Chris, these are all red herrings. You leave out the historical, the human, the fact that the belief in God is not the same sort of belief that a belief in a living Elvis is. Look, science can explain a great deal. Reason can explain a great deal. But when we leave ourselves at the mercy of our own isolated reason, and throw all semblance of tradition or history, or culture to the wind on the basis that they are rooted in things that cannot be explained, we also cast off something inextricably human in the nature of belief, or in our search for the divine, the sacred, whichever. This is not the same as belief in the FSM. Once upon a time, people did believe in Zeus, it's true. And in that historical context, that belief had a great deal of societal value. If someone were to believe in Zeus now it would seem funny because it would deny the historical ties, the deep-rooted cultural ties, and so forth that separates the Christian (or Muslim etc.) God from those ancient gods. This is the problem with modern druids as well. There is actually very little historical data, and absolutely no generational traditions tied to druidism, only the invented druidism of the 19th century which guesses at the original rites and practices.
Of course, that's fine with me. Again, faith is faith, no matter how silly it might seem to some. Part of faith is the practice of it, and no matter how implausible one may view God, the traditions, the practices, the prayers associated with celebrating whichever tradition are real, tangible things. They give people sustenance for that other implausible thing: the soul.
2009-02-09 05:53:48
Tim,
Fine, it's arbitrary. I'm not sure what your point is. I personally find the notion of teaching religion instead of science in a classroom semi-diabolical. However, I find no incompatibility between God and evolution, nor do I think the workings of the two need be in the form of intelligent design, which is shallow in that it accepts God's hand in creation, pretends to accept God's hand in evolution, and then rather sneakily denies all the basic mechanisms of evolution. I see the natural world and believe that there is the hand of God in it, but not in some humanly constructed way, but in the way it actually is. Evolution is evolution. Biology is biology. That all of it comes from God does not diminish the actuality of its workings. And there's the difference between me and the ID crowd. Call it what you will, I really couldn't care less.
Chris--you're preaching a fairly standard atheistic evangelism here. Yes, of course it's all very implausible. Then again, so are any countless number of things in this world. This world is implausible. Civilization as we know it is implausible. A virgin getting pregnant is, too, but if you accept that there are acts of God, that God does work in people or events, etc. etc. than it is not really important whether it is implausible. Which is essentially what you already knew I'd say. Then you write:
And that is why religion is a bad thing. That is why the atheists write their books.
Which is where you lose me. That's why religion is a bad thing? Because it eschews reason for other things? Because it makes little sense to try to convert others to your own implausible faith/myth?
Listen, there is more to all of it than this. There is more to it than a virgin birth or the resurrection or any of that very un-scientific, unlikely stuff. But as I've said, I'm not the missionary type. I believe quite simply in the personal practice of whatever faith you choose, or lack thereof. I don't believe in hell or damnation. I don't believe in eternal exclusivity. I have no reason, nor do I see any reason to seek out converts to what is quite plainly my own personal belief.
But in a brief way, there is in my view of the world, something else that exists beyond the rational, reasonable, plausible, straightforward, scientific, plotted out universe. There is some implausible other. Perhaps it is just my mind playing tricks on me. Perhaps it is just the conditioning of the ages. I'm not sure. And quite frankly, I don't care. I've been down the road of the atheists, and sat on the fence with the agnostics. I've studied Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, the Sufi poets; I've read the atheists and the conversion stories; I've pondered plenty. I've dropped acid and smoked pot and done a few other things I'd have been better off without. I've been around this block and that block and done my research.
And in the end, well, I go the way that gives me peace and contentment. There's really no debating this issue, in any case. In the end we all make that choice, whether it leads us down the same path or not. We gravitate toward what's calling us, however implausible our own will'o'the'wisps may be....
2009-02-09 03:44:46
Chris Bell--
Indeed, I would consider myself in terms of religious views a "liberal" Christian, though I think Christianity itself is best viewed as a sort of "liberal" and liberating religion. It can most certainly be used as a far more destructive thing, of course.
Regarding the virgin birth--well, religion requires leaps of faith, no? Such is the nature of the beast, as it were. So yes, I do believe in the virgin birth, though who honestly knows? It's possible that God worked in some other manner. It's possible she was impregnated in some other fashion and that somehow the soul of Jesus was simply infused into the child of Jesus. Anything's possible.
Regarding our mideast policies, I fail to see the connection. Our mideast policies are wrong-headed for any innumerable reasons, but the virgin birth should certainly not factor into our foreign affairs. A study of history, especially that region's history should suffice to dissuade us from further military foibles in that arena.
2009-02-09 03:39:32
Tim --
I'm sure you think your little riposte is very clever, too, but let me tear it apart for you.
First off, the reason intelligent design is a "human" notion is that somehow they think that God must work in human ways to create existence as we know it, not for a moment stopping and thinking that perhaps God works in ways infinitely more complex than we can even imagine.
Second, I did not, in fact, state that God was "clever" in the human sense. I said I thought it much more clever to devise a system such as evolution by which to implement the universe. And, as we can agree that this is how the universe (or at least the biological universe) functions, through evolution, I'd say we can agree that if there is a God, such method is much more ingenious than a constant "intelligent design" by which the steady and ubiquitous hand of the creator is kept always at work, which is what the ID folks believe. They propose that evolution does not in fact work by random selection or any of that, but rather through a guidance system.
So how is that I'm saying exactly what the ID people say? For one, I don't believe for a second that God or any intelligent or creation story should be taught in schools. I think only the science should be taught in schools. Creation etc. etc. is a subject for Sunday school or theology seminars.
So I have to write off your comment as a quibble over semantics. I stated that an action was "clever" and you immediately suppose that I am anthropomorphizing God. I believe in creation through evolution, and you reveal that you have no sense of the distinction between that concept and the concept of Intelligent Design.
Quibble away, quibble away...
2009-02-09 03:01:18
Cello--
Kain, perhaps you mean something different than I do when you say you believe in evolution. So let’s get more specific. Do you and your Christian friends believe in the common ancestry of all life? Do you believe, for instance, that humans share a common ancestor with the apes?
Is there some other kind of evolution that I haven't heard of that I could possibly be confusing this with? If my memory serves, evolution was "discovered" by a Christian, Charles Darwin, was rather more fleshed out when notes of a certain German Monk (Mendel) helped explain how it worked, and has been pursued and honed by Christians and non-Christians alike ever since.
And yes, apes are common ancestors, and so is primordial sludge. See, it's quite frankly compatible in every manner with religion. Science, to my mind, explains the function of the universe, but not the why, nor the origins. It's like looking at the engine of a car, studying the manuals, learning all about how it works etc. and then saying that because we know all of that there can be no engineer that designed it. Or contra that, it's like saying "There was an engineer, and that's all there ever was! The car was not built, it simply came into being when the engineer decided it should!"
And no, I also don't support the ID folks. They'd demean the beauty of natural selection by infusing it with the very human notion of intelligent design. Quite frankly, I think the method God has chosen (random selection, survival of the fittest, all that...) is far more clever than the shallow claims of the ID purveyors.
And yes, even my ultra-conservative Catholic grandmother believes this. But I know many Christians don't, and it's a shame...
2009-02-04 15:08:45
clamflats:
Some folks care enough to publish a 5 part blog series devoted to the question.
If you think that's what this series has been about then you haven't read very closely.
2009-02-03 19:59:35
Great, now the hosts are breaking Godwin’s law. Good work.
Andrew, look, for every analogy or tale of the evil's of religion, someone can find a counter. Same with science. Science also lead to the bombing of Japan at the end of WWII. Science is an empty vessel, and can be a dangerous weapon without some sense of morality to guide it. Religion can also be twisted to justify horrible things.
And this is the point. Religion, science, all of these aspects of what it means to be human...they mean nothing until humans guide them forward. They have power to do great good or great evil.
And by the way, that wasn't really breaking Godwin's Law. I wasn't using a Nazi analogy. I was pointing to an example of science being used to do harm. I wasn't likening someone to Nazi's--certainly not evolutionists. I am an evolutionist.
This is a blog that accepts all viewpoints and we're not against passionate debate, but you're entering territories that cross the bounds of civil debate. Your opinions are welcome, but your outlandish accusations and personal attacks are not. Think of this as your one and only warning to stick to our policy.
Thanks.
2009-02-03 19:02:13
Andrew, the Nazis used Darwinian theory to promote their pure race ideology and "science" and science itself is a tool that can be used for good or ill, much like religion.
2009-02-03 18:06:55
The Discovery Institute is a fringe organization and in no way represents the vast majority of modern Christians. Once again, matoko, you paint in the broadest of strokes, eschew evidence in favor of your own bloated opinions, and fail to see the larger picture because you have such a very set vision of how you perceive things to be.
2009-02-03 17:54:08
"Expelled" was an idiotic "documentary" and Derbyshire's critique of it was spot-on. That said, most of the Christians I know (I think ALL of the Christians I know) believe in evolution and do not want to see creationism taught in school.
2009-02-03 16:53:36
Andrew,
So what's the point? So people believe things that have consequence. Everything has consequence. Stalin was an atheist, right? Was it his belief in power and his lack of faith in a power higher than himself that lead to his madness and murder? I don't know. Belief or lack thereof has consequence, and to each individual or situation that changes. Who says that belief in God is any more detrimental than the loss of that belief? We are in muddy waters assigning such certainties to such unquantifiable data. I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in school, but far more opposed to the idea that somehow we need to snuff out that viewpoint. There is such thing as the rule of law, and our particular laws should protect us from creationism, and protect our church's as well from the secularism of the State.
2009-02-03 15:59:25
Mark, this:
But similarly, science demeans itself when it used as a proof of the non-existence of god. Science is not meant to provide unfalsifiable answers, nor is it intended to answer questions that can only admit of unfalsifiable answers. To do so is to turn the scientific method on its head. And in so doing, science demeans itself because it loses part of its very essence.
...is brilliant. Indeed, I often feel the same when religious types try to push religion overtly into legislation, that it demeans Faith. Same with science in the context you use here.
And to the rest of you, nobody here is preaching anything other than there is no point in proving or disproving God's existence. I don't see any of these posts as apologetics for Christianity or the Christian God at all. Maybe I'm missing something. It's funny though, the one thing that seems to bother people the most is proselytizing by the religious on the non-believers. This, I too feel is a problem. And yet, when atheists do it, you jump to their defense with as flimsy a rebuttal as "Well you do it too!" or "You did it first!"
And no, I certainly don't speak for most theists on this matter. I speak only for myself. And I disagree with other religious types as often as I do with atheists. In fact, this is really more a matter of debating against the wrong questions, not the wrong ideas.
Believe and let believe. Or not believe.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Oy vey. Literalists.
Chris, these are all red herrings. You leave out the historical, the human, the fact that the belief in God is not the same sort of belief that a belief in a living Elvis is. Look, science can explain a great deal. Reason can explain a great deal. But when we leave ourselves at the mercy of our own isolated reason, and throw all semblance of tradition or history, or culture to the wind on the basis that they are rooted in things that cannot be explained, we also cast off something inextricably human in the nature of belief, or in our search for the divine, the sacred, whichever. This is not the same as belief in the FSM. Once upon a time, people did believe in Zeus, it's true. And in that historical context, that belief had a great deal of societal value. If someone were to believe in Zeus now it would seem funny because it would deny the historical ties, the deep-rooted cultural ties, and so forth that separates the Christian (or Muslim etc.) God from those ancient gods. This is the problem with modern druids as well. There is actually very little historical data, and absolutely no generational traditions tied to druidism, only the invented druidism of the 19th century which guesses at the original rites and practices.
Of course, that's fine with me. Again, faith is faith, no matter how silly it might seem to some. Part of faith is the practice of it, and no matter how implausible one may view God, the traditions, the practices, the prayers associated with celebrating whichever tradition are real, tangible things. They give people sustenance for that other implausible thing: the soul.
Tim,
Fine, it's arbitrary. I'm not sure what your point is. I personally find the notion of teaching religion instead of science in a classroom semi-diabolical. However, I find no incompatibility between God and evolution, nor do I think the workings of the two need be in the form of intelligent design, which is shallow in that it accepts God's hand in creation, pretends to accept God's hand in evolution, and then rather sneakily denies all the basic mechanisms of evolution. I see the natural world and believe that there is the hand of God in it, but not in some humanly constructed way, but in the way it actually is. Evolution is evolution. Biology is biology. That all of it comes from God does not diminish the actuality of its workings. And there's the difference between me and the ID crowd. Call it what you will, I really couldn't care less.
Chris--you're preaching a fairly standard atheistic evangelism here. Yes, of course it's all very implausible. Then again, so are any countless number of things in this world. This world is implausible. Civilization as we know it is implausible. A virgin getting pregnant is, too, but if you accept that there are acts of God, that God does work in people or events, etc. etc. than it is not really important whether it is implausible. Which is essentially what you already knew I'd say. Then you write:
Which is where you lose me. That's why religion is a bad thing? Because it eschews reason for other things? Because it makes little sense to try to convert others to your own implausible faith/myth?
Listen, there is more to all of it than this. There is more to it than a virgin birth or the resurrection or any of that very un-scientific, unlikely stuff. But as I've said, I'm not the missionary type. I believe quite simply in the personal practice of whatever faith you choose, or lack thereof. I don't believe in hell or damnation. I don't believe in eternal exclusivity. I have no reason, nor do I see any reason to seek out converts to what is quite plainly my own personal belief.
But in a brief way, there is in my view of the world, something else that exists beyond the rational, reasonable, plausible, straightforward, scientific, plotted out universe. There is some implausible other. Perhaps it is just my mind playing tricks on me. Perhaps it is just the conditioning of the ages. I'm not sure. And quite frankly, I don't care. I've been down the road of the atheists, and sat on the fence with the agnostics. I've studied Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, the Sufi poets; I've read the atheists and the conversion stories; I've pondered plenty. I've dropped acid and smoked pot and done a few other things I'd have been better off without. I've been around this block and that block and done my research.
And in the end, well, I go the way that gives me peace and contentment. There's really no debating this issue, in any case. In the end we all make that choice, whether it leads us down the same path or not. We gravitate toward what's calling us, however implausible our own will'o'the'wisps may be....
Chris Bell--
Indeed, I would consider myself in terms of religious views a "liberal" Christian, though I think Christianity itself is best viewed as a sort of "liberal" and liberating religion. It can most certainly be used as a far more destructive thing, of course.
Regarding the virgin birth--well, religion requires leaps of faith, no? Such is the nature of the beast, as it were. So yes, I do believe in the virgin birth, though who honestly knows? It's possible that God worked in some other manner. It's possible she was impregnated in some other fashion and that somehow the soul of Jesus was simply infused into the child of Jesus. Anything's possible.
Regarding our mideast policies, I fail to see the connection. Our mideast policies are wrong-headed for any innumerable reasons, but the virgin birth should certainly not factor into our foreign affairs. A study of history, especially that region's history should suffice to dissuade us from further military foibles in that arena.
Tim --
I'm sure you think your little riposte is very clever, too, but let me tear it apart for you.
First off, the reason intelligent design is a "human" notion is that somehow they think that God must work in human ways to create existence as we know it, not for a moment stopping and thinking that perhaps God works in ways infinitely more complex than we can even imagine.
Second, I did not, in fact, state that God was "clever" in the human sense. I said I thought it much more clever to devise a system such as evolution by which to implement the universe. And, as we can agree that this is how the universe (or at least the biological universe) functions, through evolution, I'd say we can agree that if there is a God, such method is much more ingenious than a constant "intelligent design" by which the steady and ubiquitous hand of the creator is kept always at work, which is what the ID folks believe. They propose that evolution does not in fact work by random selection or any of that, but rather through a guidance system.
So how is that I'm saying exactly what the ID people say? For one, I don't believe for a second that God or any intelligent or creation story should be taught in schools. I think only the science should be taught in schools. Creation etc. etc. is a subject for Sunday school or theology seminars.
So I have to write off your comment as a quibble over semantics. I stated that an action was "clever" and you immediately suppose that I am anthropomorphizing God. I believe in creation through evolution, and you reveal that you have no sense of the distinction between that concept and the concept of Intelligent Design.
Quibble away, quibble away...
Cello--
Is there some other kind of evolution that I haven't heard of that I could possibly be confusing this with? If my memory serves, evolution was "discovered" by a Christian, Charles Darwin, was rather more fleshed out when notes of a certain German Monk (Mendel) helped explain how it worked, and has been pursued and honed by Christians and non-Christians alike ever since.
And yes, apes are common ancestors, and so is primordial sludge. See, it's quite frankly compatible in every manner with religion. Science, to my mind, explains the function of the universe, but not the why, nor the origins. It's like looking at the engine of a car, studying the manuals, learning all about how it works etc. and then saying that because we know all of that there can be no engineer that designed it. Or contra that, it's like saying "There was an engineer, and that's all there ever was! The car was not built, it simply came into being when the engineer decided it should!"
And no, I also don't support the ID folks. They'd demean the beauty of natural selection by infusing it with the very human notion of intelligent design. Quite frankly, I think the method God has chosen (random selection, survival of the fittest, all that...) is far more clever than the shallow claims of the ID purveyors.
And yes, even my ultra-conservative Catholic grandmother believes this. But I know many Christians don't, and it's a shame...
clamflats:
If you think that's what this series has been about then you haven't read very closely.
Andrew, look, for every analogy or tale of the evil's of religion, someone can find a counter. Same with science. Science also lead to the bombing of Japan at the end of WWII. Science is an empty vessel, and can be a dangerous weapon without some sense of morality to guide it. Religion can also be twisted to justify horrible things.
And this is the point. Religion, science, all of these aspects of what it means to be human...they mean nothing until humans guide them forward. They have power to do great good or great evil.
And by the way, that wasn't really breaking Godwin's Law. I wasn't using a Nazi analogy. I was pointing to an example of science being used to do harm. I wasn't likening someone to Nazi's--certainly not evolutionists. I am an evolutionist.
matako:
We have a commenting policy which you would do well to adhere to.
This is a blog that accepts all viewpoints and we're not against passionate debate, but you're entering territories that cross the bounds of civil debate. Your opinions are welcome, but your outlandish accusations and personal attacks are not. Think of this as your one and only warning to stick to our policy.
Thanks.
Andrew, the Nazis used Darwinian theory to promote their pure race ideology and "science" and science itself is a tool that can be used for good or ill, much like religion.
The Discovery Institute is a fringe organization and in no way represents the vast majority of modern Christians. Once again, matoko, you paint in the broadest of strokes, eschew evidence in favor of your own bloated opinions, and fail to see the larger picture because you have such a very set vision of how you perceive things to be.
"Expelled" was an idiotic "documentary" and Derbyshire's critique of it was spot-on. That said, most of the Christians I know (I think ALL of the Christians I know) believe in evolution and do not want to see creationism taught in school.
Andrew,
So what's the point? So people believe things that have consequence. Everything has consequence. Stalin was an atheist, right? Was it his belief in power and his lack of faith in a power higher than himself that lead to his madness and murder? I don't know. Belief or lack thereof has consequence, and to each individual or situation that changes. Who says that belief in God is any more detrimental than the loss of that belief? We are in muddy waters assigning such certainties to such unquantifiable data. I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in school, but far more opposed to the idea that somehow we need to snuff out that viewpoint. There is such thing as the rule of law, and our particular laws should protect us from creationism, and protect our church's as well from the secularism of the State.
Mark, this:
...is brilliant. Indeed, I often feel the same when religious types try to push religion overtly into legislation, that it demeans Faith. Same with science in the context you use here.
And to the rest of you, nobody here is preaching anything other than there is no point in proving or disproving God's existence. I don't see any of these posts as apologetics for Christianity or the Christian God at all. Maybe I'm missing something. It's funny though, the one thing that seems to bother people the most is proselytizing by the religious on the non-believers. This, I too feel is a problem. And yet, when atheists do it, you jump to their defense with as flimsy a rebuttal as "Well you do it too!" or "You did it first!"
And no, I certainly don't speak for most theists on this matter. I speak only for myself. And I disagree with other religious types as often as I do with atheists. In fact, this is really more a matter of debating against the wrong questions, not the wrong ideas.
Believe and let believe. Or not believe.