Embed this:
* * * * *
Like Unreasonable Faith on Facebook for daily skeptical goodness:
Recent Comments
- Custador: If I reply from the commenting dashboard it puts my comment first in the... on John Piper and Divine Command
- TrickQuestion: i just imagine the guy sitting there in a diaper, smacking a physics book with a... on Still Earth
- TrickQuestion: Generally,. that is the definition of reality, although certain mental... on Case For a Creator?
- ExpatPaul: Now that’s good advice ;-) on Give Up Religion For Lent
- Troutbane: OK, I only got to the part with the helicopter so let me offer a similar yet different... on Still Earth
- bogga: I’ve got just lately began a blog, the info you offer here has helped me personally... on Here We Go Again
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
It’s cute, though, when creation “scientists” attempt to understand evolution, with hilarious results.
A nice point.
However, I can’t help but noticing that if we replace “Evolution” with “God” we have something which sounds uncomfortably much like a fundamentalist argument.
here is the trap: God will is ALWAYS UNUNDERSTANDABLE, thus providing an efficient scapegoat for all the batshit they put into the bible.
Actually, the evidence (at least in the US, but I suspect in most countries) suggests nonbelievers have on average a much better understanding of the Bible than Christians, possibly because Christians just buy whatever their priests or pastors feed them.
Also, the notion of “understanding” God is itself problematic because everybody has contradictory ideas of what it is or if it is even possible to understand it.
Also I would argue nonbelievers have a far more developed understanding on average than believers of the arguments for and against the existence of God in general.
All true, but I have to agree that were the shoe on the other foot, the maxim would look pretty lame to us. It’s the problem of each side talking at cross purposes – our god and our concept of evolution are totally different from the god and evolution that fundamentalists would talk about. That, of course, makes it quite true that they do not understand evolution, since they usually describe something completely different, but as far as they are concerned we are completely mischaracterising god, often by quoting him.
God is love, they say, and when we quote him ordering the slaughter of thousands and throwing the survivors into sexual slavery, we just don’t get it!
Difference:
We can pick up THE WORD OF GOD and point out the immorality, injustice, and contradictions.
They can pick up a science book, written by scientists, but choose instead to listen to uneducated or dishonest preachers and apologists.
Not so much of a difference – they’ll just say science disagrees with their book therefore is wrong, or spy what they think are contradictions or flaws that we regard as ridiculous reaching or willful misunderstanding. There is an impasse here because both groups put stock in totally different authorities and have no respect for the authorities of the other side. Our side includes such authorities as empirical evidence but that, apparently, does not matter.
In a tally-point discussion, where answers to questions were recorded, and brought up when other answers contradicted them, you’d have only one winner.
Or in a “ok then, if science is wrong, LEARN ABOUT IT, and prove it’s wrong” and vice-versa, they’d still wind up losing.
Yeah, with a divorce rate of 50% would you still say “god” is love? Like marriages, I think “god” will disappear or we’ll just find some other sucker, I mean “god”.
I do agree that evolution (note that I am now using my own perspective, just as any fundamentalist would) is more valid in the sense that it is possible for anyone to understand it simply by looking at the world with a critical eye.
The foremost problem I see with this quote is that it has great potential for being used as a quote of some enlightened truth. If it is used as such, we have a problem. Science is not about firing off witty comments, it’s a way of thinking which, if it is to be understood correctly, cannot be allowed to be reduced to short lines of text out of context.
This quote is nice for those already on the train, but it is not useful, might even be harmful, when used as an argument.
Well it’s just supposed to start a discussion. It makes the skeptics consider or defend their own degree of understanding of evolution, which is really the root of the issue anyway. If you can make them realize that they’ve been attacking a straw man all along, you are well on your way to making a believer out of them.
Unfortunately even this first step rarely happens. In my experience, people continue to claim that somehow I am lying when I tell them what the theory actually claims, as if debating terminology is more important than substance. It reminds me of gay rights opponents claiming to oppose merely the “gay agenda” so they can avoid the real issue and not have to admit they are actually just bigots.
If the intention with this quote is to start debate that might be fine, but only if it is meant for internal discussion. I fear, however, that it is easily used as an argument toward believers, and that’s a poor start which encourages defensive positions.
Your experience is an unfortunate one, and I am afraid it is far too common as well. However, as I think JohnMWhite says above, they (fundamentalists etc.) probably have the same experience. I don’t know how we could counter this roundabout, but I believe the ball should be in our corner. Not because it is our responsibility, not because we have chosen it, but because I think we should choose it. This conflict has been going on for so long now, and some fresh thinking is needed. If we are the ones who can provide that, we will have proved much.
I think I drifted a bit off topic (whatever the topic was) and maybe left some things unclear. If so, I apologize.
Maybe because nobody has come up with a better explanation? What a silly statement.
Evolution may well be almost universally accepted among those who understand it , as Richard Dawkins states, but why??
To hold to a view that life on earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago, with no explanation as to how the first most basic cell came into being is fair enough, but it does leave a huge gap in the actual origin of life on earth, and in the origin of the universe.
Dawkins, in an interview with Ben Stein, categorically denies his belief in any God of whatever description as an explanation as to how the universe came into being, but he IS open to the possibility (although he may not consider it to be very likely) that life on earth was seeded by aliens who had themselves evolved to an extremely high level. This still doesn’t explain how these aliens would have come into existence in the first place.