, right or wrong. You’re projecting your pigeon hole boxes onto life and it’s not useful or accurate. Here’s some thoughts on the history of science: http://theconversation.com/religion-isnt-the-enemy-of-science-its-been-inspiring-scientists-for-centuries-90190
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bit harsh to criticise someone for *explaining* their reasoning. Personally, I like the explanations. They help me better frame my own thoughts, although I’m rubbish at putting those lessons into practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not harsh at all. Listen to Einstein.
LikeLike
Galileo you mean?
LikeLike
And it took him (Galileo) 300 pages to explain why things don’t have a nature (On the World Systems). There have been literally hundreds of papers and many books trying to explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. And even more on his special theory! But no matter. The handy quip regardless of author is what attracts VW.
But then, VW has no difficulty rationalizing and applying her wide assortment of principle-free standards to others based on her ideological preferences… preferences she has brought forward but made to exercise she believes due entirely to the fault of others… a secular version of Flip Wilson’s mantra.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d hardly call Wisp’s positions principle-free.
LikeLike
Compare yourself to Galileo and Einstein why don’t you, Mr Ego, instead of reflecting on the sound advice. You’re chatting on a blog post and not making much headway, not introducing a seminal idea. If you want to do some actual research on this I’d be interested to see if your wall of ranty waffle could pass peer review.
LikeLike
You use a cute quote, attribute it to Einstein as he is the one criticizing the length of my explanations, and then when I flip it around and remind you how much explaining at length was needed to understand his ‘basic’ theory you conveniently switch standards and pretend I’m the one trying to introduce and then compare myself to Einstein and therefore egotistical and arrogant, both of which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the criticisms I raise against your empty claim that religion and science are compatible.
You then claim my thinking is black and white when I argue there is an incompatibility in methods and, therefore, products that allows for no middle ground (for example and as I have explained without counter-argument from you, there is no middle ground between either evolution or creationism, either guided or unguided, either natural or unnatural, all demonstrating NO MIDDLE GROUND). Rather than try to demonstrate that a compatible middle ground does, in fact, exists, you switch standards yet again and pretend such a claim MUST be produced by pigeonhole thinking.
Good grief.
It is you, VW, who are not grasping the criticism I raise but are the one constantly switching standards away from the points I raise and, in its place, substituting my thinking that must be flawed because you say so, is flawed because of you say my personality is the problem, is flawed because I am the one relying on subjectivity of thinking method when the fact is that you demonstrate all of these factors time and time again. It’s time to wake up.
LikeLike
Your thinking is flawed and I think I’ve expressed quite clearly why, as well as providing you with a helpful style critique. I’m not surprised you disagree on both counts.
Indulge me. Say someone agrees with you. Religious people can’t think correctly because it’s impossible to compartmentalise methods and religion taints all their decisions. Is that right? If so, what’s your conclusion? In an ideal society would they be excluded from decision making roles such as political leadership? Do you somehow think that non-religious people magically make better decisions in life because they are rigourously applying scientific method to all their decisions? Because it seems obvious to me that all human thinking relies on guesswork, shortcuts and instinct. And we’re all hit by cultural bias, peer pressure and a million other factors that affect our perspective. The truth is that many religious people come to scientifically sound conclusions, and that many decisions we make we don’t have the ability (if it exists) to scientifically measure. So your assertion has no real world impact, beyond potentially discriminating against rational and sensible religious people. After all, we are all perfectly able to see the harm in specific harmful religious practices without even needing to know the inspiration is religion e.g. discrimination against gay people and women. And we all know many religious people who don’t have there practices. It’s actions that matter.
LikeLike
(Sorry, that was a bit rude, but try and have some perspective on yourself, your comments are sometimes interesting but the content can often be lost in the wall of self indulgent, unnecessary and patronising waffle)
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not the “explaining” that’s the problem, its the methodology used. It’s tildeb’s methodology that falls short. I typically have to copy his prose and then cut and paste to reorganise it into something comprehensible. Some of it might have something to do with being autistic, but I’ve noticed many others express similar concerns.
Although I’m an Aspie, I find Tildeb’s thinking too black and white, and he allows his emotions to attribute motives to others that I simply cannot see. Words such as “pretend”, “lie” and “smear” contain inferences that are difficult to avoid. Perhaps I’m being too literal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The so called “religious” model was once used in spheres other than religion, but I agree that its method has well passed its “use by” date.
Having said that, I can understand, if 3000 years ago, someone trying to model the cause of rain, or why and how the sun moves across the sky might form a hypothesis that involves an unseen mover/causer. Over time, the hypothesis became “fact”.
In some ways the history of dark matter models this. It was first “invented” at the beginning of the twentieth century as a possible explanation of why Stars did not appear to be evenly distributed. Today we have theoretical models that explain what it might be and how it might affect the visible universe, and the race is now on to prove that it actually exists.
As I see it, religious methodology goes straight from hypothesis to statements of “fact” without any intermediate stages.
When I look back at that event when I was 7 or 8, and how it still affects my understanding of the world today, I can appreciate how the perception of the event would be radically different had it occurred in a different culture and/or era. In all probability, I would have no doubt that a deity actually spoke to me.
As for me not being a ‘typical’ religious person, it really depends on where you look. Within liberal Quakerism, beliefs similar to mine are a dime a dozen, as they are within progressive Christian circles world wide. In Aotearoa, you can find many congregations, especially within the Presbyterian, Anglican and Methodist traditions that hold similar views.
Since the 1960s the Presbyterian Church in NZ has been constantly papering over the cracks to avoid a split between conservatives on one side and progressives and liberals on the other.
If you don’t live in Aotearoa New Zealand, it’s not easy to comprehend the influence that Sir Lloyd Geering has had on religious thinking here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Essentially the problem boils downn to two groups (broadly) making similarly worded claims that actually mean slightly different things, but neither really noticing that, which leads to people talking around each other.
Group A: Religion and Science use incompatible methods of discovering what it true about the world and from their methods often producing mutually excluse claims let’s say creation.
Group B: People who are religious or adhere to a religious tradition can accept any discovery from Science without no contradiiction to believing in a High Power or participating in a particular religious practice or belonging to a particular religious group.
The problem is there are two slightly different ideas of what compatibility means in the first place.
LikeLike
I agree. And Group B needs to wake up and recognize how pernicious is the effect of allowing belief in superstitious nonsense that they presume causes no incompatibility to then negatively affect the public domain and everyone who inhabits it.
LikeLike
I see no reason to assume that just because Group B is saying Science and Religion are compatible in so far as a person can be religiois or belong to a religious tradition and accept the findings of science, they can’t challenge others who fail to do this.
They can still recognize that some religious people don’t do this and even actively challenge the findings of science or that it is pernicious to promote Creationism in schools. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to hold that two positions are compatible depending on how the person understands each of these ideas, while recognizing not all FORMS of these ideas are compatible with each other.
LikeLike
Put on your foil hats! Creationism must be the most widespread conspiracy theory ever. It demands, that the entire scientific community – save few “creationist scientists” – is in cohoots to tell very complicated lies to the general public in order to refute one particular “true” religion. The thing about conspiracy theories is that conspiracies do happen, but the theories about them are less plausible according to how many people need to be involved. There are few conspiracy theories (exept maybe the flat earth conspiracy, or even the climate change conspiracy) that would demand such a large crowd of people to remain loyal to the conspiracy as the notion that evolution is a conspiracy by scientists against a particular religion. Besides, what is their motivation? Why do all these scientist, of all the people, whose very job it is to reveal and study the true nature of our existance be the ones who try to trick us? It is not like they would be out of their jobs as researchers if they revealed, that this one fundamental theory is actually bunk. Do they join in some secret rituals within universities and institutes to make a pact to withold the truth, or are they simply victims of false information, that somehow seems to fit their own research no matter what?
Such a nonsensical conspiracy theory must be somehow powered by the superstitions it is out to defend. It would really need a very powerfull magical entity to keep up this game of pretence, such as the Devil, but where does that put the alledgedly benevolent god then? One can hardly retreat behind any claims about the free will of people in this issue? Even if the story about a god given free will was true, it would not be a reason for any gods not to interveen on behalf of truth, would it? How could people who hold false beliefs about evolution (be those either way) possibly act according to any free will scenario and make the right choises, if their choises were clouded by false information? People seem to divert on the issue of evolution greatly based on where they are born and to whom. So, would a benevolent god divide people into false and correct beliefs by accident of birth? Oh, but alledgedly all gods have done that always, even long before the recognition of evolution. Two words: Tribal moralism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So maybe it is the devil Devil tricking almost all the world’s scientists? And maybe the god God has favourite places in the world he rewards with Truth and Salvation? I wish a creationist would pop by to let us know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it can be amusing when people bend themselves over and over to reach a conclusion they have such a strong preassumption, that the conclusion has to be what they have tied their identity to. But only when their predisposition is selfish or harmfull to others. If I have to look at a generous person of good will bend over backwards to defend their identity, be it how ever nonsensical, or based on superstitious woo, I find that quite painfull. Perhaps, sometimes my pain is a small price to pay for some good person to be able to rip themselves from the pyramid schemes of religion they have been lured into, but I am not sure.
Most of the religions in the world have and are being used for as excuses for bloody murder, torment and persecution. No matter how much love or sharing is at the core tenets, there always seems to be enough loopholes to do bad stuff and for a clever demagogue to guide the masses to do terrible atrocities. This applies not only to religions but also to most ideologies. There are plenty of secular ideologies, that are based on just about as poor understanding of reality as religions are. Tribal moralism and the right of one individual to exploit a nother seem to be the combining values for abuse of people. On the other hand, sometimes an empathetic person is able to bend the most horrific ideals and religious dogmas to aid people.
Ideals (like cars) are sold to us by their good properties, or by properties they do not have. Many a religion is being advertized as an answer to the existance of the universe or as a base for good morals, when none of them has any reliable answers to what caused the universe to exist, or an ethical moral model. Religions try to market themselves by being reliable on the virtue of unchanging dogma, when historically no such religion exists, that did not change when the surrounding culture changed. We have a good number of examples of religions, that decided, that since their panultimate truth can not be changed, so it is, that their dogma shall not change either. None of them exist any more. Most religions on this planet have however, disappeared as a result of religious violence. The polytheistic religions in the ancient Roman Empire did not disappear because people simply found Christianity somehow more appealing, but because Christians won the contest of who persecutes whom more. The Catholic chrurch then won the contest of who persecutes whom more against other sects of Christianity, but the contest has not ended. This is because new sects pop up all the time. When people are discussing the colour of the shite of unicorns, it is impossible for them to come to any one conclusion, like in the world of science where hypothesis can be tested.
Maybe it is some sort of devil tricking all the scientists and maybe the universe creating gods have some extremely good hidden reason to favour people born into particular areas of the world by providing them insight into their divine salvation work – wich is to say salvage them through a weird and morally debunk scapegoat system from eternal torment these gods have imposed on humanity, that the average Chinese mom somehow magically deserves for not believing an old and culturally alien story about an executed man. Is that not what the self appointed “leader of the free world” has been asking for ages when they ritualistically invoke their god to “bless America”? It is very hard for me to see any sense in these scenarios and frankly it takes a lot of effort for me to see how seemingly adult individuals fall for such obvious nonsense.
LikeLike
I always find it amusing as to how far theists will go to denounce evolution and by extension atheism. There seems to be an obsession at work that makes them more inclined to criticise/bash other ideas and belief systems, than to actually practice their own.
LikeLike
I guess they’re just trying to protect their territory. It’s under constant attack from pesky facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well we know how annoying facts can be!
LikeLike
Reading through the comment thread between Barry/Tildeb and Violet I would like to ask one straightforward question:
Exactly how are religion and science compatible?
Anyone feel free to offer their take.
LikeLike
Violet wrote in the OP:
The theory of evolution seems essentially logical to me, as it does to the great majority of religious believers in the world. Science, evolution and religious belief are by no means mutually exclusive.
Can a person have religious beliefs, be able to use science as a method and accept scientific findings, and accept the Theory of Evolution? I believe the answer to this is clearly yes supported by the fact that there are scientists who hold religious beliefs (even if a minority), many individuals who fit that description (people who are a part of various religions), and others throughout history who fit that description.
So they are compatible in so far as people who are religious or are part of a religious tradition are able to practice their religions while also accepting any discovery fostered by science. This doesn’t, however, mean it is compatible with all FORMS of religion (like fundamentalism).
LikeLike
Compatible only as far as compartmentalism will allow.
But as the saying goes: ”Ne’re the twain shall meet.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes.
Another is that often a person doesn’t see a contradiction based on their conceptualization of each topic. For example, if a person grew up in a religious tradtion that doesn’t think Genesis 1 – 3 are literal stories, so they don’t believe Adam and Eve were real people or that these stories are meant to be taken as literal historical descriptions of where animals came from then it’s hard to discern why they would necessarily have any problem accepting the Theory of Evolution.
It depends greatly on how a person conceptualizes their own religion.
LikeLike