I am not a Creationist. I find the evidence for natural selection and a 5 billion year old earth much more compelling than the evidence for creationism and a 6,000 year old earth. I think the 'water canopy' theory used to explain Noah's flood is fallacious. I think the idea that Job 40:15-18 describes a dinosaur is ridiculous. If someone tells me that carbon dating showed an allosaurus bone to be much younger than 65 million years, I politely point out that carbon dating cannot be used to date objects older than 60,000 years.
On the other hand, I do not find Christianity, to be a threat to science. Pseudoscience wrapped in Christian trappings, yes, but not Christianity. A person can believe in God, yet accept that science can offer no proof of his existence. A person can accept the wisdom of Genesis, without believing in its literal truth.
The Bible describes faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If you cannot see God, then you cannot prove that he exists. That does not mean that you cannot accept the idea that science can prove other things. It simply means that you cannot use science to prove the existence of God. As long as you accept that fact, as long as you can accept that science cannot prove faith, then you can have faith in God and still accept the validity of science.
Yet many atheists seem to believe that religion is anathema to science. They seem to believe that people who believe in God do not, or cannot, accept the validity of science. I find fault with that line of reasoning. Just because you recognize that God cannot be proved by science, does not mean that you reject science's validity. Just because you find power and meaning in the written words of the Bible does not mean that you cannot feel awe and humility when gazing at the cosmos or studying nucleic acids. Science and religion both have power, they both have meaning, and just because they operate in separate spheres does not make one any more or less valid than the other.
I am a Buddhist. However, I don't believe that the Buddha's mother, Maya, was literally impregnated by a white elephant who entered her side. In fact, I question whether the Buddha's mother was even named 'Maya.' I understand that the elephant is a symbol of divine wisdom and truth. I also understand that the name 'Maya' is a Hindu word for illusion. I read this story metaphorically. I read it as saying truth impregnates and is born from illusion. What truth there is in that. How well it describes religion.
Yet many atheists cannot see this truth. They see the story, but they do not see the metaphors. As such, they see my faith as a delusion, a psychosis. They think I delude myself by finding meaning in the story. It reminds me of what Christ told his disciples when they asked him why he speaks in parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-4:12)
Many atheists see the problems with religious fanaticism, but they often fail to see the problems with anti-religious fanaticism. They believe that atheism is enlightened, and that religion is not. They point to the atrocities of religion as evidence to support their claims. But they forget that it was atheists who exiled the Dalai Lama from Tibet. They forget that it was atheists who raised the Iron Curtain. In a debate with Christopher Hedges, called "Is God Great?" Christopher Hitchens, a well known spokesperson for atheism, said of the Iraq War, "[The soldiers in Iraq] are guarding you while you sleep, whether you know it or not. And they're also creating space for secularism to emerge, and you better hope that they are successful." I do not know what to think of the Iraq war, but I find the idea that it is some sort of crusade (and I use that word deliberately) for atheism to be a very chilling one indeed.
I am an agnostic. As such I think there are very good reasons to doubt the existence of God. I think there are very good reasons to doubt the existence of the supernatural. I cannot say definitively whether either exist, but I cannot say definitively that they do not exist either. I see both as not proved.
Yet many atheists and theists see this position as indecisive. They believe that the evidence is already there, and that I must accept one position or the other, or I am ignorant. I think that this is a flawed analysis. After all, we don't know everything. We don't know where matter comes from. We don't know if there are other universes. We don't know what dark matter is, and we don't know if there is life on other planets. With all of this ignorance, how can we say definitively, one way or another, about something as unknowable as God?
At the same time, I do not feel threatened by atheism. I do not feel threatened by theism. I cannot say that either is right, or either is wrong, because I have not had the same experiences as other people. I have never felt the power of God filling my heart. I have never seen conclusive proof that God does not exist. However, I do not doubt that people have religious experiences. I do not doubt that people find arguments against God's existence compelling. In some ways, I even envy people who have these experiences, because I imagine that such certainty is fulfilling.
I do not believe that an ideology should be judged by its zealots. I believe that all ideologies are only as enlightened as the people who espouse them. I think we need to recognize these truths, and not clutch so tightly to our own ideologies when we are confronted with ones that we don't understand. We need to listen, we need to be compassionate. That doesn't mean we can't speak out against bigotry, zealotry, or demagoguery. We just need to be aware of what we're saying, and not resort to these same tactics ourselves.* Otherwise, we become what we hate. We become the zealots that we wish to eradicate, and we fail to see the humanity that lies in all of us.
*I speak of me here too. :-)
A very beautiful post, Dove.
I am not a Creationist. I find the evidence for natural selection and a 5 billion year old earth much more compelling than the evidence for creationism and a 6,000 year old earth. I think the 'water canopy' theory used to explain Noah's flood is fallacious.
That being said, I do believe there was an event in Mesopotamia that flooded the entire region or at least a good portion of it. All the differing religious traditions (going as far back as Gilgamesh) from the region tell tales of a great flood that covered the Earth, leading me to believe that some sort of massive disaster did occur, even if it was much more limited in scope. There are even theories of the Black Sea overrunning its banks.
On the other hand, I do not find Christianity, to be a threat to science. Pseudoscience wrapped in Christian trappings, yes, but not Christianity. A person can believe in God, yet accept that science can offer no proof of his existence. A person can accept the wisdom of Genesis, without believing in its literal truth.
A good story about that comes from my Catholic mother. While she was carrying me to term, she and my dad had gone to a bible study class in Pensacola, led by one Fr. Patrick Friar (who was apparently my namesake, and who was -- no kidding! a former Hare Krishna before taking his vows). At first it was ecumenical, opening the study session with "we Christians". Then Fr. Friar opened the Bible to a particular chapter, and talked about it being allegorical. He handled Jonah and the Whale in that manner. And Job, and Noah. Finally, after about three or four weeks, the opening was no longer "we Christians," but "we Catholics," as only the Catholics (who respect the Bible, but see it as guidelines and scripture and not the completely inerrant word of God) stuck in for the long haul.
Those who go and say that everything in the bible happened literally, or see it as a fully innerant document (ESPECIALLY those who take the KJV as the only valid translation -- read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Eherenreich to see just how bad a translation it is) are missing the point completely. Whether or not it actually happened is not the point. The point is the message -- be good to one another. Do good works. Don't kill your neighbor.
Yet many atheists seem to believe that religion is anathema to science. They seem to believe that people who believe in God do not accept the validity of science. I find fault with that line of reasoning. Just because you recognize that God cannot be proved by science, does not mean that you reject science's validity. Just because you find power and meaning in the written words of the Bible does not mean that you cannot feel awe and humility when gazing at the cosmos or studying nucleic acids. Science and religion both have power, they both have meaning, and just because they operate in separate spheres does not make one any more or less valid than the other.
Dove, why can't there be more people like you out there saying this? This is truth.
Dove, why can't there be more people like you out there saying this? This is truth.
Awww. You're going to make me cry.
Yet many atheists seem to believe that religion is anathema to science. They seem to believe that people who believe in God do not, or cannot, accept the validity of science. I find fault with that line of reasoning. Just because you recognize that God cannot be proved by science, does not mean that you reject science's validity. Just because you find power and meaning in the written words of the Bible does not mean that you cannot feel awe and humility when gazing at the cosmos or studying nucleic acids. Science and religion both have power, they both have meaning, and just because they operate in separate spheres does not make one any more or less valid than the other.
Excellent point. And should be an obvious one.
But do they really operate in mutually exclusive spheres? I believe there is/has been for some time an overlap.
|
That being said, I do believe there was an event in Mesopotamia that flooded the entire region or at least a good portion of it. All the differing religious traditions (going as far back as Gilgamesh) from the region tell tales of a great flood that covered the Earth, leading me to believe that some sort of massive disaster did occur, even if it was much more limited in scope. There are even theories of the Black Sea overrunning its banks.
One of the archeology books I'm researching (with prodding from Samnell) said something similar. Basically that the best "proof" that there was a great flood disaster is the number of different cultures that have a similar story. Basically, the human nature might "need" to have some kind of origin story -- where we came from and so on. But the flood doesn't really fulfill any kind of explanation need. There isn't any need to have a story that puts some guy on a boat with a bunch of animals. It is incredibly unlikely that it was worldwide. But at the same time, if Colorado was suddenly underwater, that would be my "world".
|
A lot of people who aren't Atheists seem to always make assumptions about how we think, as if somehow we were one big collected group like a religion, when we aren't. Everyone is an individual with their own thoughts. There might be some that are similar, but it's not an organized kind of thing.
Honestly a lot of labels in society really need to just stop being used.
I agree with almost everything posted. I am disturbed by a trend to formalize atheism into a formal belief system, whether from well-meaning atheists, or from the declarations of angry theists. I believe there needs to be some room for some topics to be religion-free, so that all people can discuss them together equally -- and that if you declare "religion-free" to be a religion, then there are no more safe places where everyone can come together.
Personally, I'm a scientist, and a Buddhist. A religious atheist, if you will. Personally I see no conflict between what I read in the Bible, and what I read in the Sutras, and what I see in the natural world -- but that's because, as Dove Arrow points out, I'm OK with the concept of a metaphor. I see no problem with theistic evolution, if that's what people need to retain a God in their lives. I do have a problem with forcing a particular religion's literal intepretation to supercede actual observations of the world around us, however.
A lot of people who aren't Atheists seem to always make assumptions about how we think, as if somehow we were one big collected group like a religion, when we aren't.
Well I think you'll notice that I say 'many atheists.' I don't lump them into one group. I have known many atheists who are loving and compassionate people. The first person I ever loved is an atheist. Heck, I was once an atheist.
Like you, I don't think it's safe to say that atheists have one mind. I also don't think that Christians or Hindus, or Muslims have one mind. I think every person has different beliefs, and what is true of one person is not necessarily true of another.
That's really the point of my post. Try to recognize that there isn't one 'right' set of beliefs. Try to recognize that we we each believe different things and that we should love each other for who we are. :)
Much of the conflict seems to arise due to the very vocal urgings of two small groups: fundamentalist Christians and atheists that seem to put more stock in the "cult of science," rather than science itself. The vast majority lie somewhere between these two extremes, but then I've found that most groups seem to be identified by their loudest voices, and those are invariably extremists who like to reduce arguments to a simple paradigm of right vs. wrong. After all, strawman arguments are the easiest to win.
I do have a problem with forcing a particular religion's literal intepretation to supercede actual observations of the world around us, however.
I agree. Which is why I'm not a creationist. :)
|
|
I'd advice reading some of Carl Friedrich von Weizäckers works. He was a physician of some renown and wrote several intresting book about the relation of science and god. It is not necessary to agree with him to find his thoughts very insightful and inspiring to do some thinking.
"The opposite of crazy is still crazy." --Robert Glover
That's really the point of my post. Try to recognize that there isn't one 'right' set of beliefs. Try to recognize that we we each believe different things and that we should love each other for who we are. :)
Ahh, but there is one 'right' set of beliefs. Every person has one. And the right to have their own. ;)
As long as you accept that fact, as long as you can accept that science cannot prove faith, then you can have faith in God and still accept the validity of science.
This statement is interesting to me. Firstly, I am an athiest, in that I do not believe in any gods. I don't believe in the Christian God, Thor, Zeus, Ganeesh, Allah, animal spirits, Gaia, or any interpretation of any supreme being in any form. I do not view the bible as an authority (but it is an interesting historical document), and I do not view faith as a virtue.
Now having said that, I ask you, which god are you referring to specifically? Why is the faith in the christian god more valid than faith in Odin or Mars?
Why is the faith in the christian god more valid than faith in Odin or Mars?
Why do you people always ignore the true, uncreated creator, Ahura Mazda!?
Now having said that, I ask you, which god are you referring to specifically? Why is the faith in the christian god more valid than faith in Odin or Mars?
I tend to use the word 'God' as a catch all, though maybe that's not the most enlightened thing to do. I figure regardless of whether you believe in the god, Allah, or the goddess, Devi, you still have to accept the fact that neither can be verified through science.
That said, if you worship the earth, the sun, the moon, or the universe, then I guess you could use science to verify their existence. I'm just not sure that you could ever verify their divinity (whatever that means). :)
A very nice post, and I appreciate the feeling and motivations behind it. Peace is a nice thing, and everyone desires a rebreif from endless debates of semantics, however. Atheists didn't erect the Iron Curtain, people did, may people backed by a atheist government. This arguement doesn't apply equally to both religon and atheism, because atheism is the lack of faith or beleif, while faith, and doctrine can actually tell people to do things, though mostly atrocities are people bending metaphysics or poor science to thier own agendas.
Also, as an aside, eviction of the Dalai Lama may have been replaced with a disagreeable and harsh Chinese regime, but its actually been an improvement for many actual Tibetans, though certainly not for the the Lama and his cleric class. Another step in the right direction is of course needed, i.e. better education, healthcare, social and political freedom without the fear of retribution or abuse of an upper class.
Why do you people always ignore the true, uncreated creator, Ahura Mazda!?
I thought it was the Almighty Bob.
A cookie to anyone who recognizes the reference.
Atheists didn't erect the Iron Curtain, people did, may people backed by a atheist government.
On some levels, I agree with you. However, I think the same could be said of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Islamic Revolution. These events were not perpetrated by religions. They were perpetrated by people. And what can be said of the people in Spain, Britain, and Iran, can be said of the people in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. In every one of these examples, political groups used ideology in order to manipulate the masses so that they could further their own agendas. The only difference is that the rhetoric was religious in one case, and secular in the other.
|
|
Hahha, found a nice quote on wikipedia about Russell's teapot. This is from Richard Dawkins in his book A Devil's Chaplain,
"The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first."
...systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves.
Are you suggesting most atheists raise their children as theists?
"The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that... religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves."
Much like democracy. :)
A lot of people who aren't Atheists seem to always make assumptions about how we think, as if somehow we were one big collected group like a religion, when we aren't. Everyone is an individual with their own thoughts. There might be some that are similar, but it's not an organized kind of thing.
Very much agree. Atheism is far to broad based a concept to easily be slotted into specific places in history. Communist China did not move into Tibet because of Atheism, they moved into Tibet for realpoltic reasons. The Atheism practiced by the leaders of the PRC of the time bears little resemblance to Atheism practiced in other parts of the world, its an Atheism rooted in the Chinese cultural context and is influenced by, among other things, Confucianism, which does not play out culturally in even other Atheistic communist states of the era such as Stalin's Russia.
In effect its like trying to explain the actions of deist peoples by noting that the Ancient Greeks believed in the God Mars, Aztecs believed in the Sun God Tezcatlipoca and Modern Christians believe in Jesus. The problem comes in deciding what all these cultures do that is the same due to their belief in such God(s) and the answer really is nothing more then they believed in these God(s). Otherwise there is little commonality.
Atheists didn't erect the Iron Curtain, people did, may people backed by a atheist government.On some levels, I agree with you. However, I think the same could be said of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Islamic Revolution. These events were not perpetrated by religions. They were perpetrated by people. And what can be said of the people in Spain, Britain, and Iran, can be said of the people in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. In every one of these examples, political groups used ideology in order to manipulate the masses so that they could further their own agendas. The only difference is that the rhetoric was religious in one case, and secular in the other.
Its worth noting that while Soviet Russia and Communist China are examples of Atheistic states, Nazi Germany is not, its agenda was couched very much in religious propaganda and its leader was absolutely certain that he was the chosen of some kind of Divine Providence.
Lots of interesting stories on Hitlers belief in his divine protection and some of them are pretty impressive. For example during World War I he is part of a squad (or company or some other small military unit) and he has some kind of premonition so he gets up and walks, all alone, about 100 meters down the trenches, A minute or two later an Allied shell makes a really fluky direct hit into this part of the trench's killing or maiming everyone in the unit, except of course Hitler who had just received some strange urge to go take a walk.
Hitler himself interprets this as a sign from above, essentially a divine power chose to step in and save him, ipso facto he must have some special purpose. Another interesting story is that he used to drive his security detail completely bonkers because he refused to take any kind of reasonable precautions during outings because he had an absolute certainty that 'No German can kill me', a certainty rooted in his belief in divine protection. He'd got lucky in this regards on probably more then a dozen occasions as well.
Its worth noting that while Soviet Russia and Communist China are examples of Atheistic states, Nazi Germany is not, its agenda was couched very much in religious propaganda and its leader was absolutely certain that he was the chosen of some kind of Divine Providence.
True. However, I didn't say atheist. I said secular. And what I was referring to specifically was Nazi Germany's manipulation of the theory of natural selection (a scientific idea) to support eugenics (a very non-scientific idea). To my knowledge, the support of eugenics in Nazi Germany wasn't based on any religious belief. It was entirely based on secular ideologies.
Of course, in referencing Nazi Germany, I proved Godwin's Law. So forget that I said anything about Hitler, and just focus on the communist stuff. :P
Church of the Sub-Genius?
I was actually referencing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, but since Douglas Adams was arguably referencing Church of the Sub-Genius, I guess that's close enough. :)
|
Much of the conflict seems to arise due to the very vocal urgings of two small groups: fundamentalist Christians and atheists that seem to put more stock in the "cult of science," rather than science itself.
Both sides feel persecuted and set upon. Backs up, defensive (in some cases with real reason, having lost jobs or friendships or even been physically assaulted over issues of faith or non-faith), they are reactionary and entrenched in the notion that there is some sort of 'war' between believers and non-believers, and, like some self-fulfilling prophecy, only exacerbate the situation by provoking others into acting exactly as they feared they would.
It's a fire with fear and miscommunication as it's fuel.
The media happily stokes the flames with stories about 'Tiller the Baby Killer' or the 'War on Christmas' or whatever, increasing the sense of imminent threat in each camp.
Atheists didn't erect the Iron Curtain, people did, may people backed by a atheist government.On some levels, I agree with you. However, I think the same could be said of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Islamic Revolution. These events were not perpetrated by religions. They were perpetrated by people. And what can be said of the people in Spain, Britain, and Iran, can be said of the people in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. In every one of these examples, political groups used ideology in order to manipulate the masses so that they could further their own agendas. The only difference is that the rhetoric was religious in one case, and secular in the other.Its worth noting that while Soviet Russia and Communist China are examples of Atheistic states, Nazi Germany is not, its agenda was couched very much in religious propaganda and its leader was absolutely certain that he was the chosen of some kind of Divine Providence.
Lots of interesting stories on Hitlers belief in his divine protection and some of them are pretty impressive. For example during World War I he is part of a squad (or company or some other small military unit) and he has some kind of premonition so he gets up and walks, all alone, about 100 meters down the trenches, A minute or two later an Allied shell makes a really fluky direct hit into this part of the trench's killing or maiming everyone in the unit, except of course Hitler who had just received some strange urge to go take a walk.
Hitler himself interprets this as a sign from above, essentially a divine power chose to step in and save him, ipso facto he must have some special purpose. Another interesting story is that he used to drive his security detail completely bonkers because he refused to take any kind of reasonable precautions during outings because he had an absolute certainty that 'No German can kill me', a certainty rooted in his belief in divine protection. He'd got...
Sorry, read some of the posts on the 'yada yada offensive' thread by Jeremy about Hitler. He wasn't religious, many germans were, he used and abused imagery as part of propaganda, and that is all from a fairly reliable source.
Atheists didn't erect the Iron Curtain, people did, may people backed by a atheist government.On some levels, I agree with you. However, I think the same could be said of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Islamic Revolution. These events were not perpetrated by religions. They were perpetrated by people. And what can be said of the people in Spain, Britain, and Iran, can be said of the people in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. In every one of these examples, political groups used ideology in order to manipulate the masses so that they could further their own agendas. The only difference is that the rhetoric was religious in one case, and secular in the other.
Absolutely, in fact the Crusades and Inquisition were fore-front in my mind when I posted, and it is absolutely true that human beings will use images, and beleifs, even misunderstood scientific principles couched in a certain way to acheive their goals. However, that's not true of atheism as such.
Religion makes claims etc. Secular ideas say things about real world things. Even science goes ahead to understand and describe real things. [I hope no-one construes this as saying science or secular thinking is like a religion].
Atheism doesn't exactly say or claim anything. It is the absence of beleive in a divine entity, you can't use atheism in the same way.
Atheism doesn't exactly say or claim anything. It is the absence of beleive in a divine entity, you can't use atheism in the same way.
That may be true theoretically. However, I find the views of many atheists to be remarkably consistent.
To give you an example, in almost any discussion I've ever had about atheism, Richard Dawkins comes up at least once (this discussion being no exception). Someone will usually mention that belief in God is akin to belief in Santa Claus or the Spaghetti Monster. Occam's Razor is inevitably referenced. The validity of natural selection often comes up, even if nobody in the discussion questions its authenticity. There's usually at least one person saying that there is no place for religion in society, and/or that religion is some form of mass delusion. Finally, if there's a person who describes herself as Christian in the discussion, someone usually demands that she produce some sort of scientific proof of God's existence in order to justify her belief.
Now granted, atheists may not have their own organized churches (well, some do). However, if atheism didn't say or claim anything, I doubt you'd see such consistency in its discussion.
Like religion, atheism makes its own claims, not the least of which is that there are no gods directing things. That's a perfectly legitimate claim, and I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with atheists trying to 'convert' people to atheism.
What I do have a problem with is when atheism turns into anti-theism. Similarly, I have a problem when religious belief turns into religious fundamentalism. It's one thing to have a personal belief in something. It's another to display open hostility or disdain towards someone who believes differently than you.
Regardless of whether you believe, as I do, that atheism is at least partially responsible for many of the atrocities that happened in Tibet and Soviet Russia, hopefully, you can agree with me that it isn't okay to openly oppress an entire people because of their or your beliefs.
What I do have a problem with is when atheism turns into anti-theism. Similarly, I have a problem when religious belief turns into religious fundamentalism. It's one thing to have a personal belief in something. It's another to display open hostility or disdain towards someone who believes differently than you.
More excellent points!
What I do have a problem with is when atheism turns into anti-theism. Similarly, I have a problem when religious belief turns into religious fundamentalism. It's one thing to have a personal belief in something. It's another to display open hostility or disdain towards someone who believes differently than you.
It definitely puts a damper on open dialogue to start out by putting the other person in the position of being either morally wrong or mentally incompetent.
I've seen anti-theism evident in writings by atheists that attempt to secularize great thinkers in an attempt to get them on their side. They will downplay the religious aspects of a person's life, because it's hard to argue against all aspects of religion being negative or useless when there are historical examples such as Martin Luther King, Jr. where a religious person greatly assists moral progress.
Unfortunately, for every MLK, there seem to be several dozen Fred Phelps running around. Just like for every atheist that is willing to be accepting of others' rights to personal beliefs, there are many others that enjoy taunting the religious with their supposed mental superiority.
It definitely puts a damper on open dialogue to start out by putting the other person in the position of being either morally wrong or mentally incompetent.
You mean like when Ben Stein asserts that being open to the theory of evolution actually makes you party to the Holocaust? Or when Richard Dawkins starts ranting about "how deranged 'these people' really are"? People are awfully quick to dampen dialogue... maybe because shutting off is a whole lot easier than understanding.
|
It definitely puts a damper on open dialogue to start out by putting the other person in the position of being either morally wrong or mentally incompetent.You mean like when Ben Stein asserts that being open to the theory of evolution actually makes you party to the Holocaust? Or when Richard Dawkins starts ranting about "how deranged 'these people' really are"? People are awfully quick to dampen dialogue... maybe because shutting off is a whole lot easier than understanding.
What's to understand? You six billion are wrong and must be exterminated. Thats how Holocausts work...almost.
You mean like when Ben Stein asserts that being open to the theory of evolution actually makes you party to the Holocaust? Or when Richard Dawkins starts ranting about "how deranged 'these people' really are"? People are awfully quick to dampen dialogue... maybe because shutting off is a whole lot easier than understanding.
Exactly. It aggravates me when intelligent individuals like Stein and Dawkins resort to sweeping generalizations when dealing with issues as complex as science and religion.
Just to throw it in there. I've noticed in the last few years a plethora of commentators such as Dawkins and Stein that seem very much about polarizing these debates. I guess its a good way to sell books and generally grab media attention. Its also consistent with the general caustic trend in dialogue and debate. Give me Carl Sagan any day over these guys. I remember reading a lot of Sagan's commentary on religion vs. science and he provided a sensible and respectful voice that while rejecting superstition and fundamentalism certainly made it clear that there was room for both religion and science. The Demon-Haunted World in particular I recall as a good read on the issue. A measured and rational but passionate voice that I miss .
polarization=$$$, no matter the subject
polarization=$$$, no matter the subject
Yeah; look at Ann Coulter. She's made a very lucrative career out of it.
polarization=$$$, no matter the subjectYeah; look at Ann Coulter. She's made a very lucrative career out of it.
Hey you forgot about MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Hey you forgot about MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
We didn't forget about you. Though if wishing made it so. :)
Hey you forgot about MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!We didn't forget about you. Though if wishing made it so. :)
Yeah Limbaugh go away you cause too much division in america.
Yeah Limbaugh go away you cause too much division in america.Hey you forgot about MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!We didn't forget about you. Though if wishing made it so. :)
I've seen Family Guy. You're not fooling anyone; I know you and Limbaugh are the same person.
Speaking on behalf of all Americans, aren't their bigger things to worry about? ; )
Just outlaw religion, like I did. It saves you so many headaches.
polarization=$$$, no matter the subjectYeah; look at Ann Coulter. She's made a very lucrative career out of it.
Yep, and a whole lot more, on both sides of any issue Then their lawyers, their lobbyists, their publicists...ARRRGGGHHH! Keep the controversy alive and my wallet will thrive!