h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My Father-in-Law wrote an interesting article for the ongoing evolution vs creationism university project that you may find interesting. I have yet to finish editing it but you can find it here: A699573

I agree that it's fun! I'm in a never-ending debate with a creationist that some of you might have bumbed into some time or another. I'm a biologist, and I find it hard that someone can keep denying what's so blatantly clear to me. Strange what a small change in perspective can do.

Ste

I don't understand why people think that science is the competition for religion. Its a fear. They see science as an enemy.

Does science maintain a goal to destroy religion?

I don't think it has, only those who question their faith see an enemy in science.

Does the exploration of space and astronomy seek to destroy religion or expand our knowledge of where we live?

Or read another way - is our desire to expand our knowledge threaten to destroy religion?

In those terms it does. It makes people afraid. If you would like to believe then it makes things very shaky.

The true alternative for religion is inner spirituality. Its living with yourself, understanding yourself and clarity. Its to understand our greatness and yet our fragility. To be at one with oneself.

Sounds like crap. Sounds like religion...


Becky{L}

I think science and religion are compatible. One is not out to destroy the other. It could just seem that way if you see religion as a kind of primitive way of describing the world, which has been superseeded by "superior" scientific knowledge. I'm sure the vast amjority of religious people don't subscribe to any particular religion because they feel that religion explains satisfactorily how the world came to be.

Any expansion in knowledge that science has allowed is only a threat to those who take the bible (or any religious text) totally literally. Those people are in a vast minority (basically the Southern USA ).

Christian fundamentalists unfortunatley believe that science is out to destroy them when some scientific theories disagree with their view of scripture (evolution etc.). But this can be switched the other way around. Some "fundamentalist" scientists who think that science is the only way of describing the world feel threatened in the same way by religion. Science cannot be appied to everything.

Both are as bad as each other . In my opinion, fundamentalism is the problem, not religious fundamentalism.

Ste

Hi Steve

I agree with the idea about fundamentalists, but unfortunately its the fundamentalists that cause all the trouble. For many anything outside is a seen as a threat.

I usually have very good relationships with traditional church people - you can usually have good intelligent conversations with many priests and clergy. Conversations which help each other to look at what we believe (and we all have beliefs) and question.

As you say religion and science aren't incompatible. I just find it hard sometimes that some religious people use a stick against science to try and re-inforce their own beliefs in their own mind, when if strength in their faith should be enough.

I have a friend who is v.intelligent hes just leaning towards the seventh day adventists.... I find it hard to understand the idea that a second coming is about to happen. We haven't discussed it, but my rational friend is becoming irrational.
In many ways its a paradoxical thing in that there is no way we could possibly know if he had come again. If he had (or does) come again it surely destroys all measure of faith. If he did come again we've probably killed him already or locked him up. The friend I have is scrabbling around for his own peace of mind that he is right.... looking at the growth of the universe. The assertion that adapation is totally different to evolution. That somehow if these things can be refuted it strenghtens his faith.... doesn't that miss the point entirely? A negative. Science has nothing to do with religion.

The one thing we've discussed is evolution, and he quickly dropped the subject when he realised that I know a good deal about the pros and cons.


I wonder - if one of these days hes going to turn on me? We haven't had much discussion - (and yet we used to!), but little things - I sense a discomfort with me and what I stand for. I suppose you could say its mutual. His Religous beliefs don't bother me - hes always asserted that his view of me will always remain the same, but at times now I'm begining to wonder.....


Should I be calling you uncle steve? Reads like a problem page....




Becky{L}

I always wonder if someday I will suddenly have some revelation and go "oops! I was wrong all this time!" and cancel my subscription to atheists monthly. Your friend is an example of why I think this sometime. The idea of faith overriding or being "above" reason perplexes me. That's why I hang around forums like this one I suppose.

I just find it wierd that God gave us a unique power of intelligence and reason amongst the animal kingdom. Then when it comes down to the most fundamental questions we have to disengage this gift and switch cruise control on. Makes no sense to me.

I like talking to clergy, they are usually the ones that have studied the scripture enough to learn that it is a pretty flexible document, full of symbolism and hidden depth. My Father-in-law (the one I mentioned earlier who wrote that entry I linked to) in an Episcopal (closest thing Americans get to CofE) priest. I've had many an interesting and enlightening discussion with him.

>I just find it hard sometimes that some religious people use a stick against science to try and re-inforce their own beliefs in their own mind, when if strength in their faith should be enough.
Yeah, I agree! Their faith mustn't be all that solid in the first place dontcha think? If it was then there would be no need to try and justify it with "science" or whatever. I just think that they cannot think outside the dominant way of thinking in our age: the scientific mode. This unfortunately means that they massively miss the point of it all and end up bothering us endlessly.

Re: your friend.
What's wrong with a little bit of irrationality? You can't convert him back to sanity () or anything. It will probably drive him away in fact, well, if he is as stubborn as I am it would. IMHO I'd just let him explore what he wants to and he might see that it's all b*ll*cks, he might go for it completely. As long as he's still a friend it don't matter.


You can always batter him around the head with a stick in the latter case if all else fails anyway



Ste

As a Christian, Number 172568 (wouldn't you like a name? May I call you Anne?) Well, Anne, as a Christian, I have done untold thinking about evolution/creation (I came from that sort of church.) Eventually, I came to accept that evolution is the means God used when creating! That's my take on it, and lots of other people too - I believe, even the Catholic church (can a Catholic correct me if I am wrong?)

The King james Bible was translated ca 1611, and was not all that faithfulor accurate to begin with... Christians who 'translate' the Bible, actually go back to earlier sources... which is why if you *read* the RSV (for instance) and look at marginal notes, you'll see variant readings for verses etc.

(Just to clear up some evident confusion)

Maybe, maybe not - it depends on God... But you do sound (to me, I don't speak for anyone else) a bit like a teen who is playing rebel against Mum and Dad. If I am wrong, sorry...

" And to point out that, in my experience of arguing for atheism, very few fundie xians have what it takes to endure in-depth debate on the subject of religion. They kind of strike and then disappear..."

Hello, Amanda.I am here,because as a 'fundie xian' (or ex-fundie, which wld be more accurate,now a sort of Anglo-Catholic-reincarnationist) I am here to debate, but I find atheists tend to repeat themselves something awful! Also, as can be seen from the ones over on the BBC religion board, they are very quick to take offence (sometimes the whole rest of the section too!)

Atheists repeat themselves? I wasn't aware that atheists repeat themselves.

Oh,the Stone again! (Favourite on the BBC religion forum)

"Can God create a stone he cannot lift?

If he can, he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.
If he can't, he is not omnipotent because he can't create it.

Therefore God is not omnipotent."

I ask, why would God? Some things God cannot do, because they are logically impossible, and God has constrained Godself with such things (here on earth,anyway) as the laws of physics.

Also, and I don't speak for God,
Who may have a different opinion, but I ask myself,why would God want to create such a stone? Just to satisfy atheists who are 'debating'?

How very pragmatic of you

All that is is a little game of logic that shows how God isn't omnipotent. It seems clear enough to me. It sounds like all that you are saying is "don't question God". Tell me if I'm wrong.



Ste

Yes, I do think you are wrong, because that's not what I was saying at all! I was saying (trying to be very peaceful and tactful) that the stone argument is b*ll*cks! It sounds superficially very clever, and so people love it, but it's the kind of thing I mean about atheists repeating themselves!

In my experience of debating with atheists, they have two main techniques. The arguments (many which have around since Voltaire) like the stone one, or Ad Hominem! Amanda mentioned that Christians use that against her, but as a Christian, I have often staggered against levels of abuse that make me think "Go for it mate, if that's all you can think of, to call us stupid, brainwashed, cruel, violent" whatever the slur du jour is...

All I was trying to say is: that I don't see why God would bother trying paradox out for Him/Herself - S/He knows all about philosophy...(By definition.) Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent, isn't it. BTW, a man called Easterbrook wrote an excellent book in which he, as a believer, said that in his view, God is not omnipotent, that that's just a Greek philosophical overlay on what the Bible actually says, and that God nowhere actually claims omnipotence! His knowledge of the Bible is superior to mine, so I take his word for what he says...

Firstly, the stone question is illogical - Either the stone has finite weight, in which case anyone can lift it given the right conditions, or it has weight over a certain limit at which it will collapse into a black hole. Ignoring this argument, the question is like 'Can God create a anoiwcwklqglkmelkij? That question is illogical, because there is no such thing as a anoiwcwklqglkmelkij (I hope), and something has to be defined before you can ask a question about it. Likewise, there is no such thing a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it. Now...

I don't believe in evolution, but this is more for scientific reasons than religious ones. But as a Jehovahs Witness and an A-level Physics and Double Maths student, I too have come to the conlusion that science and religion are perfectly compatible as long as neither one is abused, and that to ignore either one of them is foolish.

I hope I don't come across as abusive. I haven't no issue with people who are religious or believe in a god. Each to their own I say. For me atheism is a personal thing born out of the fact that I need no god to either explain the way the world and universe is or as a "crutch". And seeing as I can't imagine any other uses for a god, hey presto!, for me there is no god (maybe my imagination is limited in this respect, I would welcome any other suggestions for a conceptual "use" for a god).

I agree that the stone argument is b*ll*cks, and very tedious too. I prefer questions regarding the existance of evil with a merciful christian god, but I know there are ways to get around that one.

Insight... you don't believe in evolution for scientific reasons yet you are a Jehovas Witness. A slight conflict of interests there don't you think

Ste

Hi Della

As an aetheist I'd like to ask you a question if I may.

I understand you are a christian, but there are various shades.

I'd like to know if I am wrong where I stand in terms of heaven or the afterlife.

I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Becky{L}

(p.s Sorry I seemed rude and disappeared Ste - I've been in hospital and recovering!)

Hiya,

Wow, I haven't had a good religious arguement in ages and now suddenly this one has restarted while I was away.

Okay. I am an athiest. I do not have any problems with religion, in fact I have been both a Christian and a Jew during my childhood before doubt forced me into agnosticism and eventually I put my faith in atheism. (I say faith because the non-existence of god, like the existence of god, is impossible to prove.) My main fight is with ORGANISED religion. Specifically any institutions which indoctrinate children before they are old enough to decide for themselves.

I have never used the stone argument as I see it as the same sort of useless circular argument that some religious people I know use to prove to me the existence of god (ie the perception argument.) They sound nice but they don't say anything. I firmly believe that you cannot prove or disprove the supernatural or the preternatural at all but that you can just argue on the basis of your proof.
Evolution is just a theory, like creationism, however I beleive that it is true on the evidence that I have seen. However I do know that all evidence is circumstantial and is not solid "proof." Anyway, even if i could prove evolution, that would not prove the non-existence of god. Creationism was only mentioned a few times in the bible and considering that the Old Testement is basically a battered old copy and multiple rewrite and translation of the original Jewish Torah then a few mistakes in the text would not damage the article as a whole. Especially considering that it was written in a largely unscientific age, the wording could have been translated to remove complicated details, this would mean that the original draft could have quite easily sat alongside the theory of evolution without clashing on any terms of faith. Anyway, even if I could prove it wrong, I would only be proving wrong one religion and not the existence of gods.
I'm sorry, I felt like arguing on the other side for once. I am open to the possibility of some sort of supernatural explanation for the world. I just happen to find all the most popular ones rather ridiculous.
Back on the side of atheism, if you want a good argument, read "All in the Mind - A farewell to god" by Ludovic Kennedy. The tone may be taken as slightly blasphemous by the blindly faithfull but I challenge anyone to read it cover to cover and still espout that they have no doubts about their beliefs. I respect the faith of others entirely and I will be very impressed with your determination if you can defeat this challenge of faith.

PS. Always look on the bright side of life

Cyclops, this may surprise you, but I have read Ludovic Kennedy's book - I have read many books by atheists, and I find them either quite sad (like Kennedy's) or smug and what I have sometimes called 'abusive' (Paul Edwards' book on reincarnation for instance..) By sad, I don't mean the colloquial use of sad, as in 'sad b*st*rd', but sad, as in making me feel sorrowful.

I recommend a book to you, Martin Gardner's "Philosophical Scrivener". He is a member of American Sceptics and a friend of James Randi and Carl Sagan (when the latter was alive.) Gardner writes about how his views changed, from his upbringing as a 7th Day Adventist, to his atheism and lastly, his adoption of a (tentative) belief in God. Did you know C S Lewis, the great (if sexist) apologist, began as an atheist?

Hello, Search Me (Becky(L)) - good to hear from you!

I am a Christian, best described as an Anglo-Catholic-Reincarnationist, who started out as a member of what's called the Open Brethren, when I became a Christian in my teens. (I grew up in what you might call an atheist home. It didn't stay that way, but was when I left home at 17.)

When I was 4, I remember asking my father about God, and he referred me to Sunday School. I asked about reincarnation when I was about 7... I just always 'knew' there is a God and an afterlife. I can't put it any clearer than that, because I knew it the way I knew I have green eyes! (Past life memory? Who knows?)

I investigated all sorts of things, and 'settled' on evangelical Christianity. Thirty years later, I have left evangelical fundamentalism behind. I am not 100% sure about *details* of an afterlife, but I have become a tentative believer in reincarnation and a definite believer in Universal Salvation (the idea that everyone, whether presently atheist, Sufi, Hindu, animist, will eventually attain heaven/God, whatever...) The only mechanism that makes sense to me as to how that can be, is reincarnation! Given, aside from anything else, that many people here and now, don't even *want to* meet God, or experience an afterlife.

The above is my experience/opinion, I cannot speak for anyone else. Happen I should be preaching constantly, but I know how being preached at feels like, and frankly, I am nervous of putting more people off than I win!

To Della,

I am slightly surprised that you have read this book but only because I didn't think it was well known. I respect your faith as you must be a true beleiver of whatever religion you follow (sorry I kinda scanned over this detail, I don't usually care what people beleive as long as they TRULY believe it.) I am fed up with people who do not have any religious knowledge or faith at all but will still call themselves Christians just because they were born in "Christian" families and they are united with their "Christian" friends in ridiculing non-christians. These people know nothing of the teachings of their own gospels.
As I said before, I have no fight with religion but only religious institutions. Just about every religion on the planet: be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Humanistic atheism; preaches the virtues of freedom, peace, equality and charity. Of doing unto others as you'd have them done unto you (A theory Most famously quoted by Jesus but as old as time) and of being kind to your brothers and neighbours. However all of these religions have had leaders of their faith who have broken some if not all of these prerequisites. Wars, Crusades, Genocides all in the name of a god who is supposed to be horrified by violence. We live in interesting times.
I find that most of the atrocites of the world are perpetrated by those who have no faith but like to pretend that they do. Those that are faithfull have strong moral codes to follow. Those who reject religion entirely (ie. Atheists) usually follow particularly strong consciences for moral guidence. It is those that have never been brought up with a conscience but instead a fear of hell who then reject this beleif who do not have any moral backbone to fall on. When the cat's away... etc.
I am an atheist because I don't beleive that the world was created and is controlled by one omnipotent, omipresent being. This does not mean that I have no belief in the supernatural. I know the limitations of scientific explanation and although I am a firm beleiver in evolutionary theory to its very core, I still find it hard to think of people as very compicated molecules. I am open to many new explanations for the world and do often lapse back into agnosticism. I am not against religion, I just think that none of the current main religions do anything for me. I find Judiaism slightly ridiculous and both Christianity and Islam are based on the same texts except with extra bits (which I find even more ridiculous.) I mean no offence with this statement it's just my personal belief.
I agree that I have met many atheists who are smug and arrogant about their beleifs. The sort who use the "stone" arguement etc. These people annoy me as much as they do you probably and they give my faith a bad name. However through experience I have found that an even larger majority of so-called Christians have this same self-righteous attitude to others despite (or even because of) their own rather lax faith. If all people of every religion had as much faith, honour and just plain dignity as you appear to the world would be a better place.
I also agree that Ludovic Kennedy's book is very sad. I personally thought it was one of the most horrific things I've ever read. I usually quite like cruel and violent stories in books (I read a lot of Iain Banks and Thomas Harris) but the stories of the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades made me physically ill. I think it was the fact that I couldn't just ignore it as a book because I had to accept that every one of these cases actually happened. Poor innocent civilians were brutally tortured and murdered, while begging for mercy, for nothing more than standing up for their beleifs in a time of religious oppression by those whose following of the basic commandments where rather dubious themselves.
I hardly ever start religious arguments, but I will defend my beliefs up to the death (not quite to the death as that would be rather s**t for an atheist...all dressed up and nowhere to go.)
Thank you.

the evil I.