I'll keep this blog up and edit it whenever I think of something new. It's a list of all the people who the religious people (people who believe in the literal truth of the bible) disagree with.
But first, let's define this antagonist:
This person believes that the earth and the universe is 6000-10 000 years old, that life was instantly created, that Mary was made pregnant through a holy spirit, that evolution does not happen, that the entire world was flooded 4500 years ago, that miracles happen.
I don't really have a problem with people who see the bible as figurative and believe in God, but also in science.
First List:
Let's make this a hypothetical boxing match. Each member will be called out, and a "problem" with that member will be listed.
In the big blue corner we have:
Biologists, divided into several teams:
Microbiologists, (thinks that diseases can adapt and evolve)
Geneticists, (see above)
Zoologists, (thinks we share the same ancestors as other animals)
Biochemists, (thinks all beings with the same ancestors have similar biochemical processes in their bodies)
Cell Biologists, (thinks all beings with common ancestors have similar cells)
Molecular biologists, (see Geneticists)
Morphologists, (thinks similar forms in species shows common ancestors)
Botanists, (thinks plants have 50% similar DNA to humans, therefore common ancestors)
Ornithologists, (thinks birds evolved from dinosaurs)
Naturalists, (thinks the world can be explained through physical laws)
Evolutionists, (thinks evolution is true)
Ecologists, (thinks the earth's atmosphere is the result of billions of years of life and change)
Physiologists, (see Morphologists)
Neurophysiologists, (thinks all creatures with similar brains shows common ancestors)
Palaeontologists, (thinks dinosaurs are millions of years old)
Physicians, (thinks you can test drugs on animals which will work on humans)
Entomologists, (thinks insects are billions of years old)
Ichthyologist, (thinks fish are billions of years old)
Biophysicist, (see microbiologists)
Immunologists, (thinks virus's, such as flu, adapts to modern medicine)
And then we have:
Archaeologists, (thinks humans are older than 10 000 years old)
Anthropologists, (see above)
Astronomers, (thinks the universe and stars are billions of years old)
Astrophysicists, (see above)
Geologists, (thinks the earth is 4,5 billion years old)
Chemists, (see Biochemists)
Mathematicians (thinks pi is NOT 3)
Engineers, (thinks humans cannot walk on water and should build bridges)
Psychologists, (thinks humans share common ancestors with mice and behavorial patterns should be similar)
Etymologists, (thinks all languages have a tendency to change, and was not because humans tried to build a tower to heaven)
And in the small red corner we have:
Theologians (thinks Science cannot explain mysteries of life)
Uneducated People (does not think) as their main source of income
Some Slightly Educated People (thinks they can trust Theologians more than anyone else)
P.S. If anyone has ideas/requests for a change in the list, please tell me. I'll probably update it every now and then
P.P.S. If there is anyone out there who is willing to antagonise me, please come out fighting. Thank you. (By antagonise, I simply mean to disagree, and to debate)
Second List:
I'm also including a list of all the most respectable and learned people of both sides of the argument. This time I won't write the "problem" but the history/strengths.
In the big blue corner we have: (most of these, including Einstein, are atheists or agnostics)
Albert Einstein (Won Nobel Prize for physics 1921, changed the world)
Richard Feynman (Made a huge contribution to nuclear power, played bongo drums)
Richard Dawkins (redefined how we thought about evolution, has leet debating skills)
Stephen Hawkins (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
And in the small red corner we have:
Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science, 1875, tried to steal money from the state)
Michael Behe (Biochemist, admitted in court, under oath, that there is no peer reviewed proof for Intelligent Design)
... I'm really looking for respectable people here, but it is extremely hard to find anyone. All I can find are people like "Dr." Kent Hovind (a high school teacher in jail for $600 000 worth of tax fraud and 2 charges of assault and battery) and other uneducated people or reverends who studied the bible and philosophy, and knows nothing about science. Can someone help me?
Third List
What the two groups have done for us in the past 2000 years. Or rather: What we should be grateful for.
In the big blue corner we have:
Electronics:
Medical Equipment (pacemaker, X-ray, Ultrasound, Life Support Systems)
Lights
Alarm Clocks
Microphones
Speakers
Mp3 players
Computers
Cellphones and Wireless Telephones
Large scale and cheap long range communication (automatic servers)
The Internets
Wristwatches
Television
Remotes
GPS
Air Conditioning
Accurate Weather Prediction
Automatic Credit and Debit Cards
Coffee Machines
Automatic Doors
Half of A Modern Car's Workings
Gaming Systems (Xbox, Playstation, Gameboy)
etc...
Medicine and Sanitation:
At least half of humans on earth are alive because of modern medicine.
Food:
Thanks to modern science, we have processed food and genetically modified crops which feeds (if properly managed...) the 6 Billion people on earth.
Delicious food
Transportation, Communication, Globalisation:
Because of these, I can eat sushi (Japanese) at a table made in Czech Republic and designed in Denmark. I can drive a German car that was manufactured in South Africa to a school which teaches me about American and European inventions and discoveries at a University, the idea of which came from the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago.
Airplanes
Cars
Telephones
Internets
Boats
Entertainment:
Mostly electronics for television, computers, cellphones, gaming systems, cameras, microphones, radio.
Education:
Because of Education, we have all of the above.
Democracy:
A system governed by people voted by the people. Not by reverends and kings who were "chosen by God."
And in the small red corner we have:
Um...
We can be grateful to theologians for reading and interpreting the bible for us. We all know how big and hard it is to actually read it ourselves.Inspiring speeches! No wait.... those can be done by anyone...Morals! No... I destroyed that in my previous blog didn't I?
Philosophy perhaps? But didn't Aristotle, Plato and others do that as well?
Can someone tell me what theologians have done for us that science cannot?
4 comments:
Actually, Albert Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." If that is atheism or agnosticism that is a new one on me! (I believe, too, that he occasionally visited a Christian Science Reading Room and read Mary Baker Eddy's "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" there with interest.)
Which brings me to your comment on Mary Baker Eddy. I am a Christian Scientist, so I have enormous respect for her - but I know many of the criticisms of her that circulate, which include (though are not limited to!) all sorts of false reports. (i.e. I can respect those who genuinely know who she was and what she stood for, and who disagree - but a lot of people disagree with what she is wrongly reported to be, not with what she actually stood for!).
Anyhow, having said that, your comment is a totally new one to me. I have never even heard that as an accusation before...! Where did you find that "nugget"?
All the best.
Tony L.
Albert Einstein also was quoted to say "I believe in Spinoza's God", "I do not believe in a personal God". Those two statements stand directly against your unspoken claims that Einstein was a Christian. Just in case you do not know what Spinoza's God is, it is a natural God which is very far removed from yours.
Now a question, how do you know that the reports about Mary Baker Eddy are false? How can you claim you know who she was and what she stood for? Seeing as you did not know her in any way, it seems very unlikely.
I do not know why you need to say you are a Christian Scientist, with a capital letter S. If you are indeed a scientist who is also a Christian, you should know that if you apply the same scientific rigor to your hypothesis of a God you will, with Occam's Razor, have to admit that your hypothesis is unnecessary to explain the natural world. More than this, even if you are convinced that there is a God, there is no reason to believe Christianity is the correct option to choose from the myriad of religions that exist now and existed in the past.
On another note, I do not agree with the blog author about the Wikipedia being an authorative source. My experience is that the Wikipedia is fine for general knowledge related questions, but breaks down totally for in-depth research.
MThank you for your responses
I can safely say that Einstein was not a Christian. He was, as far as I know, a Jew before he left Germany for America. Apparently, the rumours about him visiting Mary Baker Eddie's Readings are myth, but that is according to Wikipedia, and I did not research further.
I did oversimplify on Mary Baker Eddy, and I apologise for that. I was mostly trying to get a response. Could you, perhaps, tell me what Mary Baker Eddy stood for and what she has done that we should be grateful for? I would appreciate it.
I'd also like to thank Anonymous for agreeing with me, but also disagreeing with me on some points.
Wikipedia is good for general research and understanding. Somewhat like Howstuffworks.com.
But Wikipedia links (most of the time) to more in depth studies and reports. This makes wikipedia, indirectly, a good source for research.
Sorry for the dealy in repsonding to your reply.
Firstly,to reply to the earlier anonymous comment on Einstein and your follow-up...I did not mean to imply that Einstein was a Christian Scientist or a Christian...so I apologise if that is how my comments came across. Also, I have not heard that Spinoza comment from him before, so it is interesting and thought-provoking to learn of that.
As to your own generous query about why we should be grateful for Mary Baker Eddy, I am personally grateful for twenty years' experience of practical healing from utilizing the ideas in her book "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." As you wryly point out, the gift of theologians is to read and interpret the Bible, and Mrs. Eddy certainly comes under both those categories! Her reading and interpretation were not scholastic, though, but pragmatic - she was determined to seek an explanation of HOW Jesus (and other Bible figures) had performed the healings recorded. She was not intererested in a theoretical theology (based on a mysterious God) or healing based on blind faith in God, she was commited to finding and proving a systematic approach to healing based on an understandable and demonstrable Pricniple. (She accompanied these biblical ponderings with practical experimentation in allopathy and in homeopathy.)
I genuinely feel that over the decades and centuries to come the broad public will become more and more grateful for her exploration and implementation of prayer-based spiritual healing...based on a spiritual rather than literal interpretation of the Bible (including its creation story).
That is it in a nutshell. As a BSc in Mathematics I respect logic, reason, and demonstration. And while I can understand the skepticism of those who would doubt the following statement, the truth is that I love Christian Science becuase of its logic and demand for demonstration and because it accepts that revelation and reason need to be reconciled to be acceptable to our hearts and minds.
All the best.
Tony L.
Post a Comment