Science, much like species, evolves; it’s not based on dogma, so, when evidence contradicts a theory (even a cherished one), the theory must be discarded. This is science’s greatest strength, and, yet, according to creationists and other theists, it’s a “weakness”, since God’s words “don’t change”…
One of the theists’ arguments goes like this: “science explains 95% of it, but the Bible explains 100%! The Bible is obviously superior!”.
The problem is that the Bible doesn’t actually explain anything! Every “explanation” is either magical, or requires something else that is unexplained — and, often, by definition unexplainable. Furthermore, a lot of the available evidence contradicts the Bible’s claims: no, there was never a worldwide flood. No, it wouldn’t be possible for the Ark to carry all those animals. No, the universe isn’t just 6000 years old. No, species weren’t created as they are. And so on.
A variant of that claim (PZ mentions it here) is to say that, since science explains only 95% of something, to trust in science requires faith… and, not only that, it requires as much faith as the religionists’ explanation. What they don’t understand is that those 95% have survived every available evidence so far, while many “scientific” claims in the Bible have been disproved long ago — and only the most willingly blind continue to believe them. The Bible’s claims remind me of Chico (not Groucho, as many people mistakenly believe) Marx’s “who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”, or of that claim from an ancient church father, that he would believe black is white if the church told him so.
The other claim by theists (especially creationists) is this: “science explains just 95% of it? Then the remaining 5% are obviously an act of God, and science will never be able to explain them! This proves God exists!”
Next year, that field of science advances another 1%, and you can guess exactly how the theists’ claim will change… and how they will scream it with as much certainty as the year before. 
No related posts.
Tags: bible, christianity, god-of-the-gaps, religion
Subscribe to this blog
I agree, that kind of argument against science is ignorant. As is any argument that the existence/correctness of either God or science disproves the other at this point in history.
As a theist, and a Christian (in the sense that I follow what are purported to be the teachings of Jesus, not in the sense that I accept the interpretations of those teachings as they are put forth by any organized religion and definately NOT in the sense that I think every word in the Bible to be literal) the ignorance of both points of view is obvious.
If science disproves one’s concept of God there are a couple of options:
- Disclaim the findings of science and hold fast to your beliefs. This is the most common approach. True, sometimes what we’ve proven “scientifically” has been proven false. Sometimes what had no scientific proof has been proven true (at which time scientific proof exists). I think this approach to be the most simplistic and most error prone.
- Throw all your religious beliefs away and jump on the “science or religion” bandwagon in the opposite direction.
- Realize that your understanding of the involved religious concepts is in error. See if there is a different level of understanding that you had not thought of before and continue to seek a deeper understanding of those things which might be labeled as “religious” or ‘spiritual”.
The question I ask of science is this: what is consciousness and where does it originate? for me, until science crosses that threshold, it has not come any closer to disproving the existence of God than it has to proving it.
The goals of science do not include disproving the existence of God. What it has done, however, is to provide natural explanations for many things that were believed to be supernatural, unexplainable, and proofs of God’s existence. It continues to do so to this day.
People in medieval times saw the supernatural everywhere. These days, we don’t — even when theists speak of “miracles”, they’re always minor things that could have happened naturally, such as a fortunate coincidence, a person’s health improving, or someone changing his mind. I believe, that, deep inside, even most theists are aware that the universe is 100% natural, since they never pray for “impossible”, Bible-like things.
Of course, the problem with a 100% natural universe is that it doesn’t really need “creation”, or a god… and then, we get Occam’s Razor.
Pedro,
I am in complete agreement with you on the first paragraph of your response. Science has removed much of man’s ignorance.
My point is that, so far, it has nothing to say about the existence of God(s) and anyone who attacks science because it contradicts there understanding of what a God might be like is only defending their concept and understanding of God, not God itself.
Likewise, anyone who attacks all concepts of God because of science is only attacking their concept and understanding of God.
I personally find both activities kind of pointless. Unless, we are using this attack and defend play to deepen our own understanding of what is happening.
As for a natural universe (which of course, it is 100% natural) not needing creation, that doesn’t matter much to me either. If God exists it exists regardless of need and it itself is 100% natural.
Actually I’m pretty sure that most people who attack the idea of God are attacking a pretty specific definition of God that is false, and has a great bearing over other peoples lives. The Xtian notion of God, with the problem of Evil and omnipotence is provably false.
The God which you explain “IF exists” isn’t what most people define as God, being 100% natural as the definition of God in most religions is something 100% SUPERnatural.
What Pedro means to say with his Occam’s Razor comment (I think) is that with a 100% natural world, there is no need for a creator, or for a conscious being pulling strings. Using Occam’s Razor the idea of God in that sense is null, not a part of any equation in reality, it doesn’t exist, or at least there is no reason for it to exist.
This comment:
[quote post="275"]If God exists it exists regardless of need and it itself is 100% natural.[/quote]
Is hard for me to wrap my mind around, because it seems that you have created your own definition of God. (I think we all do that if we believe in it) But mind you, IMO, the only way for God to exist AND be 100% natural, is if you mean “God = the Universe.” (It would also work if I said “God = a tree.”)
There is only one natural thing that satisfies the criteria to be a God is energy. It has always been here, it will always be here, it is everwhere yet invisible and everything is made out of it (E = MC² by Einstein). If I think really think about it, it might start a religion around energy and make a shit-load of money! I could even proof scientifically that it exists! Brilliant. I call it “Energyology”. I’ll also have a heaven, but it doesn’t matter if you are a good person or not or really follow the Energy Laws, it’s more like the early church, just send me a check and I will grant you entry to the Energy Heaven. You can also buy Energy Products like “Powerthirst”. Watch the commercial: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs (this is not my video, but it’s hilarious)
Hahaha.
Well I agree, energy is the only thing that one could consider a God. It is all powerful, all around and inside of us. But I won’t go as far to say that it THINKS.
MENERGY.
Kren and Hermann Klinke,
Actually, I do not disagree with either of you. Instead, I think you are on to something. I do not think that the current Christian organized religious view of God, as it is presented to the majority of people, is accurate in the least bit. Nor do I think that concept of God was what Christ was speaking about. In other words, I’m not sure at all that the “church” understands it’s own writings.
So, for me at least, I believe and follow the teachings of Christ (as I personally understand them through individual study, research and thought) but am not a ‘Christian’ as it is commonly understood by the organized faiths. Maybe I’m a new kind of gnostic, but that is not good for me since the followers of the currently popular version of Christianity hunted and killed the first gnostics.
I wonder though, or at least it seems to me, that the universe is but one side of a coin (not literally, but as a figure of speech). It is the physical. There seems to be something else we can’t put ourlif hands on yet, maybe it is what we call soul or consciousness. Either way, it is here (I don’t think any of you other conscious beings would deny the existance of consciousness) and we don’t understand it. I believe religions, every religion, before it was corrupted by others, was an attempt to understand these things and their relationship to each other.
If there are these two sides God could be the Universe (I.E. everthing that exists physically) and be more than the Universe (consciousness or “life force”, not of the material realm) and we would only be arguing about a point of view.
I don’t know, but I don’t think the originators of the world’s religions had evil intentions, so I seek to understand what they meant in an attempt to further my understanding of what is happening here.
Kren,
I wish I could claim it as my own personal definition of God but I’m definately not the first person to contemplate it this way.
[quote post="275"]I believe and follow the teachings of Christ (as I personally understand them through individual study, research and thought) but am not a ‘Christian’ as it is commonly understood by the organized faiths. [/quote]
I am sorry but it’s not clear to me. As I understand, the main source of knowing the teachings of Christ is the bible. Your “research and personal understandings” probably means that you don’t follow everything the bible says, but choose the ones that you agree with(I could be wrong, but that’s what I felt when I read it). How’s that different from the ‘Christian’ as it is commonly understod by the organized faiths?
SnowFire,
Anybody can look at the bible and read a few things, pick and choose the things they believe to be right, think about it and come to the conclusion that they ARE right and not be Christian. Anybody can do the same with ANY book. (probably)
I can always quote the bible “Though shalt not kill.”, be pretty sure that it’s right, and though I took that from the bible, that doesn’t mean I beleive that Jesus lived, and died to make sure that I won’t burn in hell.
No Way,
No you’re, not the first to do so, nor was I.
I also have defended the idea that a God exists to no end only to be smacked in the face eventually by reality.
[quote post="275"]If there are these two sides God could be the Universe (I.E. everthing that exists physically) and be more than the Universe (consciousness or “life force”, not of the material realm) and we would only be arguing about a point of view.[/quote]
When you say “Not of the material realm.” I get very confused, because you could only be speaking of the supernatural. Something that has not begun to be proven as real. Assuming it IS real, you could be right. However there’s no reason TO assume that.
When you speak of consciousness, yes it sure does exist, but it’s basically thought. First let’s ask a basic question about it.
Have you ever encountered something that was conscious, but didn’t have a brain?
If you have then, well I’m in checkmate already, for my point is that without the proper ability to think (You need a brain for that) you cannot be conscious, and therefore the idea of a God without a physical brain being conscious, wouldn’t be possible.
[quote comment="26479"]The question I ask of science is this: what is consciousness and where does it originate? for me, until science crosses that threshold, it has not come any closer to disproving the existence of God than it has to proving it.[/quote]
All evidence seems to point towards a physical basis for conciousness. For example Phineas Gage, is a famous example. Also labotomies were used in the 60s to control certain conditions. The basis of all thought is most definitely in the brain, as Kren said.
Also God does not really explain the existence of conciousness, in the same way it does not explain the origin of the universe. The problem being that if the universe and conciousness need a beginning or a ’cause’ , then why doesn’t god? It’s a fair question. To say “because it’s god”, isn’t really an explanation, it’s special begging.
What interests me is that in many respects you sound pantheistic or deistic, and yet you still hold on to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did say a few good and worthwhile things, but as far as I am concerned he was just a man, and therefore is liable to get some of it wrong.
And one final thing, it’s usually better to talk about science in terms of evidence rather than proof. It’s extremely difficult to prove something in science, unlike in maths, and so instead we rely on building up as much evidence and then making theories which explain the evidence and produce testable results. There are probably much better definitions then that, but that’s just a quick one.
Anyway please don’t take that the wrong way; it’s just it would probably turn up at some point or another. So far, I’m enjoying this debate, it’s nice when they’re not just each side yelling at the other.
Kren,
My understanding is that all christians(except may be some of the fundamentalists) pick and choose from the bible. Otherwise they would be killing homosexuals, mass-murdering people who believe in other gods, not working on sundays etc. What I didn’t understand is what NoWay meant by not being a ‘Christian’ as it is commonly understood by the organized faiths. What is the common understanding of a Christian by the organized faiths?
Kren and XanderG,
[quote post="275"]When you speak of consciousness, yes it sure does exist, but it’s basically thought. First let’s ask a basic question about it.
Have you ever encountered something that was conscious, but didn’t have a brain?
If you have then, well I’m in checkmate already, for my point is that without the proper ability to think (You need a brain for that) you cannot be conscious, and therefore the idea of a God without a physical brain being conscious, wouldn’t be possible.[/quote]
Many things in this world, especially in the plant world, appear to the scientific observers to make choices and decisions (i.e. showing consciousness) but have nothing we can identify as a brain. Not to say there isn’t one, just to say we haven’t been able to identify it.
Also, when I am talking about consciousness I’m more along the definition that goes “…awareness of one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings”, a little more than thought IMO. Kind of like thought about thought?
[quote post="275"]Also God does not really explain the existence of conciousness, in the same way it does not explain the origin of the universe. The problem being that if the universe and conciousness need a beginning or a ’cause’ , then why doesn’t god? It’s a fair question. To say “because it’s god”, isn’t really an explanation, it’s special begging.[/quote]
I also agree here. The existence of God doesn’t explain any of this directly, especially if God is thought of as a physical entity outside of the universe. I think that it is obvious that “God” in the typical Xtian church view cannot exist as we understand It. But, I believe that is a result of misinterpretation on the part of the Church and not fault with the sources of the teachings (of which, there are many outside of the Bible). I think the question should not be “does God exist?” but, perhaps more productively “What is this thing they keep calling God?”
That said, I choose not to battle their ignorance in a direct manner (such as saying “your God obviously cannot exist”) but prefer to try and help them think it through on their own and then remain content to leave everyone that’s not trying to kill or control someone else alone with whatever beliefs make them happy.
I personally am panentheistic (not pantheistic) and believe Jesus to have been also. In fact, I believe Jesus to have been more of a bodhisatva. What is most interesting about his case is that he is purported to have been enlightened his whole life.
So, if Jesus is a bodhisatva, and I follow his teachings as such, I would be following his teachings (Christian, a follower of Christ) but not be Christian (a member of, and in agreement with, the church as a whole). In fact, the later Christian group would probably kill me if it were not for hell.
You are correct in suggesting the use of the language evidence, I was being sloppy in my wording.
I too am enjoying this debate.
SnowFire,
That’s correct, Christians couldn’t be Christians in the TOTALLY biblical sense without killing. Plenty of people call themselves Christians and pick and choose. So yes, what most people consider as Christian is someone who picks and chooses. But there’s a problem with that, because there are so many things differently stated in the bible that I could believe killing is bad, OR that killing is good, and still fall under that category as Christian. The same word shouldn’t mean two OPPOSITE things.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not debating that you are incorrect at all, I can’t because that is right. I’m merely pointing out the problem with that definition.
No Way,
[quote post="275"]Many things in this world, especially in the plant world, appear to the scientific observers to make choices and decisions (i.e. showing consciousness) but have nothing we can identify as a brain.[/quote]
That’s a good example, but at the same time, plenty of things “Make decisions” and aren’t conscious. It’s hard pressed for me to believe that a tree has a brain. It probably does have a form of instinct, as I’ve heard of trees releasing certain chemicals to “Warn” other trees about a disease. That doesn’t mean the tree knows it’s doing that.
A lot of animals (especially those with smaller brains) live only on instinct, and though they make decisions all day every day, the fact that they are just going by instinct shows no mind at all. (At least not much of one and therefore VERY little evidence of consciousness is there)
And there’s the Christian definition again… I don’t know what to say about it, really if someone “follows Jesus teachings” they should be able to say they are Christian. It’s however the fact that the word is so vague it seems to not have any specific meaning.
Kren,
I see your point. The issue here is this: since the bible contradicts itself so much, you can’t define a Christian by looking at what he/she has chosen from the scripture. Rather, the mere fact whether someone is picking and choosing from the bible should be the indicator for deciding if he/she is a Christian. I don’t think No Way is any different in this context.
No Way,
You say Jesus is more like bodhisatva and you believe he was panentheistic. Do you reject the notion of Jesus being god? Bodhisatva has to be human by definition. In fact, if you are after good moral teachings, why not go straight to Gouthama Bodhisatva ? At least, the core principles of Buddhism are non-violent. There’s hardly anything one can pick and choose to justify his/her evil deeds.
In his book “Selfish Gene”, Richard Dawkins describes how consciousness could be evolved by natural selection without the need of a creator. It’s a nice reading anyway.
Snowfire, I have no intention of interrupting the conversation and/or debate between you and No Way, yet if you please… an inter… post.
[quote post="275"]The issue here is this: since the bible contradicts itself so much, you can’t define a Christian by looking at what he/she has chosen from the scripture. Rather, the mere fact whether someone is picking and choosing from the bible should be the indicator for deciding if he/she is a Christian. I don’t think No Way is any different in this context.[/quote]
Nor do I…
The fact is that IMO, nobody can be Christian, and live a life without killing UNCHRISTIAN people, because the very same text exclaims that one following SUCH text… MUST DO SO.
As well as kill homosexuals.
Basically, you can’t really say that Christianity = the bible, but DOESN’T = The bible… that’s like saying reality is reality but not reality… in other words… make up your mind. (NOT in the rude tense)
No. The fact is not only that there is no real evidence other than written text that Jesus existed in the FIRST place, but what (IF he existed) has said is written in so many different ways, how can anybody consider themselves to follow the multiple different teachings of someone who may not have been alive to teach anything in the first place?
I used to feel the same, that Jesus taught things that people never REALLY took to heart, but fealt themselves at Christians. However, to define yourself as Christian, and not have ANY real definition of Christianity… makes NO sense. You’re defining yourself as nothing (in that case).
But that’s wrong… first, many people..(even probably some who have no idea of what the Christian bible has written about Christ) feel the same. Would you call them Christian?
The bible is filled with so much hatred, but it seemed that Jesus was actually APPOSED to damn near EVERYTHING the bible had taught except for the “Love thy enemy” part. He himself WITHIN the bible cursed (and physically f’d up a church) for selling things where you’re supposed to be praying to God.
Now, notice the problem. First, selling things at a church is not abnormal, second, he said “Love thy enemy”, Yet he seemed to hate his own enemy. The church itself (for selling things).
I’m sure there are more contradictions in the ENLIGHTENED one we’ve come to love today, but that contradiction itself, especially IN COMBINATION with the FACT that other than WRITTEN documents that he existed in the first place, would remind someone NOT to define their lives on his teachings.
The fact that ANYBODY looks at someone elses teachings and realize them as true, and decides that those teachings are things to live by… IS GOOD. We ALL learn from others. So I could never say that living by what YOU say are Christs teachings makes you (or anybody of course) a BAD person.
However you could never say and be RIGHT, that you are a good person BECAUSE of those teachings.
You are a good person because YOU decided from your OWN brain and empathy, Sympathy… whatever… that you’ll have the same values. They could have come from ANYWHERE though. You’re PARENTS could teach you the same. Why give the bible, or Jesus such a high place?
Kren,
You not interrupting and thanks for the reply. I agree with most of what you said.
[quote post="275"]Basically, you can’t really say that Christianity = the bible, but DOESN’T = The bible… that’s like saying reality is reality but not reality… in other words… make up your mind. (NOT in the rude tense)[/quote]
That’s exactly when the picking and choosing comes into play.
Christianity = Self-claiming a christian and follow chosen parts of bible for the liking
[quote post="275"]No. The fact is not only that there is no real evidence other than written text that Jesus existed in the FIRST place, but what (IF he existed) has said is written in so many different ways, how can anybody consider themselves to follow the multiple different teachings of someone who may not have been alive to teach anything in the first place?[/quote]
I believe the fact whether Jesus existed is irrelavent to the question. There is this anciant book that says Jesus existed and the same book describes what his teachings are. I think we can start from there.
[quote post="275"]I used to feel the same, that Jesus taught things that people never REALLY took to heart, but fealt themselves at Christians. However, to define yourself as Christian, and not have ANY real definition of Christianity… makes NO sense. You’re defining yourself as nothing (in that case).
But that’s wrong… first, many people..(even probably some who have no idea of what the Christian bible has written about Christ) feel the same. Would you call them Christian?[/quote]
No I wouldn’t call them Christians because they don’t claim themselves as christians. As you said, good values can be learnt from lot’s of different sources. Thanks for pointing this out. I added “Self-claiming a christian” part to my definition.
[quote post="275"]Christianity = Self-claiming a christian and follow chosen parts of bible for the liking[/quote]
This means that you could have two people.
1 who reads and believes that killing gay people is good.
1 who reads and believes that killing is wrong.
They would both be Christian. That makes a null definition.
[quote post="275"]I believe the fact whether Jesus existed is irrelavent to the question. There is this anciant book that says Jesus existed and the same book describes what his teachings are. I think we can start from there.[/quote]
Sure, but immediately after we’ve established the fact that this book exists it should be determined where it would be found in the library: Fact or Fiction. Especially before people base their entire belief system around it.
[quote post="275"]This means that you could have two people.
1 who reads and believes that killing gay people is good.
1 who reads and believes that killing is wrong.
They would both be Christian. That makes a null definition.[/quote]
I believe both of them are Christians. May be you are assuming that a Christian must be moral by default? (if so, I think that a false assumption) As for as killing the gay is concerned (and so many other things), sure they have different opinions. But we know that they both call themselves Christians and believe themselves as Christians. For our definition, we have to find the common denomination between them.
[quote post="275"]Sure, but immediately after we’ve established the fact that this book exists it should be determined where it would be found in the library: Fact or Fiction. Especially before people base their entire belief system around it.[/quote]
I believe it belongs to the fiction section and I assume you would have a similar opinion on that. But isn’t that irrelevant again? I mean, we have so many people calling themselves Christians already, regardless of the book being fiction. We could add “ignorant” to our definition too but I think “picking and choosing” includes that.
Here is a question I have: What if you’re gay and you consider yourself to be Christian? Do you have to kill yourself? If so, do you still go to Heaven? What if you are gay and you have sex? Is God still watching? If so, why does God watch gay people have sex? How do we know God isn’t gay himself? God, you gay motherfucker. Stop watching!
[quote post="275"]This means that you could have two people.
1 who reads and believes that killing gay people is good.
1 who reads and believes that killing is wrong.
They would both be Christian. That makes a null definition.[/quote]
They would both believe themselves to be Christian. One of them would obviously be incorrect (in the sense of being out of agreement with what Jesus would have done) but would still call themselves a Christian. That person could be correct in the sense that “I’m just like all the other people that say this is what being a Christian is” if one chooses to define Christianity in a popular sense.
Also, while there are nothing but written records to indicate whether Jesus existed or not, isn’t that the case with many, many historical figures we study today? Do you apply the same standard of proof to these people?
Yes of course, the same standard of proof must apply for anybody to come to any conclusion whatsoever. Even if that conclusion is “I don’t know.” or “IMO”. (Not the best conclusions to base one’s life upon)
As long as there are beliefs, there will be other beliefs, to prove or disprove ones faith. It all matters in what that one person believes. I think science and religion can intertwine, under certain circumstances. But that could only be my opinion. all evidence must be seen by the eyes before its proof, and it must be tested fully.