Special note:
Hey! Have you donated to the Shannon Malloy Fund?
Update (Sept 15 2007): Donation button removed.
Note: I originally misspelled Ken Ham’s name. That has been fixed. He is, however, still an antiscience evildoer.
Y’all know how I feel about creationists. Yea, verily. So you can imagine how I feel about Ken Ham, a noted shill for antiscience, who has built the Museum of Creation in Boone County, Kentucky. And you can really imagine how I feel when I tell you it cost $26 million! We have science education centers in this country looking for spare change under the sofa cushion, and those liars have money getting shipped to them by the wheelbarrow full!
Several groups have planned a peaceful protest of the museum, including the "Rally for Reason", a protest for "…Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other non-believers — as well as religious, civic and educational organizations that support good science". I have said many times that it’s the religious people who should be protesting creationism the most — it’s the fundamentalists who are stealing their religion away from them in the public eye. The protest is Monday, May 28th, starting at 9:00 a.m. according to the article linked above (there is more info there, so go read it).
Needless to say, the creationist group Answers in Genesis, which is sponsoring the museum, aren’t happy with the protests. See if you can spot all the logical fallacies and untruths on that page. I’ll give you one for free:
When Dr. Scott and the NCSE claim that students who believe in a creation view will need remedial instruction in science, they are completely off base. A scientist’s perspective on origins has nothing to do with whether or not they can perform empirical research. Many great scientists of the past believed in a Creator. Increasing numbers of scientists today also affirm belief in the creation account in Genesis. These stand as a powerful testimony against their misguided claim of the need for remediation.
As an additional example, consider the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging system) which was invented by Raymond Damadian who is a strong creationist. Does this machine work differently because its inventor believed in a Creator? Of course not.
There are two problems with this reasoning. So, the inventor was a creationist. OK then, what did he base that invention on? Magnetism, and quantum mechanics. These are both scientific fields, and both of which, in every way possible, point to the Universe being older than 10,000 years. The decay rates of uranium, magnetic fields in stars (and pulsars), the magnetic field frozen in to the rocks of the Earth near the mid-Atlantic ridge, and on and on. So the inventor was able to use some fields of science to create a wonderful device (which has been used on me more than once, I’ll add), but was able to completely ignore all the other ramifications. Amazing.
The other part of this statement that’s wrong is using this as an example that brainwashing kids into creationism doesn’t stop them from great scientific advances. I will guarantee you that the man who invented the MRI was a very, very smart fellow (deluded, but smart). What proportion of the population can do stuff like that? A very tiny fraction. Using him as an example of the fine creationist science education is like the Lottery Commission holding up the 250 million-to-1 winner and saying "This could be you!" Sure, it could be. But it won’t be.
If we really just let them teach what they want, the vast majority of the kids cultivated into creationism would not be able to parse the science well enough to figure out they’re being lied to. We’re having enough trouble educating kids in science as it is.
Interestingly, the AiG page several times mentions that the National Center for Science Education — a group that fights religious fundamentalism in the form of creationism and ID from taking over our schools — is planning on protesting, but I saw nothing on the NCSE site. I’ll have to find out what they’re doing. I can’t make it, but any critical thinkers in the Boone County, Kentucky area would be most welcome.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Religious people are the ones who should realize more than any others that creationism is a pseudo religion. It is artificial and based on anecdotal interpretations of “sacred texts” for what are really unspoken political gains.
Just as pseudo-science exists in the forms of fake remedies, moon hoax beliefs or the misinterpretation of ruins as the work of ancient astronauts, so religion can have its equal share of hucksters. (The late Jerry Falwell was one.) Creationism has an ulterior motive. Deep down it is really about politics and political control of voters and future young minds. It is not a religion. If people can be molded to simply believe with certainty, and call it “faith” and give up on questioning and thinking, then they can be made to blindly believe in bad leaders and vile commands, no matter how irrational.
It is religion itself that has an opportunity to openly accept what science discovers, often dispassionately, even if such discoveries completely contradict our beliefs and understanding. Real religion has the opportunity to take joy in such things rather than embrace fear. Creationism places an ironclad dogmatic belief at its center and then tries to bend selected scientific facts around it. That is what reveals creationism to be a sham.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I know several science-type people who believe the universe was created by a Christian god. Two have PhDs in scientific fields. All believe god created the universe with the Big Bang, and let evolution and natural selection do their part from there.
So basically, creationist Christian != crazy creationist Christian.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Let me throw my usual wrench/spanner in the works:
Anyone who takes the Bible seriously is de facto a creationist. I fail to see how any serious Christian can not be a creationist. (I assume that Christian generally refers to someone who believes in the Bible.)
There is no such thing as a moderate Christian. The part of them which is moderate is not adhering to Christian doctrine. The part of them which is Christian is not moderate. They’re mutually exclusive principles.
For that matter, science and religion are mutually exclusive. People can be scientists only to the extent that they ignore the Bible. The fact that some creationists manage to survive as scientists is due to compartmentalization.
I’d like to see this subject finally brought into the open. Christians do not in general make good scientists and good scientists are not in general Christian (or any other religion). The number of fundamentalist Christians (that is Christians who believe the Bible according to what it actually says) who are good scientists is vanishingly small.
Feel free to disagree with me, but I am convinced that fundamentalism is at its lowest amongst the physical scientists.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Too true, LafinJack: I noticed how he conflated “belief in a Creator” with “belief in Creationism”, in an effort to win over “moderate” Christians.
Typical Cretinist dishonesty.
And while I’ve known for a while that Creationism is more political than religious, Chip’s second paragraph expresses that thought better than I ever could.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Christian, Catholics don’t tend to read the Bible, it is interpreted for them by the priests (at least that used to be the case when everything was still in Latin and Greek). It’s the protestants that tend to go with the “word of God”, and they often interpret the stories in the Bible as symbolic tales, ignoring all the gore and mayhem. That’s how most Christians today are moderate. It may not be a fully consistent position, but that does not make these people raving lunatics.
I personally know two very good physicists who call themselves Christians. I don’t share their believe system, but that does not mean I should call them bad scientists.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
PK. Believing in completely falsities doesn’t automatically make you a bad scientist, but it does make it more unlikely.
I too have met good scientists who have religious belief, but the incidence of religion amongst scientists is far less than in the general population.
Of course, it’s hard to separate cause and effect. It could be that a) people with religious views are discriminated against, b) people with religious views don’t make good scientists and/or c) people who become good scientists tend to discard previously held religious views.
However, I see no examples of religious views being beneficial to a scientist. They are always to the detriment. I agree that religious affiliation might make someone more content in their personal life- but I think that’s neither here nor there. Any social benefits from religion are not due to the scriptural texts themselves, they’re due to the fact that most religions require members to gather together in a church to perform worship. Similar benefits could be gotten from any social activity.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:30 am
To stage a protest outside the museum only results in giving free publicity to the museum. When covered by the media, the museum will get tons of publicity it would have not otherwise gotten and create a public spectacle of publc interest. Best to leave the fundies alone and just ignore them.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Christian Burnham, I’m afraid I have to disagree with these statements:
“Anyone who takes the Bible seriously is de facto a creationist. I fail to see how any serious Christian can not be a creationist. (I assume that Christian generally refers to someone who believes in the Bible.)
There is no such thing as a moderate Christian. The part of them which is moderate is not adhering to Christian doctrine.”
“However, I see no examples of religious views being beneficial to a scientist. They are always to the detriment.”
If someone considers themselves not to be a creationist but are still a christian, then that’s up to them. Usually it’s creationists who THINK they get to choose who is and who isn’t a “true christian ™”. Religious views may not be beneficial to a scientist, but it doesn’t matter as long as he/she doesn’t let them interfere with their work. The head of the genome sequencing project is christian, if I recall, yet he accepts evolution. I have no problem with anyones religious views as long as they don’t try to force them onto anyone else or try to force them into science classes. Fundamentalism is the problem, not religion.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Darth: The Bible has its own creation myth (Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden).
A Christian is a creationist to the extent that he/she believes in what the Bible itself claims about creation.
You can be a Christian and not believe in Genesis, but then, you’re clearly not following Christian doctrine with respect to that chapter of the book.
OK, so maybe a better definition of a Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. But again, all of the cosmological teachings attributed to Jesus do not hold up to a modern analysis. They are fundamentally in conflict with modern cosmology.
Well- maybe we could define Christian to mean someone who just has a deep appreciation for the moral teachings of Christ.
That’s fine, but this version of Christianity is not religious- it’s no different to someone who has an appreciation to Dumbledore’s morality in Harry Potter.
That the head of the genome project is a Christian is no more pertinent to the debate than the fact that some of the oldest people alive are life-long smokers. It simply doesn’t follow that smoking helps you live longer and it simply doesn’t follow that Christian belief has any positive effect on the ability to do science.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:21 am
“It simply doesn’t follow that smoking helps you live longer and it simply doesn’t follow that Christian belief has any positive effect on the ability to do science.”
Maybe so, but as I said, as long as their beliefs, whatever they are, don’t INTERFERE with their ability to do science, then there isn’t a problem. (shrug)
May 18th, 2007 at 3:14 am
BA: “Using him as an example of the fine creationist science education is like the Lottery Commission holding up the 250 million-to-1 winner and saying “This could be you!” Sure, it could be. But it won’t be.”
The National Lottery here in the UK used to use the phrase “it could be you” in its advertising campaign. I always felt that this was a particularly fine example of not-quite-lying-but-not-really-telling-the-truth, and would mentally add “…but it won’t be” whenever I heard the phrase.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:24 am
I don’t want to bash Raymond Damadian, but there’s a difference between inventing a new machine based on known scientific principles and doing basic research into those principles. Inventors are not necessarily scientists.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Christian, large groups of Christians have moved on from a literal interpretation of the Bible to a more sensible moderate one (in light of modern science). Yet they still call themselves, and each other, Christians. It is not up to us to define what “a proper Christian” is, it is up to them. So you can’t say “There is no such thing as a moderate Christian.”
May 18th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Christians do not in general make good scientists and good scientists are not in general Christian (or any other religion).
Sir Issac Newton
Lord Kelvin
James Clerk Maxwell
Verna Von Braun
Need I add more?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Sticks, I think the “in general” caveat protects against anecdotal evidence. So yes, you do need to add more.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:06 am
Sticks: I assume that the last name should be Werner Von Braun?
Verna Von Braun was Hitler’s wife’s evil sister, or so I think
May 18th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Thomas, you beat me to it!!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:40 am
We ARE talking about the state where Christian county is “wet” and Bouron county is “dry” – at least, they were. I haven’t been down there in quite some time, so I can’t say if all that has been straightened out.
I was born in Louisville, lived there until finally moving to NY so I know something about Kentucky. It certainly isn’t all right in the head, but it has it’s moments.
My uncle lived way down south in Cumberland county and taught me much about freethought and critical thinking. At least the entire state hasn’t gone whacko.
JC
May 18th, 2007 at 4:47 am
That “many famous scientists in the past were Christians/creationists” claim always exasperates me. (A) Many of the names are scientists who lived before Darwin; (B) several held unconventional beliefs and belonged to odd sects (Newton, Faraday); (C) they may have been “looking for God’s plan” when they investigated Nature, but they accepted the order they found as God’s plan, rather than junking the evidence based on their preconceived notions of what the Almighty had been up to.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Another little list
May 18th, 2007 at 5:09 am
I always find it fascinating when I read discussion threads about Christianity, religious fundamentalism, or the proper place of religion in e.g., the sciences, and I see people conflating Christianity with religion. Christianity represents the class of all religions with the same accuracy that Michael Melville represents the class of all pilots. That is, not very well.
I think I’d like to see people take care to make finer distinctions.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Hmm, successful/important creationist scientists… Ooh! Charles Darwin. Famous geologist – demonstrated that the Andes used to be seabed. Also wrote a moderately successful book on biology.
He started off as a literalist, in a time when that stance had largely been abandoned among serious thinkers. In the face of overwhelming evidence, he moved (reluctantly) to the view that better fit the evidence, i.e. that the universe was created by God with mechanisms in place to generate a wide variety of life.
As for Mr. Burnham, I am not aware of any passage in the Bible where Jesus requires his followers to believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament or most of his own teachings to attain grace. I may have missed it, though; being a lifelong atheist I’m not all that assiduous a student of the Bible.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:29 am
I would have loved to have left Dr. DeWitt(is that name an oxymoron?) a response, but I’m not into receiving propaganda from their site.
,,,but my response would have gone something like this,,,
Dr. DeWitt: I created the universe with a single equation. Should the day ever come when you understand that equation, THEN you may be capable of holding reasonable discourse with Me.
Signed:
God
,,,go ahead, PROVE Me a liar,,,
Oh, I am SOOO baaaad,,,
Gary 7
May 18th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Jrbl: I think I’d like to see people take care to make finer distinctions.
This is the Internets, Jrbl, good luck with that.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Christian Burnham: OK, so maybe a better definition of a Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. But again, all of the cosmological teachings attributed to Jesus do not hold up to a modern analysis. They are fundamentally in conflict with modern cosmology.
I’m unaware that Jesus had cosmological teachings. Could you enlighten me?
May 18th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Sticks, as far as your ‘little list’ is concerned, again, most of those names are prior to Darwin. The rest – did you notice that in no case does their contribution to Science proceed from creationism, but from accepting the world as it is, not how one would wish it to be? And did you happen to notice that in that list, there was only one Scientist whose work was in the biological field (Pasteur)? And as far as your list, check here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
That is another little list…
May 18th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Really, the point that seems to magically escape the fundies is that any example of a successful Christian scientist is always, not just sometimes, by way of the parts where they ignore the doctrine. Darwin in particular demonstrates this very well, as do the other examples. Their discoveries, all great, all beneficial, all wonderful tributes to the inventiveness and genius of mankind, were made in complete contradiction of their core beliefs, not just in a literal sense but even in a more allegorical interpretation. To the degree that they were good scientists, they ignored their faith – good for them. To the degree that they were good Christians, by pretty much any definition, they were bad scientists.
Believe me, I’m very thankful for their philandering and their thus achieved contributions. I wish they would have gone further, allowing them all to engage in even more successful and even more beneficial results. I’m thrilled that Christians on the whole ignore most of the teachings – living in Kansas as an Atheist would otherwise be quite a hazard to ones health (the bible is quite specific on what they are commanded, with threat of eternal punishment, to do to me and I gotta tell you it does not sound like a good time).
If people have to maintain some sort of belief on the side, not interfering in their actual real world work, then I suppose so be it. However, it seems like a very bizarre option. What needs to be shown isn’t “success by atheists” or “success by christians” – both of which do happen – but “success *using* one or the other”. Buying into a hypothesis isn’t just on a neutral basis but on a matching reality basis. Having “sideline” beliefs completely firewalled from the normal mode of rational thinking is perhaps possible, but seems to have no actual benefits and clearly some determents in polluting rational thought. *That* is the part that needs to get shown – the rationalists have, the creationists not so much, they mostly just take it to another level of abstract until nothing really means anything anymore.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:37 am
“I’m unaware that Jesus had cosmological teachings. Could you enlighten me?”
Since according to dogma, Jesus is God and God wrote the Bible, all the words in the Bible are His. For cosmological absurdities you can start with Genesis.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:30 am
OK, as my Jewish friends like to point out, the old testament was written by and for Jews, not us gentiles,,,
AS Jesue of Nazareth is reputed to have said, ” I am the Way. He that believes in me(ie, in his teachings about peace, love and brotherthood)shall not perish, but have life everlasting,,,”.
The way of new religions is to overthrow, denounce and demolish the previous popular religion. How Islam and Christianity came to rely so heavily upon the Jewish old testament is really just a comment on the inadequacy of the follow up writings, trying to acquire legitimacy by referencing a previous work of fiction,,,,er, I mean god given wordage,,,
People have been trying for millenia to sort out the best way to live with our fellow humans (and other critters). When pressed to justify their insights into proper, morale/ethical behavior, the fall back position is to say that god mandates this truth. To which the receiver of this knowledge usually says,”Oh! Well, that’s ok then,,,”
,,,very few wish to go against the imprecations of god,,,
Gary 7
May 18th, 2007 at 7:50 am
My list was not supposed to be about evolution per say or whether they had a literal interpretation of Genesis or not, but the assertion by Christian Burnham that good scientists can not follow a religious faith and they should all be atheists.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Daffy: Since according to dogma, Jesus is God and God wrote the Bible, all the words in the Bible are His. For cosmological absurdities you can start with Genesis.
Could someone answer my question without a false syllogism?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Sticks:
Good scientists could also believe that Harry Potter is the literal truth, but it would in general be to their detriment and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise.
I’m not out to convince people to be atheists, but I do suggest that belief in Zeus (for example) never helps and always impairs their ability as scientists.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:25 am
L. Ron Hubbub
Cosmology in the NT: Heaven above, hell below. People who lead a good life go vertically upwards to the realm of God and the angels. Bad people descend into a fiery hell.
To be fair- it does get pretty hot at the Earth’s core, but the NT has no conception of the infinities of space, of galactic formations, of stars being other suns etc.
I don’t particularly blame the writers of the NT. I’m just pointing out an inherent flaw in all religions. The idea that people should continue to believe a two millenia year-old text book as ‘truth’ is absurd.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:44 am
It is wrong of a religion to dictate science terms to science, and this justifies the criticism upon the museum. I also hope that science will not dictate subjective views upon religion.
Keep in mind, there are creation views that are not contradictory to mainstream science. It is misleading to suggest all creationists are against science regarding creation.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:44 am
PK: It is true that people are free to define ‘Christian’ in any way they want. I find it hard though to take it to mean anything important unless it specifically refers to someone who believes in the truth of the NT.
To the extent that a person believes in the cosmology of the Bible- that person is accepting a world-view in direct contradiction to modern cosmological findings.
I’m happy for Christians to take a less literal interpretation of the Bible and to accept it as metaphor and allegory. But, again, treating the Bible as a moral story isn’t any more a religious act than someone who likes the moral teachings of Yoda in Star Wars.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:48 am
“Could someone answer my question without a false syllogism?”
What is false about it? Then I will answer your question.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Gary, the problem for conservative Christian fundamentalists is that all the good stuff is in the Old Testament. I was brought up in the (liberal Christian) Methodist Church which essentially relies mostly on the NT for its teaching, so it was a bit of a surprise when I came to the US and found that the activist religious right basically ignores it completely.
Sure they mention Jesus often enough, but everything from sermons to political speeches are almost solely based on the OT–creation, Mosaic Law (and punishments), the Ten Commandments, etc. etc. They have successfully compartmentalized their beliefs. The NT is fine as a guide to your personal life and morality, but if you want guidance on how to govern a society–law, government, public morality, and the sciences–then the OT a good match for their world view, and hence the reliance on that testament.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Lists of previous scientists who made great discoveries and were religious fall flat with me for a lot of reasons. Here are the easiest to put into short statements:
1. Some of them also made money or gained favor by ‘predicting’ the future using astrology.
2. Back then, few people knew how ANYTHING worked. Searching for the ways things worked was thought to be a way to understand the creation.
3. Many religious sects back then had pretty harsh punishments for anyone who spoke against them. Admitting that you were an athiest (or even had doubts about religious teachings) didn’t help you win grants, or do much for your life expectancy. I’d be more surprised to hear about a scientist back then who wasn’t acknowledged as religious.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Christian, the “truth” of the NT can mean a lot of things, not just literal truth.
The simple fact that science works means that people have to somehow reconcile their religious views with it. Interpreting the Bible symbolically is then the obvious way out. That does not necessarily make these people believe any less, nor does it mean that they have a strictly logical, rational world view (that may well be impossible, I don’t know). It means that they adopt the rituals and stories of the religion of their parents and take it as “inspiration”, whatever that means.
It is an easy (albeit never ending) job to point out the fallacies of biblical literalists, and it is important too. They do lust for political power, and they are potentially harmful. You can say that these are the real Christians, but if you say that to someone who considers himself a moderate Christian, he will just ignore you. Surely that can’t be your intention?
May 18th, 2007 at 9:51 am
MRI was invented in the 1950s by Herman Carr. According to Wikipedia:
“Damadian formed his own company, FONAR, for the production of MRI scanners, and in 1980, he produced the first commercial one. Unfortunately for Damadian, his “focused field” technology proved less effective than Carr’s gradient approach. His scanner, named “Indomitable”, failed to sell. FONAR eventually abandoned Damadian’s technique.”
May 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Oh, boy. Every time this topic comes up, I am compelled to expound upon terminology. Some of you people are repeats, you should know this by heart by now.
“Creationist” does not equal “Christian”, nor does it equal “belief in God”. “Creationist” is a label about the mechanism of how God did it.
Unfortunately, for reasons of historical nature, the term “Creationist” was applied as the alternate to believing in Evolution. This juxtaposed two independent issues into one separation of terms. This unfortunate lumping of the issue has created much confusion.
The Scientific issue is the mechanism of how life developed. The two scientific options given are (a) instantaneously in essentially the current forms, or (b) developed over time from common ancestry and diversification.
The Religious issue is whether God was responsible.
It is entirely acceptable and possible to hold that God was responsible and that his mechanism was Evolution, and the processes discovered by science. However, by using the word “Creationism”, this unfortunately creates the false impression in some people’s minds that the issue is against all Christians or all God believers. This belief is fostered by the vocal Creationist organizations, in order to sway mainstream christians to their side. It is a false implication, but it is surprisingly common, as witnessed in this thread (see LafinJack).
Whenever you see the word “Creationist” or “Creationism” used, mentally replace it with “Biblical Genesis Literalist” or “Instantaneous Generation of Static Forms” rather than “believer in God”.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I just wrote a long and elegant reply to Christian Burnham which didn’t post when I submitted it. Oh well…
Meanwhile, Daffy, false in the sense that it dodges the issue of explicit cosmology in the teachings of Jesus.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
L Ron, me, too.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I just stumbled across a quote that might fit in here:
“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
– Isaac Asimov
May 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Irishman: Christians are creationists insofar as they believe what the Bible actually says about creation.
It’s hard to imagine how you can believe in the Bible and not be a creationist.
I don’t like creationists, but I do accept they are taking a more consistent view of their religion, whereas moderate Christians are forced into an endless theological contortions when they try to reconcile the Bible with reality.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
For those who are losing their eloquent and devastating replies to my nonsense.
Wait 20-30 seconds for the submit to work. Also copy and paste just in case of accident.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Irishman:”Unfortunately, for reasons of historical nature, the term “Creationist†was applied as the alternate to believing in Evolution. This juxtaposed two independent issues into one separation of terms. This unfortunate lumping of the issue has created much confusion.”
Nicely stated. This separation is also a polarization, and has been for much too long.
Besides the misapplication and generalization of the creationist term, it strikes me odd that so little interest exists in religion seeking help from science, or science offering assistance in interpretations alternatives.
I hold to a literal view of the Bible, at least for Genesis 1 & 2. I further agree with mainstream science, including evolution and astronomy. Most Christians who believe in God find evolution acceptable. Are these creationists? Am I not one, too?
Surprisingly, a religious “theory” exists that suggests compatability. What is not surprising is the lack of interest in it or an alternative; the polarizaion seems to blind the gravity of the claims.
Is it really that inconceivable to allow an ancient observer to claim the Earth “was without form and void”? Could an accretion disk under great illumination look like a body of water to this stunned witness? [What color is your sky?] It is not about proof, but plausibility. Why is more efforts in conflict and turf protection rather than in assistance?
May 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“Meanwhile, Daffy, false in the sense that it dodges the issue of explicit cosmology in the teachings of Jesus.”
Fair enough. We need to define our terms then.
a) Are Jesus and God the same person according to Christina dogma? (Careful with that one, though, since Christians claim–against all evidence—to be monotheists.)
b) Did God divinely inspire the Bible or not?
I am not being coy. I really cannot answer your question until I know we are using the same terms and meanings.
Thanks.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
It’s extremely discordant to read all these Christian-hostile statements coming from a man named Christian.
All right, so he’s not exactly expressing hatred of Christians in general. Nevertheless, they are exactly as intolerant of middle-of-the-road Christians as the fundies are.
I guess I should not be surprised that a polarizing issue ends up with both sides reaching for the same weapons.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I also find it impossible to agree with your statement that taking the stories in the Bible as non-literal unavoidably means that you are not treating the Bible religiously. There can be a religious impulse — indeed, there a perceived religious imperative — in following the moral teachings of the Bible. People act good *because* they wish to obey what the Bible tells them to do. That’s (part of) religion, no matter what you personally believe about religion, Christian.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Re: Irishman.
Thank you thank you THANK YOU… I came to this post to type out pretty much exactly what you did. Why is it always so hard for people to see that there’s two issues here?
“Belief in a creator” != “belief that the universe sprang up, fully formed, unchanging, as it always has been and always will be, etc.”
The people who believe the latter are anti-science. No denying that fact.. The people who believe the former, can go either way. The believe that there’s something out there that set up all the rules of this crazy system we’re in before letting it fly doesn’t preclude us from discovering as much about those rules as we can.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Ross: Unlike the fundamentalists, I have no interest on imposing my views on others.
I can be passionate about my views, but I’m not here to convert anyone.
BTW, it’s not very smart to draw any conclusions from my name. It’s pretty much the lowest form of wit.
———————————
I have no respect for people who perform good acts only because their religion tells them to do so. Logically, these people would be equally happy to perform bad acts if it’s in the same 2000 year old book.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
George: You cannot have a literal interpretation of Genesis and not be a creationist. The Bible has a very clear creation story, which you either buy or don’t.
Either people are apes that have a common ancestry with all other life-forms connected through an evolutionary tree- or they don’t. Either Mankind originated with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, or they didn’t. Whatever you believe- they are mutually contradictory origin stories.
I accept that it’s possible for someone to rationalize via twisted theological contortions that both creations can be somehow reconciled with each-other. This is absurd to me. I don’t see how black can be white and white can be black.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
ChrisB: Yes it’s possible to believe in a God who designed the laws of physics and then left them alone so that gravity, chemistry and evolution can do its work. That’s not however anything like the personal God of the Bible.
There’s not a scintilla of proof that such a God ever existed or continues to exist. Even if it did exist, there wouldn’t be much point praying to a God who obeys the laws of physics and can’t read the minds of 6 billion people.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
How many christians who also do science can quote chapter and verse from the bible (new or old)?
How many can give a coherant account of Jesus life and teachings?
How many believe in a literal hell?
How many can only claim to be ‘christians’ because it happens to be the faith they were raised in?
How many claim to be christians but retain solely the belief in the existence of something greater than the percieved reality?
Now, while you can make a case for these not being very devout christians, and certainly make a case for them being unscientific, you CANNOT make a case for them not being christians.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Christian: Yes. there’s not a scintilla (or an iota, or whatever your personal favorite “barely measurable unit” is) of proof that a god exists. There also is exactly just as much proof showing that one -doesn’t-. With no evidence either way, it can be argued either way.
You choose to live in a universe where there is no god. I choose to live in a universe where there is. My views on science and the laws o the universe are just as critical as yours, my theorys change when provided with new evidence. My universe just has an answer to the question “Why?” (the -really big- why. We’ve explained a huge number of little whys, but not THE why) which yours (to me, atleast) lacks.
Maybe I’m an odd case. I know I’m certainly not one of those fundie crazies. or a Bible Literalist. I can just see a perfectly valid Universe that has room for a supreme being of some flavor in it and yet still adhered to every known law of science (known to me atleast. I don’t know everything, and I certainly can’t speak for stuff I don’t know). And just as much as I hate to see crazy Anti-scientists running around from religious whackos, I hate to see anti-faith-ists running around basically saying “The universe has no point. Might as well just go off yourself now.”
May 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
The teachings of jesus are first, formost, and almost exclusivly about how people should relate to people.
There are several instances where his teaching was set in direct opposition to the old testament law.
I have met one or two ‘real’ christians whose knowledge of the old testament was non-existant; because the branch they belonged to felt his teachings rendered the entire old testament irrelavant.
In what way can ‘christian’ be considered as automaticly endorsing creationism?
May 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Christian Burnham, your constraints upon my views don’t work. I am more than familiar with traditional views and they are all based on interpretations within contexts that have not been enhanced with modern science. Reinterpretations are very uncomfortable for mainstream religions, but they are sometimes necessary in the light of extensive evidence. Galileo was right, not wrong.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
ChrisB: You seem to be on the borderline between worldviews. You’ve got a creator God, but after creation, he/she/it doesn’t do all that much and is happy to let the laws of physics do their thang. I don’t see that God has any connection to any of the main religions, nor do I see how that God answers any philosophical questions, such as ‘why’ the universe exists.
George: You didn’t answer my question- not that you have to. Is the Bible correct or incorrect that Mankind was born in the garden of Eden? I’m not telling you what to believe, but I’m mightily confused as to how so-called moderate Christians can reconcile religion with science.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:22 am
George says:
This makes no sense to me. First of all, by talking about an ancient observer you want to describe God in scientific lingo, but it fails: God is definitely not just an ancient observer. He is creator (in your world view). This sounds to me like you’re trying to give the concept of God legitimacy by borrowing terms from science.
Second, there is no accretion disk in Genesis (that much I know), so this immediately contradicts your statement that you “hold to a literal view of the Bible, at least for Genesis 1 & 2″. Literal means that when it is written six days, it happened in six days. As soon as you start stretching this, you are no longer a literalist.
Third, now your ancient observer is a stunned witness. That does not sound like anybody worthy of worship to me.
This is not about turf protection, this is about a coherent and concise description of the universe. As Laplace said to Napoleon about the need for God in physics: Sire, I did not need that hypothesis.
May 19th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Two things (pretty much unrelated to each other, but relevant to the discussion):
In the languages in which Genesis was originally written, the creation account was NOT written in past-tense, but in present-tense, implying that while God is the one doing the creating, it is an ongoing process, NOT a literal history story. (Not to mention that, in the original, “Adam” is correctly translated as “Man” and “Eve” is “Mother” implying not a History lesson, but a moral one, or as Paul says, “For we have all sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God”) Anyone who has held their newborn son or daughter can see a glimmer of the ongoing process of creation for themselves.
Second, if you really want to see the potential harm that believers in a literal religious text, coming from a Theocracy can cause, next time you are in New York City, take a close look at the skyline – notice a couple of buildings missing?
May 19th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Given two alternatives that explain that evidence equally well, you must pick the one that requires the least unfounded assumptions. This is a fundamental rule of logic known as Occam’s razor. It is one of the basic rules followed by science as well. A lot of people seem to know and support this rule but refuse to apply it to their religion. This is being inconsistent. If you support science and logic you support science and logic. You don’t pick and choose when to support it and when not to. You can do that, but if that is the case then you aren’t really a full supporter of science and logic. Instead you are supporting them when they are convenient but rejecting them when they conflict with your personal view.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I don’t believe in “Creationism” whatever that is. I believe in an all powerful supernatural Spirit Being commonly refered to as “God”. I also believe in “science”, God created the laws governing it. Physics, Chemistry etc. I do not believe in “evolution”. A theory developed by men, not God. I have no doubt that Mr. BA is quite astute when it comes to Astronomy. But when it comes to evolution, I regard him as the “blind leading the blind”.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am
James J. Murphy: You are just trying to set a new record in the number of comments on a single BA blog entry, aren’t you?
May 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am
The Black Cat: I’m well aware of Occam’s Razor. I’m also aware that it’s not really a “fundamental law” of logic, just a suggestion.
And, either way, chosing between “Well there’s all these different forces, and matter and dark matter and up quarks, down quarks, sideways quarks, triangle quarks, spins, flips, string theories, 30-dimensional theory etc etc etc” and “God did it, so nyah.”. the second actually seems like a much simpler theory to me when phrased like that.
(Note: Both of those examples are exaggerated to greater show the difference. I see this example as more of a Fundie’s view on things (not my own), which, if you take Occam’s Razor as a “fundamental law” of logic, then they are correct in choosing the latter. The latter requires them only to assume the existance of a god, while the former requires them to assume the existance of all these other things that they cannot see/touch/detect in any way that are the fundamentals of the real way the universe works as we know it so far.)
You can’t prove to me that a supreme being doesn’t exist. I can’t prove to you that one does. (Outside of purely personal experiences that would have no meaning to anyone other than myself, but are enough to convince me that there’s certainly -something- going on out there that we don’t know about yet.) I don’t see how my belief in something outside of the universe would make me any less of a scientist/logician because that view doesn’t contradict any evidence that any scientist can produce about how the universe works.
To sum up my really long winded comments: We all hate it when a Fundie tells us we have to believe in their god because that’s the way things work, even though they have no proof. Well, I hate it just as much when scientists tell me to NOT believe in a god because that’s the way things work, even though they have no proof either.
(P.S to Christian: My god answers the “why” though the act of providing something outside the universe. for there to be a point to this whole crazy mess. What IS the point? Who knows. But it gives me, personally, a reason to not just give up and go play in traffic because there’s no point to it at all.)
May 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
ChrisB:
Since quarks can be shown to exist in an observable way, yet god cannot be shown to exist at all, that kind of makes Occam’s Razor favour the scientific side, not the invisible, insubstantial, untestable, unprovable, sky spirit explanation in your example.
May 19th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I won’t even bother getting into all this theological neat-pickings of the Bible. But I just have to say a few things on Christianity. We Christians are NOT a unified whole, we’re all very very different people. Some prefer to adhere to the literal meaning of the Bible, some prefer to view it more open-mindedly. Some are Catholic, some Protestant, some Orthodox (like me).
I keep seeing this popping up “belief in the Bible is a basic doctrine of Christianity”. Well, like it or not, the basic doctrines (”tenets” is more appropriate) of Christianity are described in the Creed of Nicea (compiled at a time before the Schizm between Constantinople and Rome). Read it and you’ll what the basic tenets of Christianity are. That’s it. 20 or so lines describing that in order to be Christian you need to believe that God created the seen and unseen world (period, no embelishment) the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit and to believe in the resurrection of the dead. That’s it. Nothing about the Bible, nothing about priests and clerics and obedience to them. NOTHING. It’s really quite a beautiful text in its simplicity and clarity. It leaves little room for misinterpretation.
I can already imagine people saying they’ve never heard of a “Nicean Creed” or that they’re not Orthodox so they needn’t heed it. As I mentioned, this text was compiled when Christianity was still a mostly unified whole, but the best theologists of the era and I believe it DOES hold what Christianity is all about.
Now, to move on to the matter in hand; Creationism. I’ll be blunt. I’ve always considered it ridiculous beyond belief and especially coming out of a country like the US. I live in Greece, where Religious Education is in the curiculum of all grades of compulsory education and I regognize Creationism for the anachronism it is. More than 15 years ago, while I was still in Junior High, the theologist that tought Religious Education spoke in class the most enlightened words I had heard thus far. We were discussing religion and science that day and I remember her words vividly as if it were yesterday. A fellow student asked the well-known question about God creating the Universe in 7 days and Science saying the Universe was created in billions of years and her answer was the following:
“Science and Religion are not in conflict. It’s simple; Religion tells us WHO created the Universe and WHY, Science tells us HOW”
May 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Evolving Squid: *I* know that, yes.
Like I said, I exaggerated the two statements a bit to better show the difference.
The example was more to refute the “Occam’s Razor is a hard and fast and proven rule and you must follow it. Occam’s Razor says there’s no god. Therefor there is no god” line of reasoning, because “simplest” can mean different things to different people. A crazy conservative Fundie will see you proving the existance of quarks, a thing he can’t see, by using other things he can’t see and will use OR to say you’re wrong because your way is just too complex and relies on way too many assumptions (This is, of course, requiring the existance of a -logical- Fundie, which is a species I believe may be extinct, so it’s kind of moot anyway.)
I’m not telling anyone they have to believe in a god. I’m not telling anyone that there, absolutely, for certain, IS a god. Heck, even I’m not even sure on the matter. I just want people to stop telling me that there, absolutely, for certain, isn’t.
May 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
It disturbs me that ultimately the reason God exists is to provide the ‘Why’ to people who would feel a bit lost otherwise.
By similar reasoning, I believe that in ten years I will win a million dollars on the lottery. After all, if I didn’t, I’d feel a bit lost right now.
It’s weird that the Christians on this message board all have such refined views of Christianity. I give up. I accept that you can call yourself a Christian yet essentially not believe of anything much in the Bible.
I’m not aiming here to prove that God doesn’t exist. I’ve been trying to understand how Christians can not believe what the Bible itself says about creation. I’m trying to understand how it’s possible for any Christian to not be a creationist.
May 19th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
ChrisB: As Evolving Squid pointed out, you’re misusing Occam’s razor. It only applies when two explanations give sufficiently good explanations. The ‘God did it’ explanation is really no explanation at all. It just begs the question, and it’s not better than saying ‘the leprechaun did it’.
May 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Claims that James Maxwell was a creationist
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/jc_maxwell.asp
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2937
are a bit overblown. Here’s one of the best debunkings of these claims I’ve found:
http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html
Tom
May 19th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I just want people to stop telling me that there, absolutely, for certain, isn’t.
I am quite absolutely, for certain, sure there is no god/are no gods.
It would be a simple matter for a deity to reveal itself and put the whole issue to rest, whether it be to show up and smite the infidels en masse like the stories of old, or just simply torque up a few scientists by breaking the the laws of physics (here’s a particle… it’s not moving and it’s exactly here. Eat it Heisenberg!).
Wherever history has been recorded reliably, this simple proof has never occurred. There has been anecdotal evidence created long after the fact (like the New Testament), but never a reliable, on-the-spot accounting, even within societies noted for their anal-retentive abilities at record keeping (like the Romans, or the Chinese).
That such a powerful being could leave this doubt, especially when failure to worship such a being does, according to some literature, condemn the non-worshipper to eternal punishment in a lake of burning brimstone, is not exactly what one would expect of a caring creator.
People like to say that “God” gives the “why” of creation. Unfortunately, God doesn’t give the “why” God refuses to give irrefutable proof of its Holy existence and instead leaves the whole issue to imperfect interpretation by imperfect creatures.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is no deity and all the deity stories were made up… at first to answer questions that were unanswerable at the time. Later they were made up to help control a restless population and help order society in such a way that it would survive beyond tribal warfare. It’s been said that if you tell a story often enough it becomes true. I think that’s the truth of God myths.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Besides, if there was a God, he wouldn’t look like a bearded man from Northern Europe…
God would be some tentacled cephalopod… the true masters of the world.
Blessed be his Holy Suckers!
May 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“I hold to a literal view of the Bible, at least for Genesis 1 & 2. I further agree with mainstream science, including evolution and astronomy.”
George, this makes no sense.
What am I missing? Perhaps there is a problem with our understanding of the word “literal”?
May 20th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Hmm… I can see why most people here are confused with how “genuine” christians posting on this site are. Most of you still consider that belief in the literal meaning of the Bible is a prerequisite to be a good Christian. However, do you even know what the Bible is? Ok… it’s a book for starters. Divided in two large sections. The Old and the New Testament. The Old Testament (42 books if memory serves) is mostly an account of Hebrew History. The theological musings stop about after the Exodus (book 5?). The rest is history and some ethicoplastic accounts (Solomon’s Hymns, Ruth’s story, Job etc.). The New Testament (21 books) is the Gospel (4 books) and the rest is Letters of the Apostles, i.e. interpretations of the life and teachings of Christ.
It was established from very early in the history of Christianity that the Bible is not to be taken literally, but after Christianity began breaking up in smaller pieces, different denominations made different choices on the subject. It’s easy to put everyone in the same sack for judgment, but it’s erroneous.
The Orthodox Denomination never really held any literal belief in Biblical accounts (hence there were no examples of persecutions of scientists in the Byzantine Empire – nor Witch Hunts, thank God). The Catholic Church needed a little more time to get rid of it, but did so eventually for the most part (at least officially, though I bet there are still catholic clerics that might actually still believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible). The Protestants are a different case, since they broke up in so many pieces so quickly it’s hard to know who believes in what any more. For instance, I doubt German or British protestants believe in the Bible in such a manner, like their American counterparts.
My point is, that the scientific community needs to identify the enemy and the enemy here is not God in itself, but a certain people’s way of believing in Him. It’s unfortunate that they have managed to get their anachronistic voice heard so loudly, but THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. In the end they just have to be overpowered in screaming and protesting, because believe me, it’s impossible to overthrow their beliefs. Their ideas ultimately stem from the existence of God, something that cannot be disproved to their satisfaction. So, let’s start yelling back and claiming territory people. This is no time for subtlety. They’re waging a Holy War and we’re losing badly.
P.S. to Evolving Squid: The iconography of God’s Father-aspect is a touchy subject. I know he’s been regulardly depicted as an caucasian male of old age, but that’s still a subject that depends on denomination. As for Orthodox Christianity, we only depict Jesus and the Holy Spirit (pigeon) since only they were seen by human eyes. The Orthodox depiction of the Trinity is an icon of “Abraham’s Hospitality”, the Trinity being 3 Angels.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Special Answer for Christian Burnham’s post:
I have a tendancy to ramble in my posts, so I’ll make it clear for you.
” I’m trying to understand how it’s possible for any Christian to not be a creationist.”
It’s simple really. The literal interpretation of the Bible has been discarded by all major theologists as early as the 3rd century A.D. Period.
You should also note that the words of those theologists (called “Holy Tradition”) is on EQUAL standing to the Bible. There’s no hierarchy like, New Testament 1st, Old 2nd, the writings of Basil of Cessareia 3rd etc. It’s all one unified whole. The Orthodox and Catholic Church abide by this. The Protestants do not. As simple as that. (I won’t say there are no exceptions to this, but for the most part it’s accurate).
Let me state it again:
The literal interpretation of the Bible has been discarded by all major theologists as early as the 3rd century A.D.
I hope this puts your mind at ease. Yes, you CAN be a faithful Christian and NOT be a creationist.
May 20th, 2007 at 3:31 am
EvanT: Then you consider the Bible to be on a par with Lord of the Rings? Just a fantasy that is open to interpretation?
You do admit to belief in the resurrection of the dead. Do you have any proof whatsoever for that? It’s clearly not consistent with modern biology, or evolution. (For evolution to work, it requires that dead things to stay dead.)
I’m not sure that I find your beliefs any less ridiculous than someone thinking the world is 6000 years old. It is absolutely biologically impossible for a corpse to come back to life.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Here’s an interesting quote from Maxwell:
But I think that the results which each man arrives at in his attempts to harmonise his science with his Christianity ought not to be regarded as having any significance except to the man himself, and to him only for a time, and should not receive the stamp of a society.
That is from a letter in which Maxwell was declining membership to Victoria Instittute, a ‘think tank’ which had been set up to “bring together scientists and others in defending scripture and religion against the findings of science” – sort of like the Discovery Institute, although how the DI could be termed a think tank is mind boggling at best.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:53 am
W.T. Bridgeman, thanks for that link. It is an excellent, well written (though badly spelled) article. I particularly like the quote towards the end:
For those who are interested, here is the wiki page on the Nicene Creed. I agree with Christian that it is no more truthful to reality than LOTR, but it should also be clear that the cultural impact of the Nicene creed far outweighs LOTR. This does matter when we discuss their respective importance in world history. It is therefore not really helpful to equate basic Christian dogma to the plot of a second rate work of fiction.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:41 am
“It’s clearly not consistent with modern biology, or evolution. (For evolution to work, it requires that dead things to stay dead.)”
While I am in no sense a Christian, I do find Von Neumann’s Chain to be endlessly fascinating on the subject of persistence of consciousness. Not evidence per se, but I have never seen any argument that effectively refutes its logic. A google search will bring up lots of articles on the subject.
May 20th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
PK, the fact that the Bible has more of a cultural impact than LOTR or Harry Potter can be put down to religions being a self-propagating virus.
Maybe there’s some artistic merit to parts of the Bible, but Harry Potter (for example) has a much better plot than the Book of Mormon, or the Quran or Dianetics.
In short- cultural impact of religious works doesn’t have that much to do with literary worth.
May 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
LOL! I’m not dissing Harry Potter, I’m dissing LOTR!
May 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
[...] Bad Astronomy argues that teaching creationism and having a museum devoted to it is harmful to children. [...]
May 20th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
To Christian Burnam:
“Then you consider the Bible to be on a par with Lord of the Rings? Just a fantasy that is open to interpretation?”
I fail to see your point here. You seem to be theorizing on the precept that the Bible is either a book to be taken literally, or a piece of fiction to be openly interpreted? So, you outright deny the possibility of a middle way? i.e. a book that has been written to reveal truths, but had them concealed in allegory and terms so it would be understandable to people 3000 years ago as well as today?
I have to admit I hate to be put in a position to say “If I were God, I would…”, but really, the first parts of the Bible were written 3000 years ago and were meant to be read by the people of that time. I can see it already; “C’mon Moses… God evolved us from the apes after billions of years of galactic evolution… Hell, where’s the nearest temple of Isis”
“I’m not sure that I find your beliefs any less ridiculous than someone thinking the world is 6000 years old. It is absolutely biologically impossible for a corpse to come back to life.”
True, biologically it’s impossible for a corpse to be returned to life at this point. But whoever said that the resurrection of the dead had anything to do with biology?
Regardless, the whole problem has arisen from the simple fact that the Bible is a theological text and was never meant to be used as a basis for scientific development and judging it (and CANNOT be used as one). The opposite is also true. A scientist cannot mess around with the Bible either because he simply isn’t equipped to do so. It’s like giving someone an electron microscope and asking him to take a picture of the Andromeda Galaxy. It’s an inherently impossible task. Science and Religion are two worlds apart and completely incompatible. The Ancient Greeks did the mistake of mixing Physics with Philosophy and it cost them (and all humanity) an earlier understanding of the principles of the Cosmos. It’s silly to waste resources on an issue that is inherently impossible to solve.
Science cannot disprove the existence of the Divine, since it defies scrutiny under its methodology and cannot be convinced of its existence for the same reason. Stalemate.
Instead of all this crap of teaching kids Creationism, the world would be a much better place if everyone would be taught to learn to separate in their minds Religion and Science. There’s not a thin line between, there’s a whole chasm!
May 21st, 2007 at 1:10 am
Need my net fixed, missed all the fun over the weekend.
James J. Murphy:
“I do not believe in “evolutionâ€. A theory developed by men, not God. I have no doubt that Mr. BA is quite astute when it comes to Astronomy. But when it comes to evolution, I regard him as the “blind leading the blindâ€.”
And our Jimbo’s back! But he’s not talking to me anymore, apparently. Oh, well. Since Jimbo’s level of science education is perfectly evident to everyone here, perhaps someone (who isn’t a fundie theist OR atheist) would be kind enough to ask him for me why you can’t believe in both God AND evolution? Perhaps they could also ask him what exactly makes him qualified to be critical of Phil’s (or anyone else’s) science knowledge, when he himself is obviously uh, not qualified? Thanks.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:25 am
EvanT
It seems theologically pointless to regard the Bible as written in surrealistic allegory rather than in a straightforward manner.
Do you really imagine a God who has the same writing style as ‘Blonde on Blonde’ era Dylan, in which no-one can really understand what is being said?
Shouldn’t you feel a bit sorry for the creationists who have fallen into the trap of actually taking the Bible at face value?
There’s a reason why science books aren’t generally written in surrealistic metaphorical poetry. That’s so people can have a hope of understanding what the book is actually saying. OK, so you don’t believe the Bible is a science-book, but wouldn’t it have saved a lot of time if it had been written in a straight-forward manner? Might have saved a few million people dying in religious conflicts as well.
Do you also think the 10 commandments are allegory and metaphor? Or only the ones you don’t like?
—————————————————————————————
You have given me absolutely zero indication of why you believe that corpses can come back to life, except that you perceive it to be part of being a Christian.
If you’re going to believe things for no apparent reason whatsoever, then why not go the whole hog and become a creationist? In what way is your belief in corpses rising from the dead any better than believing in a 6000 year old Earth?
May 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
To Christian Burnham:
—————————–
First, I must note that your attempts at ridicule only downplay your actual arguments, so you might wanna try to avoid them or tone them down in the future.
Now…
“It seems theologically pointless to regard the Bible as written in surrealistic allegory rather than in a straightforward manner.”
This line of arguing puts me in a position to put myself in God’s shoes and tell you what I’d do if I were Him. I’ve already mentioned I hate doing that. However I can say this: From a theological point of view these texts weren’t written by God himself, but inspired to humans. Orthodox mysticism claims that a human joined with God retains his personality and free will; he doesn’t become a puppet attached to divine strings. So, it can be argued that the Bible isn’t a dictation, but an interpretation of the Divine through human eyes. I know you won’t scream in excitement over this argument, but it’s the best I can draw from my limited knowledge on the subect.
“Shouldn’t you feel a bit sorry for the creationists who have fallen into the trap of actually taking the Bible at face value?”
Yes, yes, yes… but there comes a time when we have to accept the fact that it’s unlikely they’ll listen to reason, unless it comes from the mouth of a priest or archbishop. I DO also find important that all people critical of Creationism should study at least some basic Christian theology. I doubt any serious Creationist would have a change of heart listening to scientific evidence being quoted.
“OK, so you don’t believe the Bible is a science-book, but wouldn’t it have saved a lot of time if it had been written in a straight-forward manner? Might have saved a few million people dying in religious conflicts as well.”
Yes, I personally think it would, but since it isn’t, there’s not much point in discussing this further. Also, the Crusades (I trust THAT’s what you’re referring to?) had political causes and religion was merely an excuse, so they might still have happened, Christianity or not.
“Do you also think the 10 commandments are allegory and metaphor? Or only the ones you don’t like?”
Just for the sake of clarity I should state that the Orthodox Church significantly downplays the 10 Commandments in favour of Christs 2 Commandments. The Catholics and Protestants rely more heavily on them, I think. And no, the 10 Commandments obviously are straight-forward, but I never claimed that 100% of the Old and New Testament are written in allegory.
“You have given me absolutely zero indication of why you believe that corpses can come back to life, except that you perceive it to be part of being a Christian.”
Since the Resurrection of the Dead is one of the most basic Christian Tenets and since I cannot possibly offer any evidence of corpse reanimation (especially if the corpse doesn’t even exist anymore) I’ll agree that I can only accept it as part of being Christian.
“If you’re going to believe things for no apparent reason whatsoever, then why not go the whole hog and become a creationist? In what way is your belief in corpses rising from the dead any better than believing in a 6000 year old Earth?”
Aaah… there’s a huge difference between these two. I have no proof to offer that a Resurrection is possible (other than anecdotal biblical sources) but I HAVE been offered proof that the Earth IS older than 6.000 years old or that the Universe up to the emergence of Homo Sapiens wasn’t created in 7 days. When it comes to Resurrection I’ve been given no proof that it’s impossible, even though it is of course unfeasible at this point in time.
I know I’m stretching this, but today Medicine can revive a man up to 30 minutes after a medieval doctor would have declared time of death. Perhaps in a millenium or so we might achieve techniques of reviving the dead (cloning and memory imprinting -I watch too much SciFi in case you haven’t noticed). BTW, this isn’t an actual argument for the Resurrection of Dead (since it’s downright ridiculous). Call it “Plea to Ignorance”. We can’t do it, but perhaps it is possible.
Bah… I should have probably erased the last paragraph, but it’s kinda funny, so I’ll leave it at that.
A final word. One of Christ’s disciples was a critical thinker; he needed proof that Christ had risen and he was given it. I elect to take it as a sign from the Divine that Christians should always keep searching.
*tosses the ball back to you*
May 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
[...] peaceful protest is planned, as I wrote about recently. But we need more than that. Eugenie Scott, who is the head of the National Center for Science [...]
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
I don’t respond to Darth Robo as his previous comments about me on a different blog were quite ridiculous and had nothing to do with reality. Not worthy of a response. I don’t regard “evolution” as a measurable and a repeatable “science”, qualities ascribed to physics and other fields of scientific knowledge necessary. To me “evolution” is not “science” but “science-fiction”. I suppose I’m waving a red flag in front of the bulls!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am
Jimbo said:
“I don’t respond to Darth Robo as his previous comments about me on a different blog were quite ridiculous and had nothing to do with reality.”
Well, that’s his opinion. Everyone else (if they’re even interested) can have a good laugh at our ridiculous exchanges here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/03/12/a-non-theist-in-congress/
“I don’t regard “evolution†as a measurable and a repeatable “scienceâ€, qualities ascribed to physics and other fields of scientific knowledge necessary. To me “evolution†is not “science†but “science-fictionâ€.”
Once again he’s expressing his opinion, which of course is just that – his opinion. As we’ve both noted, Jimbo’s not talking to me, so perhaps (again) if someone would be kind enough to ask him for me why you can’t believe in both God AND evolution? Perhaps they could also ask him what exactly makes him qualified to be critical of Phil’s (or anyone else’s) science knowledge, when he himself is obviously uh, not qualified? Thanks.
“I suppose I’m waving a red flag in front of the bulls!”
Actually, in light of the Dover decision, I think a white flag in the face of a superior opponent would be more appropriate.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
To Christian Burnham:
Please don’t use straw man arguements. The issue here is not whether Christianity is the one true faith. Also, please don’t divide Christians into either bible-thumping fundamentalists or closet agnostics.
Now, I’m just a Protestant, but I think this holds true for the other denominations, as well. We don’t believe the Bible was “written by God”, we believe it was written by divinely inspired men. As such, it is no heresy to read the beginning of Genesis as a metaphor, since the writer was limited by his human nature. The Bible is indeed open to a degree of interpretation, and that interpretation has been rigorously debated for many centuries.
Also, rewriting Genesis would have done nothing to have “saved a few million people dying in religious conflicts as well.” Using such inflammatory comments makes me worried that your emotions are overcoming your reason, the most prized possession of any scientist.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:10 am
“As such, it is no heresy to read the beginning of Genesis as a metaphor, since the writer was limited by his human nature. The Bible is indeed open to a degree of interpretation, and that interpretation has been rigorously debated for many centuries.”
Fundie theists and atheists alike, take note. Especially you, Jimbo.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I have determined the best policy regarding Darth Robo’s comments is to ignore them. Let him blowhard!
May 24th, 2007 at 8:21 am
And I have determined that the best way to show that a fundie’s position is uh, nonsense is to ask them to back up their claims. Keep ignoring my questions Jimbo. Makes no difference to me. (shrug) Your non-answer is very eloquent in itself.
I know you don’t understand why your opinions don’t count for much. Perhaps they would if you would uh, back up your claims. Or admit that you may be in error or aren’t really qualified to give us anything but your unsubstantiated opinions. Up to you, fella.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:54 am
J. Howell:
OK, so the Bible is metaphor (when you choose it to be). But so is ‘Alice in Wonderland’.
If the writers of the Bible were indeed ‘divinely inspired’, why didn’t God give them a little more of a clue as to the nature of the universe? It wouldn’t take much to convince me– something like a table of physical constants at the beginning, with hbar to 12 decimal places would suffice.
It’s really the same excuse the mediums give- yes I can talk to the dead, but unfortunately I can only communicate in flowery and vague language which is open to numerous interpretations.
Are you denying that religious conflicts have arisen over interpretations of their respective religious texts? Sunni and Shia, Protestant and Catholic?
Lastly, sorry for not being completely drained of emotion. I didn’t realize that you had to be emotionless to have a respected opinion.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
You know, just once, just ONCE in one of these discussions, I would like to see SOMEBODY take notice of the Vatican Observatory.
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html
Then maybe we can cut past all this “You can’t believe in God, be a serious Christian, and still do professional level astronomy” bilge.
And Christian, when you ask “If the writers of the Bible were indeed ‘divinely inspired’, why didn’t God give them a little more of a clue as to the nature of the universe?” maybe it is because you misunderstand why God caused the Bible to be written, and who it was being written for.
The purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to achieve eternal salvation. It is not supposed to teach you about the nature of the physical Universe, any more than the manual that came with your new laptop is supposed to teach you how to pick up women, cook a pot roast, or pack a parachute. Your criticisim is invalid and unfair. I could just as easily say that Darwin’s writings are invalid because the Origin of Species doesn’t have any good information on how the making of cheese fondue, and that Newton is obviously false because nowhere in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica does he discuss the manufacture of the delecious fig cookies that bear his name.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Larry:
Rubbish.
The Bible goes into great detail regarding elaborate cosmological explanations for the universe. It’s clearly not intended as just a moral guide.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:29 am
BTW people, Burnham’s “great detail” is 50 lines of text in the beginning of a book of 1000+ pages.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
EvanT:
Genesis is only part of the cosmology of the Bible. Don’t forget the book of revelations. Don’t forget all the talk of heaven and hell.
Take a look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm
Don’t blame me if you don’t understand your own religious text.
Besides, it doesn’t matter much what proportion of the Bible is devoted to cosmological writings. However much it is, it is all wrong.
May 30th, 2008 at 6:00 am
I’m really getting tired of all this broad stroking and labeling, and tired old arguments on both sides of this issue.
There are so many facets to this argument and it just amazes me someone can present one debunking of one point and therefore scratch the entire subject as debunked.
There are so many flavours of creationist and hence different creationist beliefs, that it just becomes non workable to just debunk one point from one set of creationist beliefs and think you have debunked it all. For example, constant hammering of the argument that creationists think the Earth is 6000-10000 years old is tired and useless when many creationists (OEC) don’t even agree on that. Many agree with 4.5 billion years. It’s almost the same as when creationists use their tired old anti-science arguments. It’s repetitive, moot and annoying. Focus on an argument that they all share commonality with.
One needs to define the type of creationist they are referring to before debunking a point, eg: YEC OEC TE etc, because assuming that they all even share a belief in the point being debunked is neither correct nor in line with all availiable facts.