Imagine if you were told by a group of scientists that "the Chinese mind does not exist."
At first you are puzzled and wonder if they mean that statement metaphorically, as in “the American mind” or the “Arab mind” are not true cultural phenomena. But they dismissively shake their heads and say that they mean it quite literally: Chinese humans do not have a mind. Our belief that Chinese people have a “mind”, they say, is simply a neurological accident or perhaps a byproduct of natural selection.
Now, your initial response might be to protest and offer reasons why the scientists are wrong. More likely, you’d simply dismiss their claim as being profoundly stupid. Whatever the reaction, your opinion of science—or at least these scientists—would probably be diminished by the exchange.
Unfortunately, a recent article in New York Times is likely to produce a similar effect. In a claim that is only slightly less absurd than denying that Chinese people have minds, evolutionary biologists and cognitive scientists attempt to explain why humans maintain a belief in a deity:
These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain.
What is most disconcerting is how almost all of the “scholars” mentioned in the article take such a decidedly unscientific approach to the question. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga claims, the sensible meaning of the term “science” is any activity that is (a) a systematic and disciplined enterprise aimed at finding out the truth about our world, and (b) has significant empirical involvement. In order to answer this question, then, we need to take the two main competing hypotheses that could be true (Hypothesis X: God exists; Hypothesis Y: God does not exist) and test to see which one leads to the most empirically valid answer.
Instead of pursuing truth, these scientists start with a bizarre presupposition (whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the question of why people believe in God) and then begin quibbling about such questions as what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. The obvious problem with this approach it disregards the most likely explanations: either we are designed by God to believe in Him or such belief was an adaptive response to His existence.
Most people who believe in God, however, do not have to look to the adaptive response of Sahelanthropus tchadensis to find the answer. Instead, they look to their own experience. I believe in God because I have an intimate, personal, and continuous experience with the Creator of the universe; I have a justified, true belief in His existence.
For cognitive scientists to say that belief in God is based on an “evolutionary byproduct” is about as silly as telling me that Yao Ming is a zombie. It makes me wonder, if they can be so completely mistaken about this, what else could they be wrong about? Claims based on such flimsy presuppositions do nothing but undermine my confidence in the field of evolutionary biology.
At least I think it does. Then again, my skepticism could just be neurological accident or hard-wired due to adaption. Once you start believing in evolutionary psychology, its hard to know what to believe -- or if we have the ability to believe anything at all.
Men will come up with all kinds of silly ideas to avoid confronting the reality of their Creator. The statement "These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history" is just a fancy, modern way of saying "God is dead."
Joe writes,
"Most people who believe in God, however, do not have to look to the adaptive response of Sahelanthropus tchadensis to find the answer. Instead, they look to their own experience. I believe in God because I have an intimate, personal, and continuous experience with the Creator of the universe; I have a justified, true belief in His existence."
I have no such experience. So, where does that leave us? Do we call this science and fight over our personal revelations in the science journals?
What evangelicals don't understand is that the habit of leaving God and the supernatural out of science was developed hundreds of years ago, based on practical experience like the above. The practice was developed mostly by Christians, even.
Instead of pursuing truth, these scientists start with a bizarre presupposition (whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the question of why people believe in God) and then begin quibbling about such questions as what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief.
Evolutionism is an atheistic mobius strip.
It makes me wonder, if they can be so completely mistaken about this, what else could they be wrong about? Claims based on such flimsy presuppositions do nothing but undermine my confidence in the field of evolutionary biology.
When building a cosmology we should start with the Word of God
On the other hand, certain people believe that experience is anathema to a religion based on experience. Just see what happens when you tell them that your belief in the doctrine of spiritual gifts, miracles, prophecy, etc., is somehow related to your experience with these things.
Correction: certain people believe that experience is anathema to a religion based on scripture. Just see what happens when you tell them that your belief in the doctrine of spiritual gifts, miracles, prophecy, etc., is somehow related to your experience with these things.
Claims based on such flimsy presuppositions do nothing but undermine my confidence in the field of evolutionary biology.
Claims made by an anthropologist whose research interests include evolutionary biology undermine your confidence in evolutionary biology...? right..
How about evolutionary biology undermines your belief in God and your looking for evidence, albeit very weak evidence, to make yourself feel better
"The obvious problem with this approach it disregards the most likely explanations: either we are designed by God to believe in Him or such belief was an adaptive response to His existence."
Isn't that what Justin Barrett wrote as a Christian and propoent of adaptive evolution (end of article): "Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people. Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural? Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them. Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?'"
Anyone know about Barnett? I'm getting his book.
"How about evolutionary biology undermines your belief in God".
On the contrary, evolutionary biology supports that God exists. If God did not exist, then the need for God (as evidenced by the discussion that Joe points out) would not exist. Granted, It does not prove that the Christian God exists or anything else about my beliefs, but it does support the existence of God.
It seems to be a matter of presuppositions: they do not believe in God and go from there; you do believe in God and proceed thusly. Presuppositions are not easily supplanted.
BTW, a religion or "knowledge" of God based on experience is no different from the scientists' lack of knowledge and subsequent unbelief. Christianity stands or falls on the veracity of a sacred book; the book provides a plumb line and keeps the faith from being merely and wholly subjective. Christians know because "the Bible tells me so."
Joe writes: "I believe in God because I have an intimate, personal, and continuous experience with the Creator of the universe; I have a justified, true belief in His existence."
Many millions of people through the years have had the same basis for believing in other gods. Yet Joe would tell us that their beliefs were false. What do you say, Joe, to all the people who have as firm a belief as yours in a different god(s)?
I think that there is a very interestingare undercurrent to these scientists' comments. The idea is that there is a structure in the brain that makes people believe that they are having supernatural experiences. This suggests that an individual can't really trust his brain because it makes stuff up. Now this is hardly a revelation - schizophrenia and hallucinogens have been providing this effect for some time now. However, it used to be not too difficult to identify those with untrustowrthy abilities of perception ("no smoking pot in lab").
If the evidence points towards religious people having a brain structure producing phantom input (which I think is a poor interpretation of the data, but whatever), then a very large group of people must be classified as untrustworthy observers. This should be problematic for science, which requires as an underpinning that we can trust our senses; that data is what it is and there's no cosmic joke being played on us. It might make one wonder what other parts of the brain make up their own input? I also wonder if the religious structure ceases to function if someone converted to atheism, or if it continues to produce phantom input which is interpreted differently? Or, as with other structures in the brain, is it designed to receive real input (which we may not yet be aware of)?
There's lots of real, empirical, science to do on this topic - let's leave the BS philosophizing that evolutionary biologists are wont to do for people with liberal arts degrees :)
The vast majority of humans believe we are created. A recent minority believe that we came from rocks. Clearly the creationists have enjoyed more evolutionary success and have an exellent chance of remaining dominant. So which belief is more likely to be a genetic accident at odds with reality?
Anon
It leaves you with Joe's testimony.
Ex
Joe claims experience with God. Those who believe in other
god(s)share a belief in the supernatural with Joe. That Joe may think, as you said, that their god(s) are false, doesn't mean that he can't believe that they have experienced the supernatural and both are anecdotal evidence for the existence of God.
rhys:
Claims made by an anthropologist whose research interests include evolutionary biology undermine your confidence in evolutionary biology...? right..
Claims made by an anthropologist that presuppose outrageous things certainly undermine his authority.
ex-preacher:
Many millions of people through the years have had the same basis for believing in other gods. Yet Joe would tell us that their beliefs were false. What do you say, Joe, to all the people who have as firm a belief as yours in a different god(s)?
Joe might say their beliefs were false, but I believe in the Christian god also and tend to think that the adherents of other religions often believe in something that does have true power. Their beliefs about their religion might not line up completely with reality, but there is probably a lot truth to them.
Interestingly, God doesn't require that all our beliefs be accurate in order to be worshipped.
There are other good arguments for the existence of the Christian god that are not arguments from experiential knowledge. Those arguments generally presuppose theism so you probably wouldn't entertain them, but reasonable religious people would.
The vast majority of humans believe we are created. A recent minority believe that we came from rocks. Clearly the creationists have enjoyed more evolutionary success and have an exellent chance of remaining dominant. So which belief is more likely to be a genetic accident at odds with reality?
Neither since there is no evidence that beliefs themselves are genetically determined.
Also you may want to consider there is a difference between a belief being true and a belief conferring only a survival advantage. Someone may believe they have a special destiny which causes them to take dramatic risks that yield them great rewards. Their belief may be false but it nevertheless was a great tool for their survival.
Most of the time I think there's a large overlap between beliefs being true and beliefs having an evolutionary advantage but not always. So no we cannot use the simple survival of a particular belief as evidence of its truth.
Also I think the gap between a belief being true and its survival becomes much greater the more removed the belief is impacting an organisms actual survival. For example, just about everyone correctly believes that stepping in front of a speeding car's path is very dangerous...even crazy homeless people on the street seem to be aware of this. However even very serious and smart people will give credence to crazy beliefs like astrology or Oliver Stone's JKF conspiracy theories. These latter beliefs have little or no impact on a person's day to day survival so evolution would predict the odds that they are totally unrealted to the truth are probably very great.
Interestingly, God doesn't require that all our beliefs be accurate in order to be worshipped
No, they only have to be accurate if you want to go to Heaven.
I think a better analogy than the "Chinese mind" is the long-standing belief in nearly all cultures that disease was/is caused by offense given to evil and or good spirits. The idea that disease has more to do with bacteria and viruses is relatively recent. Another analogy might be the widely held belief that the sun circles the earth. This one even has the advantage over the "god hypothesis" of having some empirical evidence.
Joe writes: "we need to take the two main competing hypotheses that could be true (Hypothesis X: God exists; Hypothesis Y: God does not exist) and test to see which one leads to the most empirically valid answer."
I'm curious as to how you would propose testing these competing hypotheses. If anyone out there has a way to prove the existence of anything supernatural, there is a $1 million prize awaiting you, courtesy of the magician James Randi.
"At JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation], we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test."
Interested in claiming the prize? Go to randi . org Even if you don't personally want the $1 million, think of all the good you could do with it! And you would be proving the existence of the supernatural!
"The vast majority of humans believe we are created."
Thats because they have been told by other people when they were very that we are created...the conditioning that a child receives growing up is almost impossible to break,even by cold hard reality...i mean,as yourselves this question in all honesty...if no human beings ever told you about gods,would you really believe in them?
"A recent minority believe that we came from rocks."
I ve never heard of any such minority...i ve heard several times of a willfull MISREPRESENTATION by creationists against evolutionary science that sounds like that though....
"Clearly the creationists have enjoyed more evolutionary success and have an exellent chance of remaining dominant."
Indeed...until such time as the creationists lose patience and decide to bring about armaguedon on their own terms...hopefully,the rational few will find a safe spot to hide untill the cultists are done killing each other in their end of days dementia
"So which belief is more likely to be a genetic accident at odds with reality?"
why the belief of creationism of course....you ve said nothing that demonstrates otherwise
ex-preacher:
I think a better analogy than the "Chinese mind" is the long-standing belief in nearly all cultures that disease was/is caused by offense given to evil and or good spirits.
Totally off topic, but you mean disease isn't inflicted by the gods? While bacteria may be used as a tool, it is completely obvious to me that human belief and behavior are the first cause of disease. I see no reason why devils (let alone Jesus) wouldn't use viruses like I use a hammer (not that they do).
The mechanism of disease has not long been the question, it is the willful cause which has most perked interest throughout history. At some point, just like willful human acts, willful acts of the gods are manifested by the excersize of power. Whether that is by motivating bacteria or something else is of little concern when discerning causation.
And of course for Christians this all gets interesting when it comes to genetics and the breakage of the bloodline of Adam!
That's weird, this post comes off sounding like one of Dr. Bronner's soap labels or some magnet healing website. haha!
Totally off topic, but you mean disease isn't inflicted by the gods? While bacteria may be used as a tool, it is completely obvious to me that human belief and behavior are the first cause of disease. I see no reason why devils (let alone Jesus) wouldn't use viruses like I use a hammer (not that they do).
Then why do animals get diseases as well as humans?
Most of the time I think there's a large overlap between beliefs being true and beliefs having an evolutionary advantage but not always. So no we cannot use the simple survival of a particular belief as evidence of its truth.
You contradict yourself. If, as you seem to admit, there is a positive correlation between the "trueness" of an organisms beliefs and its probability of survival, then an individual's survival is precisely what you claim it is not: evidence of the "trueness" of its beliefs. Keep in mind that evidence is not the same as proof.
Thats because they have been told by other people when they were very that we are created
Unlike evolutionists, who are at all times free of bias and never make decisions without thorough scientific investigation.
I ve never heard of any such minority...i ve heard several times of a willfull MISREPRESENTATION by creationists against evolutionary science that sounds like that though....
I admit it. It's an eon's old conspiracy by me and a handful of evil (and long-lived) theists to deny atheists their gaia-given civil rights. We (and the Jews of course) manipulate the press to make it look like most people believe in God.
why the belief of creationism of course....you ve said nothing that demonstrates otherwise
At least I've said something.
Ludwig says:
"Thats because they have been told by other people when they were very that we are created...the conditioning that a child receives growing up is almost impossible to break,even by cold hard reality..."
And you managed to overcome this almost impossible task! Congratulations. If only all these other people were as smart as you!
Hoots
You contradict yourself. If, as you seem to admit, there is a positive correlation between the "trueness" of an organisms beliefs and its probability of survival, then an individual's survival is precisely what you claim it is not: evidence of the "trueness" of its beliefs. Keep in mind that evidence is not the same as proof.
A good point. Perhaps I should say that it is entirely possible to have untrue beliefs that nevertheless contribute to survival. For example, if I believed someone had put a curse on me I might be extra careful driving to work tomorrow. Being extra careful would probably improve my survival odds but it nevertheless was based on a false belief.
So I'll say because a false belief may also aid in survival the fact that a belief happened to survive is not sufficient evidence of its 'trueness' alone.
I do believe there is an overlap between true beliefs and survival but sadly the overlap is not perfect or even good enough for 'belief survival' to be accepted alone as a proxy for determining truth.
Boonton:
Then why do animals get diseases as well as humans?
They have beliefs and behaviors. Tiny wills. Those that don't have beliefs that still become diseased are casualties.
Hoots writes:
Unlike evolutionists, who are at all times free of bias and never make decisions without thorough scientific investigation.
No one ever said that scientists are free of bias and always use good judgement. Ever hear of the concepts of reproducibility and peer review? That is how we sift out problems of ego and personal desire. It isn't perfect, but in the long it has been proven itself to work far better than any other means we know of.
I admit it. It's an eon's old conspiracy by me and a handful of evil (and long-lived) theists to deny atheists their gaia-given civil rights. We (and the Jews of course) manipulate the press to make it look like most people believe in God.
No one ever said there was a conspiracy. The irony of your statement is plain though, just one paragraph above you imply that there is a conspiracy of bias amoung scientists. Are you projecting?
Anyway, none of this changes the fact that Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Duane Gish, and Henry Morris are or were all liars who misrepresented the scientific process, theories, and evidence to people with little to no scientific background, and manipulated them in the process. Such hypocrisy doesn't exactly engender trust from their intellectual opponents, and it should give any person of true faith a reason to pause and consider the motivations of these people. Does this amount to a conspiracy? I don't think so, it just means that they all share similar and demonstrably wrong ideas.
brandon writes:
Interestingly, God doesn't require that all our beliefs be accurate in order to be worshipped.
Then why is it that so many evangelicals are hung up on this issue? Actually, I agree with you, but there seem to be far too many people of supposedly strong faith threatening anyone that disagrees with their brand of dogma with fire and brimstone. Look no further than Bevet's post above. He isn't saying that cosmology should start with the word of God, he's saying that cosmology should start with Bevet's interpretation of the word of God. An interpretation that good people of faith can reasonably disagree with, but he accuses them of being atheists if they disagree with him.
"Unlike evolutionists, who are at all times free of bias and never make decisions without thorough scientific investigation."
well,that you realise it is actually a positive thing...there may be hope for you yet.
"And you managed to overcome this almost impossible task! Congratulations. If only all these other people were as smart as you!"
Oh its not a question of smarts really...more like a series of fortuitous circumstances that placed me in a position to be able to reexamine my christian upbrigning from a more objective perspective,which enabled me to realise how foolish most religious beliefs truly are...few people are so fortunate however,thats why theres more of you than there are of us...thnakfully,reality is not determined by popular vote.
I want to take a shot at answering ex-preacher's question at Post No. 10 - "What do you say...to all the people who have as firm a belief as yours in a different god(s)?".
What's needed is humility and recognition that I as a mere human being do not have all the answers and respect people with different beliefs. I would say, I believe in the God described in Christian bible, and share what my faith means to me. At the same time, I would recognize the value of other religions and the experiences of people living in other cultures.
To get to the point: I'd say to the person,
"look I believe my faith is correct, but I respect you as a fellow human being and recognize you have a different perspective. Let's see what we have in common".
The problem with religious and political fundamentalists is they try to demonize and belittle people who think diffently.
Ludwig,
Well, you're halfway there then. I had the same opportunity and conclusion for years, then years later found where my heart belongs and I found truth! In Christ, of course.
Then why do animals get diseases as well as humans?
Do you have anything at all to back this theory up? Even as purely religion this is the first time I have heard someone argue that even animals get sick because they sin. I thought orthodox Christian doctrine was that sin is exclusive to human beigns who have free will. Are you going to tell me that even microscopitc organisms now have free will too and sin? What type of sins do, say, trees commit?
I never said sin. I still haven't worked it all out though someone probably has already, I don't know that it isn't orthodox, I suspect not all animals have beliefs, I wouldn't be surprised if plants had consciousness of some sort, and frogs are guilty of putting an addictive chemical in their legs that makes me crave them fortnightly.
C'mon Ludwig,
Drop the false humility. Of course you think your smarter, or at least wiser. Whenever someone is part of the 5% who think they have discovered how the 95% are so off base that they continue to believe in Santa Claus as adults, humility is not part of the underpinnings.
True humility would say, as some atheists and agnostics do say, "I can't bring myself to have faith in God or Christ like you do. God might exist. I can't prove He doesn't. Many aspects of Christianity provide value to those who follow its precepts. But after studying the issues, I have concluded that the liklihood of God existing or of Christ being deity is too low for me to take the step of faith for the balance."
Randy,
Your true humility statement is awesome. But that would require some atheists and agnostics to actually not be bigoted and to treat others values and beliefs with respect!
Based on experience, I think that this is highly unlikely!
Tim L:
Cut the BS. At least you recognize that *some* atheists and agnostics are ok. However, respect is a two way street and must been earned by both sides. Did you ever stop to think about why atheists may not always be the most tolerant of Christians? Do you think that the results of a recent study showing that atheists were the least trusted people in the US (behind even muslims and gays) might have something to do with that lack of tolerance? It's very convenient for you to point out the "bigotry" of atheists while ignoring the same in Christians. Now, I'm not saying that the approach taken by people like Dawkins and Harris is the most conducive to tolerance (even when I agree with them), but that doesn't mean that you can dismiss Christian bigotry as merely reactionary because of the actions of people like this.
As an atheist, I respect your right to live your life according to a value system of your choice. I also don't really care all that much about whether you believe in God or not. However, I am under no compunction to respect the reasoning you have used to arrive at your conclusions, especially when your reasoning is demonstrably weak at best.
What does bother me is the attempt by some Christian groups to force their morals and beliefs on others without being able to make a more logical case for their beliefs beyond "the bible says so" arguments. Such arguments are almost always laced with lies and half-truths at best, and such hypocrisy is ultimately destructive to the faith that you profess. The ironic thing is that so many Christians fail to see this fact, and it only makes them look foolish.
Randy Kirk
I think that you make a lot of valid points concerning athiests...there is one problem with trying to use that argument against me though...i m not athiest...i believe that God(s) have a place in the grand scheme of things...but unlike what christianity (and most other religion) teaches,that place is not as a ruler of humanity,nor as a judge of it,nor as a teacher of it,not as a protector of it. All those things which i just enumerated are all irrevocably tied to the condition of being a human...God(s) have no need to teach,to rule,the protect or to judge....God(s) HAVE NO NEEDS,PERIOD. And sinc ethere can bo want without need,every time the bible says God wants this or God wants that,the bible is saying God is not God.
Tim said:"But that would require some atheists and agnostics to actually not be bigoted and to treat others values and beliefs with respect!
Based on experience, I think that this is highly unlikely!"
Do you see the irony in this? You accuse your ideological opponents of the same sort of bigotry you display in the accusation.
Phasespace, Rob Ryan,
Sorry that I didn't make it more clear, but my point of it was the irony.
Absolutely, Christians are guilty of the same type of bigotry. But now we have (some) atheists who claim to be smarter and of a higher level of understanding and acceptance acting the same way as (some) Christians.
I am sensitive to this fact and sensitive to the fact that as a follower of Christ (as opposed to just religious), I am not to judge (at least not judging that makes me a hypocrit, which most judging does).
Question is, when are we going to learn?
phasespace states:
"What does bother me is the attempt by some Christian groups to force their morals and beliefs on others without being able to make a more logical case for their beliefs beyond "the bible says so" arguments"!
I both agree and disagree with this. Yes, the bible is the basis for our values, but that can be misinterpreted or misrepresented so there should be more to it logically. But you know, sometimes there are just more important things in life. When it comes to those things, I trust the wisdom and experience of these people that had experiences with God and were guided by him. Yes, most of those experiences are about how NOT to act, but nevertheless, it is good enough for many people. And while you may disagree, it should at least have some level of respect because it is trusted by so many people. Just because it takes a certain level of faith to believe the Bible, it doesn't mean blind faith. Many of us trust the Bible for very logical and historically accepted reasons in addition to our faith.
Peace
Did you ever stop to think about why atheists may not always be the most tolerant of Christians? Do you think that the results of a recent study showing that atheists were the least trusted people in the US (behind even Muslims and gays) might have something to do with that lack of tolerance?
I'd consider it but I find this explanation to be rather implausible. Atheists are truly a tiny minority in the US (and most countries). If they were highly intolerant of Christians they would have very, very difficult lives. On the other hand, since there are so many Christians they would be very little troubled by intolerant atheists.
Now, I'm not saying that the approach taken by people like Dawkins and Harris is the most conducive to tolerance (even when I agree with them), but that doesn't mean that you can dismiss Christian bigotry as merely reactionary because of the actions of people like this.
Exactly what bigotry are you talking about here? Please be specific. Do you mean Dawkins or Harris actually did something against Christians like deny a fellow a job or write a negative book review solely based on someone being a Christian? Or are you talking about vigerous statements they made against Christian beliefs?
I don't think expressing contempt for Christian belief is bigotry, it is an opinion. Christians can and do say things all the time along the lines of "atheism is a stupid, foolish belief to hold". This alone, though, wouldn't IMO be bigotry against atheists. If, however, a Christian said he wouldn't vote for someone solely because they were atheist or recommend that someone be denied a job because they were atheists or whatnot then yea that's bigotry. We have seen that on the Christian side but in the US I"m not aware of much of that from the other side (not surprising considering again how Christians and theists in general outnumber atheists...)
What does bother me is the attempt by some Christian groups to force their morals and beliefs on others without being able to make a more logical case for their beliefs beyond "the bible says so" arguments. Such arguments are almost always laced with lies and half-truths at best, and such hypocrisy is ultimately destructive to the faith that you profess. The ironic thing is that so many Christians fail to see this fact, and it only makes them look foolish.
There's an idea called continuarity in the world of sci-fi. It usually is applied to Star Trek, Star Wars, or comic books. The idea is to assume all movies/episodes form a consistent story. Therefore items that appear inconsistent have to be reconciled. AS a result they often produce somewhat convoluted explanations, often involving time-travel, multiple-universes and so on.
I think this is a common failing in many creationist accounts. They assume their reading of the Biblical story is true and then seek to explain how the scientific evidence can be consistent. Often a handful of factoids are hyped to the hilt. For example, when I first found this blog I remember a story being hyped about a WWII plane that had crashed in the Arctic. It was being recovered from under several hundred feet of ice. That factoid was being bandied about to refute ice-core samples that purport to document hundreds of thousands of years of history. The more scientific ones among us were taken aback and we tried to think of alternate explanations such as the weight of the plane possibly causing it to sink thru the ice. As time passed I read more about ice cores and learned that there are only a few places where the ice appears stable enough to take reliable cores (years are able to be counted because, like tree rings, different season's leave different colored lines of snow/ice in the core). Needless to say the creationist bandwagon had long moved onto other factoids by the time I learned this.
The common failing therefore isn't so much that creationist begin with the comic book assumption but that they don't express it. They would have us believe that not only does studying the ice in the Arctic support the creationist account but that you could derive the entire Old Testament from it if only you were truly unbiased and objective.
dictionary.com
big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Ok, so then saying a belief is stupid, silly, foolish etc. is not bigotry. After all, I tolerate a lot of silly beliefs. I don't go around abusing people who believe in astrology or for that matter Scientology. I may feel they are deluded but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to tolerate them, which to me means respecting them as people...it does not mean having to show even token respect for their beliefs.
Why is it that in matters of Faith, there is this burning need to use non-faith things to justify its (Faith's) existence? Faith is a personal thing, and its justification is personal as well. I would no more tell a fellow Christian that the faith they have, and reasoning thereof, is invalid than I would tell God, Himself, that he made a mistake.
It is not up to me to judge that. Those that add or subtract from the Scripture have their own warnings as do I to not listen to them. You find what you want to find, and yes this works for the religious as well. What sets me apart from the other seekers is, wrong or right in a cosmological sense, I will follow the Risen Christ because it is the most real thing. My faith is tested and I doubt, Oh do I often doubt!, for His plan in my life but I do trust, and have Faith, that is not to make my life harder.