The Unspeakable Vileness of Religious Law
PZ has it nailed right HERE ....
Let's face modernity ... religion is an evil force in our world, We should get rid of them all.
Let's face modernity ... religion is an evil force in our world, We should get rid of them all.
posted by John Stone at 5:15 PM
17 Comments:
"... is an evil force in our world, We should get rid of them all."
Seems that somone used that same argument regarding blacks and gays and jews. Good for you.
Ok ... but the difference would be that the only ones to get rid of religion are the religious. When they get tired of the insanity and control freaks who run most religions they will do it ... probably by turning off the money/power spout ...
get a grip
Don't need a grip Anon 1200 -- I have a fine set of Samsonite.
And I haven't had the flu in years ...
A religion, i.e. mythology, is not a race (blacks), sexual orientation (gays), or ethnicity (Jews). Stoner did NOT advocate getting rid of people (blacks, gays, Jews) but DID advocate getting rid of myths. Or, if you prefer, belief systems.
A graduate student ought to be able to tell the difference.
Anon 10:42
How exactly do you get rid of an entire belief system 2,000 years in the making? Do you just wish it away? No, you systematically remove those who believe it.
And by the way, I'm pretty sure the Jews have some doctrine (mythology as you call it) that they believe in. It's not just an ethology. But maybe I'm just a dumb old graduate student.
Either way, I have the courage to tie my name to my thoughts. How about you?
Stoner,
this evil vile religousite still loves you anyway. It is one of the curses of my religious law. I have to love those that differ from me. Go figure.
Actually, Jack ... not so true. For several thousand years people, the smartest people of the time, believed that the earth was the center of the universe... the writers of Genesis ... Aristotle .... etc. And yet in a very short period, less than 100 years, this was dicarded by every knowlegable person in the world, thanks to one guy - Galileo and his crummy little telescope.
Same is true of the four elements and the four humors ... and dozens of others I can think of. Belief in gods *ONLY* become necessary when *I* can't answer whatever question is asked. It never occurs to those who use gods as an explanation that someone smarter than they are may come along and answer thier question. Religion is the greatest example of human hubris and arrogance I can think of -- and it leads to not much more than human misery.
I can now tell you - with absolute certainty - and recreate it in my lab (OK -- a lab costing a couple of billion) what happened when the universe was only one millionth of a second old. I can also tell you with less certainty, what the universe was like when it was one billionth of one billionth of one billionth of one second old.
Why do I need gawd? What does he explain to me. Some mystery that I don't know? That is a very weak argument.
I agree about anon postings ... I think that most are chickens and I don't take what they have to say very seriously. If I really think it then I can sign my name to it.
You assume to much Stoner. Just because one believes in God, and Creation, does not mean that one does not also believe in Evolution.
Just because you can prove what the world was like 1 billion years ago does not mean that you can prove or disprove God. You see, John, there is place in the world for Christians to support science.
As for your Galileo, it is lame and not applicable here. In that case, he proved beyond a doubt that the Earth traveled around the Earth. So people changed their minds.
That is not the case with religion, so you shouldn't attempt to mix the two. It confuses things.
Nor should you confuse religion with politics, which is the reason the 'Christian Soldiers are marching on to war, with the cross of Jesus , going on before' - what a nice little tune I learned in Vacation Bible school...I'm scarred for life.
Does it make you 'believers' sleep better knowing that your 'crusading' President and his sidekicks are essentially the antithesis of the religion and the 'God' that you speak of? Fundamentally, the will to do good things for the fellow human lies in oneself, not in a spiritual deity used to control the masses. Now, let's see who we can persecute this week.....Blacks,Jews,Queers,Muslims....all in the name of the holy one of course.
Rob Jerichojuice
"Why do I need gawd? What does he explain to me. Some mystery that I don't know? That is a very weak argument."
Why do you need "gawd?" It's apparent that your faith is in science, alone, "gawd" plays no part in your belief system, and that's OKAY, John, you have your choices to make in life, I have my choices to make in life and each individual person on the face of this earth has their own choices to make in life.
You appear to be trying to set up an argument that you have a choice to believe in God OR a choice to believe that science is of value. I believe both to be of value, I believe answers can be found both in science AND in an understanding of God's communique to His people, the Bible. You aren't required to believe in the Bible or in God, in fact you aren't required to believe in ANY dang thing.
Here's the deal, John. I believe that MY God IS powerful enough to have set evolution in motion, whether evolution is the correct THEORY or not, my faith is not shaken and, I might add, you can PROVE your theory no more than I can PROVE my God's existence. Why is your faith in your THEORY superior to my faith in God? Both your theory and my God require faith in order to be believed. Does that make YOU superstitious? A believer of nonsense? Why do you elitist scientists think that religion is your enemy? I certainly do not view science as my enemy OR as an enemy to God, you really ARE an extremist, ain't cha? ;)
I'll put YOUR question back at you, which can be easily done:
"Why do I need science? What does it explain to me. Some mystery that I don't know? That is a very weak argument."
John, John, John.........live and let live.
Jack wrote: "Just because you can prove what the world was like 1 billion years ago does not mean that you can prove or disprove God."
Jack you miss the point. It is precisely because I can actually see what the entire universe was like in that first millionth of a second that I can very honestly ask any believer what good is your, or anybody else's god? What do I need with her? Does she help me explain what happened in the first ten millionth second of the entire universe? She is not only not necessary, she is irrelevant.
JackeM wrote: "It's apparent that your faith is in science, alone,"
This is a word game that the religious like to play ... that science is a "faith", like religion. It most certainly is not. Show me a single example in religion like that I can show you from Quantum Electrodynamics where you can make a prediction of a hitherto unknown answer correct to the 12th decimal place. It's a lot like the UFO callers to the Art Bell show. All you have to go on is their word that they saw that UFO over the wheat field in Kansas. There is no evidence... in fact, in the postmodernist/Jungian/mystic world of today evidence is not only not sought, but it is scorned. ... except when it comes to your everyday life in which case you want evidence that that TV will actually pluck that vibration of time and space up in your bedroom, or that that medicine will actually cure your kid's croup. There -- you will insist on evidence. In your religion there is not a chance that you actually wish to apply the same standards that you do to the rest of your life ... and here's the kicker ...
It don't matter a whit. Whether you ignore evidence, or the lack of evidence, it makes not a scintilla of difference to the universe ... which keeps on going it's own merry way and your faith, or lack, thereof, will not change the course of a single electron.
Rob JerichoJuice: Does it make you 'believers' sleep better knowing that your 'crusading' President and his sidekicks are essentially the antithesis of the religion and the 'God' that you speak of?
And now we see your extreme bias. What makes you think that all people of faith (specifically Christians) support Bush? Just another false stereotype perpetuated by extremists. I am a liberal Christian, who has opposed Bush and his war, and supports stem cell research.
Silly Rob,
Stereotypes are for the uneduated, the ignorant, and the bigots. Don't be one of them and don't presume to lump all Christians into a pro-war, anti-anthing Christian group. It's just not true.
John:
"Show me a single example in religion like that I can show you from Quantum Electrodynamics where you can make a prediction of a hitherto unknown answer correct to the 12th decimal place."
I CANNOT prove God's existence to you because you haven't experienced God, just as, for the most part, I haven't experienced Science.
You have expressed your unwillingness to take the first step toward experiencing God, without you experiencing God first hand, as you experience science first hand, as you require me to do by "show(ing) me from Quantum Electrodynamics where (I) can make a prediction of a hitherto unknown answer correct to the 12th decimal place," I must take that scientific fact by "faith," as well, and unless I am willing to allow you to show me, you can prove nothing to me EITHER.
Do you understand what this means? It means that YOU are not required to have "faith" in science because you can satisfactorily prove things to yourself. I, on the other hand, am required to have "faith" in scientific discovery because I do not have the knowledge to experience the scientific discoveries first hand. Certainly, I can read about science and I can comprehend what I read but unless I understand the process by which scientific facts are proven then *I* am required to have tons of "faith" in order to believe the outcome of a scientific experiment.
One could argue that today it is even more difficult to have "faith" in science when, for instance, there is no consensus among the scientific community regarding the cause of 'global warming.' Science can be manipulated by politics, just as polls can be manipulated by pollsters, just as journalists show their bias by the facts they choose to prioritize when writing about any given subject.
NON-Scientists, or Scientists for that matter, who believe in science as infallable are no different from a Christian who believes the Bible is infallable or takes on faith that God has inspired the words held within it because such a person is required to have faith that these scientific MEN have perfectly administered their tests and have arrived at the correct conclusion. I am required to have "faith" in MEN, Scientists, just as I am required to have "faith" in God. You, on the other hand may not be required to have "faith" in your science because you have seen it with your own eyes, you have "experienced" it first hand, suspending your disbelief. What you fail to grasp is that when you ask that I have "faith" in conclusions drawn by scientific men you are asking nothing different than if I were to ask you to have "faith" in my conclusion of the reality of God.
You see, John, I have faith in God because I have seen evidence of Him in my life, I have "experienced" God first hand, suspending my disbelief.
Your disbelief cannot be assuaged by my belief because you have not "experienced" it first hand, hence you would have to take God's existence by "faith" and in fact Hebrews 11:6 clearly states that "Without faith it is impossible to please God."
You exercise faith every single day of your life, John, all people do. Everytime you reach for the light switch you have faith that when you flip it on the lights will come up in the room. When you touch a button on your television remote control you have faith that the television will be turned on, you have faith that at the touch of a different button the volume will be turned up. You have faith when you walk to your car that your legs will not give out on you, that you won't fall down. You have faith that the car will start when you turn your key in the ignition and you have faith that the tires won't go flat, that you won't be involved in an accident, that you'll arrive at your destination. Don't pretend that faith has no part in your life, John, it would be ridiculous.
I am TOLERANT of your position that you have no use for God, that there are no "mysteries" which you need Him to unveil for you, that your science can provide you with all the answers you need. I am TOLERANT of the fact that you think I am an idiot because you cannot comprehend my personal relationship with God. You, on the other hand, have given your virtual high five to Professor Myers, who knows no more about God or religion than you. To quote you, "P Z Myers has nailed it right HERE." I addressed Professor Myers at JackeHammer: JackeHammer: http://jackehammer.blogspot.com/2007/02/unspeakable-vileness-of-professor., before I even replied to your post on the subject, in case you missed it, and lest you misunderstand me, I am able to suspend my disbelief regarding certain scientific discoveries, hence I am able to have "faith" that certain Scientists knew what they were doing when they concluded certain scientific facts and whether you *tolerate* it or not, whether you would rather "get rid of them all" or not, science has not disproved God's existance and my "faith" in God remains.
This *tolerance* that many on your side of the political aisle are so smitten by...when will YOU practice what YOU preach? Pssst, there's a word fer that. ;)
Smoochies, Jacke
JackeM .. .since you spent a considerable amount of time on this, and it addresses some things I want to talk about, give me a day to put a much longer discussion of it up on the blog.
In the meantime you might want to read Richard Feynman's Cargo Cult Science commencement to CalTech. (Feynman is one of my heros, and I wish I could say things as well as he does).
In the meantime, why don't you think up an experiment I can do to prove the existence of a god -- anybody's god (except for Dick Cheney's -- there are some things even *I* won't do) that fit the mold of scientific exploration that we have developed over the past 350 years.
Keep in mind that some (not me so much) adher to the Popperian idea that in order for anything to be called science it must be falsifyable.
Keep in mind too - that old saw that If I propose that all swans are white, it merely takes one black swan in the world to falsify my proposal ... and even if I find no black swans, I don't know that one doesn't live on Jupiter. All I can do is say that all the evidence I have available, point to my hypothesis that there are only white swans.
Link to Feynman's talk:
http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Capstone/Ethics/CargoCultScience.PDF
I read Feynman's talk. Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
Now, you write:
"In the meantime, why don't you think up an experiment I can do to prove the existence of a god -- anybody's god."
Since I have ALREADY explained to you that I CANNOT prove to you the existence of God, that God's existence is taken on faith, I will simply refer you to my previously posted comment.
Apparently SOME scientists lack comprehensive skills. ;)
You see, John Dahling, I believe in God because I CHOOSE to believe in God, AFTER I made the choice, actually even before I made that choice, I could see evidence of God all around me. I control MY choices, you control YOUR choices and life is very good.
"Nature is too thin a screen; the glory of the omnipresent God bursts through everywhere." ~ Emerson
Post a Comment
<< Home