^ The ancient Greek myth of Prometheus and the Christian biblical story of Adam and Eve are two of the most well known fables we all can "learn from" today. Prometheus dared defy the gods by introducing fire (i.e. QUESTIONING FOR KNOWLEDGE) to us mere mortals, and for that the gods punished him for eternity. The same thing with Adam and Eve, except the misogynistic author went one step further and blamed it all on a woman. Can you think of other myths created specifically to scare the shit out of us?
More stuff for which I strongly criticize religion today, and specifically religious dogma.
Sacrosanctity (questioning God as taboo or insulting) - The difference between religious beliefs and science is that science is far better suited to exist as a force for good in the world, and by good I mean in terms of the overall survival and progress of mankind. And this is because science by its very nature relies on intellectual flexibility, malleability, and constant tweaking and improvement. In fact science THRIVES on being re-arranged, re-assessed, and re-vamped with new discoveries and ideas.
Mind you, science does not necessarily ask the question of why we exist or what is the meaning of life; that could be addressed in the arena of philosophy and I can try to tackle that in a future post. Instead, what science is good at is explaining how things work in the universe, and with the help of those explanations we can ask further questions, prompting more scientific inquiry, and so on. THAT is the fundamental nature of science. And THAT is where many of us religious types and even non-religious types make our mistake in thinking of science as a replacement for God.
Science was never meant to be God. Instead science discovers truths that were previously thought to be the work of God because we didn't know anything yet other than whatever explanations we made up from lack of scientific knowledge. Science doesn't demand worship or respect like any god does. You don't pray to science, you don't offer it sacrificial lambs or burn incense for it. And you certainly don't hijack and fly planes into skyscrapers in the name of science, or blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of science.
In contrast God was never, ever meant to be questioned. Why is that? I previously brought up the point that a faith based system can only survive as long as it is never questioned or challenged. The moment it is is when it begins to fall apart as a system and even as an idea. When that happens we must seek our answers elsewhere. We eventually turn to science and philosophy.
According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 79% of Christians in the U.S. completely believe in the second coming of Christ. The second coming entails the total destruction of the world, where only those deemed worthy by god will be saved and offered entry into paradise while the rest of us die in agonizing ways. Combine that with the blindly accepted notion that no one's beliefs should ever be questioned and the politically correct culture that insists on interfaith dialogue, and we have the groundwork for this perpetually misguided and deluded world of dangerous stupidity. There is no room at all for reason and intellectual honesty in such a world, and certainly little room for survival.
God is supposed to be exempt from being questioned because God is absolute. That requires faith from the believer. And faith is what we desperately fall back on when reason and logic cannot provide us an answer. But can faith have practical applications in the real world? Can faith predict an approaching tsunami that can easily destroy an island country and kill thousands of innocent lives? Can faith at least warn those people and prepare them for the storm beforehand?
Sacrosanctity (questioning God as taboo or insulting) - The difference between religious beliefs and science is that science is far better suited to exist as a force for good in the world, and by good I mean in terms of the overall survival and progress of mankind. And this is because science by its very nature relies on intellectual flexibility, malleability, and constant tweaking and improvement. In fact science THRIVES on being re-arranged, re-assessed, and re-vamped with new discoveries and ideas.
Mind you, science does not necessarily ask the question of why we exist or what is the meaning of life; that could be addressed in the arena of philosophy and I can try to tackle that in a future post. Instead, what science is good at is explaining how things work in the universe, and with the help of those explanations we can ask further questions, prompting more scientific inquiry, and so on. THAT is the fundamental nature of science. And THAT is where many of us religious types and even non-religious types make our mistake in thinking of science as a replacement for God.
Science was never meant to be God. Instead science discovers truths that were previously thought to be the work of God because we didn't know anything yet other than whatever explanations we made up from lack of scientific knowledge. Science doesn't demand worship or respect like any god does. You don't pray to science, you don't offer it sacrificial lambs or burn incense for it. And you certainly don't hijack and fly planes into skyscrapers in the name of science, or blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors in the name of science.
^ One of the most egregious, most disgusting scams of the Catholic Church today: Mother Teresa. Christopher Hitchens unmasks the seemingly beneficent acts of this "saintly nun" and dares to crash through the wall of sacrosanctity to question her saintliness using reason, logic, and indisputable facts. Part 2 | Part 3 .
In contrast God was never, ever meant to be questioned. Why is that? I previously brought up the point that a faith based system can only survive as long as it is never questioned or challenged. The moment it is is when it begins to fall apart as a system and even as an idea. When that happens we must seek our answers elsewhere. We eventually turn to science and philosophy.
According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 79% of Christians in the U.S. completely believe in the second coming of Christ. The second coming entails the total destruction of the world, where only those deemed worthy by god will be saved and offered entry into paradise while the rest of us die in agonizing ways. Combine that with the blindly accepted notion that no one's beliefs should ever be questioned and the politically correct culture that insists on interfaith dialogue, and we have the groundwork for this perpetually misguided and deluded world of dangerous stupidity. There is no room at all for reason and intellectual honesty in such a world, and certainly little room for survival.
God is supposed to be exempt from being questioned because God is absolute. That requires faith from the believer. And faith is what we desperately fall back on when reason and logic cannot provide us an answer. But can faith have practical applications in the real world? Can faith predict an approaching tsunami that can easily destroy an island country and kill thousands of innocent lives? Can faith at least warn those people and prepare them for the storm beforehand?
One of the most compelling intellectuals today on matters of religion is Bart Ehrman. A former born-again Christian, Ehrman has a rich background in biblical studies:I worked hard at learning the Bible—some of it by heart. I could quote entire books of the New Testament, verse by verse, from memory. When I graduated from Moody with a diploma in Bible and Theology (at the time Moody did not offer a B.A. degree), I went off to finish my college work at Wheaton, an evangelical Christian college in Illinois (also Billy Graham's alma mater). There I learned Greek so that I could read the New Testament in its original language. From there I decided that I wanted to commit my life to studying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and chose to go to Princeton Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian school whose brilliant faculty included Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual scholar in the country. At Princeton I did both a master of divinity degree—training to be a minister—and, eventually, a PhD in New Testament studies.
Today Ehrman is an agnostic. In an interview with NPR's Terry Gross he explains his gradual but steady journey from being a fundamentalist Christian to becoming an enlightened non-believer devoted to a life's passionate work of dissecting the history of the bible, thus the history of the human conception of God. Ehrman would never have gotten to who he is today if he had never dared crossing the line of sacrosanctity - if he had never dared to question God.
Grab a sandwich and drink and carve out about an hour of your time and listen to what he has to say. This is some serious shit:
Grab a sandwich and drink and carve out about an hour of your time and listen to what he has to say. This is some serious shit:
This sickeningly pathetic state of sacrosanctity is especially apparent in real world situations, such as in the Philippines, where the Catholic Church has a very powerful presence and has been ruining the lives of the many Filipinos who still flock to regular masses, thereby perpetuating the ruination of an entire country. In this case science and reason - in the form of education, family planning, and contraceptives - is constantly being oppressed by the church, which insists that abstinence and prayer is the only answer. And yet plastic bags filled with dead fetuses continue to appear every morning on the altars of Manila churches, left there by anonymous poverty stricken women who can't afford to take on another child but hope that the soul of the dead child can at least be blessed, that it may have a chance to make it to Heaven: a country screwed by a catholic god | a space alien (includes videos of the BBC documentary).
^ The OLPC project, with proper funding and sourcing, is helping to combat the problem of lack of eduction for young children in some parts of the world. Science and technology and human ingenuity is the foundation this project depends on, not praying to a god.
The very idea of believing in god and insisting that he is the answer for everything in the universe demands that we stop asking questions. Period. In which case, how does that work to try and solve such profoundly real problems as children dying from starvation and disease or the lack of any substantial kind of education for the poor and underprivileged? Does praying actually make these things go away?
The very fact that we began to ask questions and actively sought out answers and then asked even more questions is the fundamental essence of science. Science would never have been able to be birthed if we never dared to ask questions in the first place. And it is science that is an ultimate tool in combating problems like world hunger and the need to educate the poor.
Science does not demand faith from us. But it does offer us hope; it offers us possibilities - things that religion or faith can never do for us in this very real world.
The very fact that we began to ask questions and actively sought out answers and then asked even more questions is the fundamental essence of science. Science would never have been able to be birthed if we never dared to ask questions in the first place. And it is science that is an ultimate tool in combating problems like world hunger and the need to educate the poor.
Science does not demand faith from us. But it does offer us hope; it offers us possibilities - things that religion or faith can never do for us in this very real world.
Posts
