For example, if you believe God has a hand in everything, you have to therefore believe the earthquake was caused by Him and to believe that, you’d have to believe he did it for a reason. You would also have to suspend disbelief that God would harm innocent people for no reason, and trod upon the already-suffering masses in a country that’s had more sadness than most others in the world. You’d essentially have to believe that your God, for no apparent reason, decided to smite a country with a natural disaster. What’s that, you say? I don’t understand.
Well, actually I do, because on top of believing that, if you believe God has a hand in everything, you’d also have to believe that God didn’t save thousands of people from torturous deaths in Haiti, but helped you graduate college, get a job promotion, or helped P. Diddy win a Grammy. In fact, we know he helped the Yankees win the World Series, and he helped numerous R&B singers win AMA’s, Grammy’s, and MTV VMA’s because, as they remind us when they win, they’d like to “thank God.”
That this leaves us in, at the very least, a contradictory position, is obvious. In order to believe God tinkers with our daily lives, we have to accept the fact that He destroyed a tropical nation of impoverished people, while at the same time gave Soulja Boy mad stacks on deck, lotsa hunnys, and so on. Does that even make sense to anyone?
A great essay by Vincent Ferrari about the contradictions of religion:
3
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
The Devil/Satan a Mono-Theistic Coping Mechanism.
Well, God is not responsible its that darned Devil. It was better when the Greek Gods had human like qualities and made mistakes and could take the blame. Without the Devil there would be too many questions on the why….a simple coping mechanism.
Just another example of trolling for controversy on this blog. It’s uninteresting and getting old.
#51, RGB…a belief system based on science, in which there is evidence and methods of testing theories, beats religion, in which there is absolutely no evidence, is never “wrong”, and is only based on ancient books of highly questionable origin. Man created god, not the other way around.
54 the Grim Peeper
“We are not evolved from rocks, but are made of the stuff of stars.”
Beautiful. Keep going, you’re almost there. …and the stars begat… what?.. plan-ets.
RBG there is no “belief” in evolution, there is only acceptance, of provable scientific theory
I am reminded that the word “Islam” means “to surrender” to the will of God. Sounds mighty similar to your definition.
There is no “belief” yet they still call it the “theory of evolution” & “gravitational theory.”
Stephen Hawking: “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Sounds like there’s some pretty strong faith in those words: a belief that something is true.
RBG
#45
Satan and God at war. Satan was active in the natural disaster which lead to the death of so many people. But God is at work now.
That argument completely falls apart. First, it implies that your deity is unable to stop Satan from committing these “evil” acts. Second, it implies that Satan is quite powerful in that he is able to cause earthquakes. Third, it shows your deity to be either incompetent, impotent or malevolent in its inability to eliminate Satan.
I would rather that we pull together regardless of creed and help those in need.
Agreed. No faith in the supernatural is necessary to help people that are in need.
#57
Both evolution and god are theories.
Not even close. Evolution is an observable fact. It is the equivalent of observing that the sun rises. We have scientific theories, which are vastly different than the colloquial meaning of word theory, used to explain and predict how that observable fact occurs.
Religion is not based on observed facts but rather purely based on conjecture.
#60
Theories are just the best guesses of groups of individuals based on the evidence at hand.
Again, not even close. Scientific theories are not guesses. They are based on observable, measurable evidence. You need to learn about the scientific method and how scientists qualify hypotheses about observable facts into theories.
The article’s idea on a deity is really the only plausible (I use the term very loosely) notion on a deity. It is effectively deism. The problem comes in finding evidence to support the notion that said being exists. If I tell you that a box contains a purple leprechauns but also tell you that its abilities are so advanced that there is no means to detect it and thus no means to prove my claim, is it really there?
#67, RBG, you can try to poke holes in science all day long, but no matter how many holes you think you’ve made, the supernatural still does not explain what science cannot. That’s the one big mistake religious folk make: “Well, science can’t prove it, so it must be god!” Gimme a break.
God smacking the hell out of people for whatever reason and killing many of them is very Old Testament. Pat Robertson should decide whether he’s a Christian or a Jew.
66 fpp2002
My #51 had nothing to do with challenging science and everything re the #54 irony of a belief system that is simultaneously accepting & not accepting of “provable scientific theory:” “We are not evolved from rocks, but are made of the stuff of stars.” Please let me mock in peace.
RBG
#68.
“Not even close. Evolution is an observable fact. It is the equivalent of observing that the sun rises. ”
Thank you for proving my point. The rising of the sun was once a theory that has been debunked by advances in astronomy. We now beleive that the sun is not actually rising but the earth is spinning causing the sun to look as if it is revolving around the earth.
You may be right that theories are not just guesses. I should clarify: they are educated guesses which are debated amongst the scientific community. Those “guesses” which cannot be refuted are are most widely accepted then are formed into theories.
If evolution is indeed fact then please explain the LAW of evolution to me.
#71
“Just because A = f(B) and B = f(C), it is pure faith to think that A = f(C).”
We neither evolved from chimps nor from rocks and there is more than belief to back those claims.
A common ancestor, not chimps. Start there.
RBG
#72
Try again for double the points. You are showing your ignorance about science. We now know WHY it APPEARS that the sun rises. However, it is indisputable that from the perspective of an observer that it does. Through other means we have determined what is actually happening but it starts with observation.
You may be right that theories are not just guesses.
Scientific theories are not guesses, educated or otherwise. To even suggest as such shows you are ignorant of the scientific method. Scientific theories require measurable, quantifiable, unbiased confirmation that the hypothesis fits the data. Scientific theories have to provide predictive ability. (Which is one of the many reasons creationism fails qualify as scientific).
Those “guesses” which cannot be refuted are are most widely accepted then are formed into theories.
Again, this shows you do not understand the scientific method. If you had evidence to show that the current theories that explain evolution were wrong, the scientific community would turn on its ear. The scientific community have even provided the means by which you refute their claims (find a modern rabbit in the Precambrian era). There are no theories which “can’t” be refuted. However, no theory can be refuted without evidence.
If evolution is indeed fact then please explain the LAW of evolution to me.
That species evolve in relation to their environment is a fact. That means anyone is able to observe the same phenomena.
A “law” in scientific community is really a variation of a theory. No one makes laws anymore because no theory fits the data in all scenarios. Newton’s “laws” are a good example. On Earth, at speeds much slower than the speed of light, they are quite accurate. However, they break down at the quantum level.
#74
Yes, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. That is the best theory that fits the currently available data.
#67 Stephen Hawking: “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
Sounds like there’s some pretty strong faith in those words: a belief that something is true.
Why does someone have to “believe” a theory? If someone asked me if I “believe” in evolution, I’d say, “It seems to be the idea that explains most of the facts, for now. But we’ll see.” Notice I didn’t say I “believe” or “disbelieve” in the theory.
Science is difficult for people who demand absolute certainty in their lives. Theories are moving targets, always being tweaked when some new evidence comes along. You want 100% certainty, attach yourself to a religion.
Bobbo, Re#43: “It all does make perfect sense. I’m still working on the value of prayer though.
May I suggest prayer credits? First we have to establish an International Panel on Evil Control, use the Bible and 5,000 religious leaders to blame all natural catastrophes on the anthropogenic production of excess evil, and then introduce prayer credits for churches to sell to evil-doers that I will gladly broker.
I suspect a very large market who would like to increase their prayer footprint.
😉
If evolution is indeed fact then please explain the LAW of evolution to me.
You don’t know anything about scientific theories.
evolution is a scientific theory. creationism or intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
78 Phydeau
“Belief” already has some doubt & a level of confidence built into the definition.
RBG
Re:#73, MrMiGu: “If evolution is indeed fact then please explain the LAW of evolution to me.”
MrMiGu, RBG, this link explains the facts about evolution, and answers all religious skepticism. It’s a long read, but if you are truly interested in determining the truth you will read it. I’ve read the bible several times in my lifetime, as I grew up in a Catholic home.
#80
I never claimed that creationism was a scientific theory. I guess my sarcasm didnt really come across on that statement. My argument was that evolution is just a theory and not truth. I accept it as the best model used to explain the origins of life but insisting it is truth is absurd. All of our knowledge is attained from subjective observations no matter how unbiased we try to be. If we are suddenly able to make observations from a new point of view all of our knowledge may become worthless, which was the point I was making about being able to see that the sun does not revolve around the earth.
Thomas and I were arguing pretty much the same thing, though I think I offended him by suggesting that a hypothesis was little more than an educated guess.
#83
My argument was that evolution is just a theory and not truth.
A great deal of the confusion is that you are co-mingling the scientific meaning of the word “theory” with the vernacular one. In science, theories are the truth. They are the best explanation for the observable facts but they are not set in stone. Just as Newton’s theories were revised to accommodate new data, so too can any other scientific theory.
Thomas and I were arguing pretty much the same thing, though I think I offended him by suggesting that a hypothesis was little more than an educated guess.
I’m not offended in the least. What I see is a lack of precision in the vocabulary that you use which is clearly creating confusion.
Actually, you did not say that a hypothesis was a guess. You said that a theory was a guess. A hypothesis actually is a guess of sorts. In science, it is a falsifiable, educated guess that explains the observable facts. A theory however is a completely different thing. It requires evidence to elevate a hypothesis to be a theory.
In the vernacular, a hypothesis and a theory are somewhat synonymous. In science, they are very different.
#83, MrMiGu,
You make “truth” out as black and white. It seldom is.
“Truth” is based upon the best available evidence. Every day we discover that we thought was “true”, wasn’t.
A hypothesis is a lot more than an educated guess. An educated guess is what you order in a restaurant.
JCJ7161 YOU STILL WITH THAT CHEATING WHORE?
Who are you to question God? What would the world be like if it wasnt for his good grace?? While Haiti is being destroyed the only other “good” thing in your eyes was soulja boy winning a grammy. That couldnt be farther from the truth. Shame on all of yall who doubt His authority. It is not your place to question Him. Its like the clay questioning the potter. If it werent for His grace we would all be damned to hell, and yet yall are questioning Him? Ridiculousness i say, but yall see the light on judgement day.