"Faith in God necessarily implies a lack of faith in humanity"
Barbara G. Walker
Monday, March 12, 2012
Oh No, Creationism
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, creationists are idiots.
The March episode of the Oh No, Ross and Carrie! podcast takes a closer look at a few aspects of creationist nonsense. If you've never come across this particular podcast it is well worth listening to. Ross and Carrie are great at taking a serious look at a variety of beliefs. They actively try to look at the beliefs of others in an objective respectful way without simply shrugging off silly aspects as just "opinion" or excusing such views from scrutiny.
The March episode of the Oh No, Ross and Carrie! podcast takes a closer look at a few aspects of creationist nonsense. If you've never come across this particular podcast it is well worth listening to. Ross and Carrie are great at taking a serious look at a variety of beliefs. They actively try to look at the beliefs of others in an objective respectful way without simply shrugging off silly aspects as just "opinion" or excusing such views from scrutiny.
God is in the Brain, Sort of
Douglas Fields makes some decent points throughout his short Huffington Post piece, "Is God in the Brain?" However, roughly half way through he ends up giving in to various common fallacies. Despite pointing out earlier that science and religion take opposite approaches he weakens an otherwise decent post with such nonsensical statements as, "Science and religion are different worlds, but fundamentally they are not antagonistic..." First, we only have one world. Even if you take this metaphorically it is still silly. He points out in an earlier sentence that religion relies on faith. How can baseless opinions be used to accurately "explore and comprehend the world around us"? In the second place, if two approaches are opposites by nature, which Fields does imply, how can they not be antagonistic?
Shortly after this he adds that, "One would not look to scripture for the secrets of subatomic particles, but having discovered nuclear energy through the scientific method, one would not look to science for answers about how to use it." Really? Without sound scientific information you want to create policies concerning something that is potentially lethal? It seems to me that a greater understanding of how such particles work is what you need to figure out how to use them.
He ends his piece in a tone that is nearly the opposite of its opening. He seems to give up all pretense at critical thought for the sake of an overly sentimental notion devoid of any merit.
"Yes, Mr. President, you can see God in the brain; just as you can see it in the hand of a child or in a stunningly beautiful sunset that steals one's breath." Actually, the beauty argument for God's existence is among the weakest. It has been picked apart and trashed so thoroughly that it still amazes me than anyone with half a brain tries to trot it out so regularly. As for the Brain, yes you can see God there but only in terms of how we construct and use concepts. This, of course, makes God as real as Puff the Magic Dragon or Papa Smurf. Mention either of these two characters to anyone my age or older and odds are they know exactly what is being talked about. They could probably give a more detailed description of either of them than they could for God. They may even have some rather warm and fuzzy feelings about them. Does that mean they are more real than God?
Shortly after this he adds that, "One would not look to scripture for the secrets of subatomic particles, but having discovered nuclear energy through the scientific method, one would not look to science for answers about how to use it." Really? Without sound scientific information you want to create policies concerning something that is potentially lethal? It seems to me that a greater understanding of how such particles work is what you need to figure out how to use them.
He ends his piece in a tone that is nearly the opposite of its opening. He seems to give up all pretense at critical thought for the sake of an overly sentimental notion devoid of any merit.
"Yes, Mr. President, you can see God in the brain; just as you can see it in the hand of a child or in a stunningly beautiful sunset that steals one's breath." Actually, the beauty argument for God's existence is among the weakest. It has been picked apart and trashed so thoroughly that it still amazes me than anyone with half a brain tries to trot it out so regularly. As for the Brain, yes you can see God there but only in terms of how we construct and use concepts. This, of course, makes God as real as Puff the Magic Dragon or Papa Smurf. Mention either of these two characters to anyone my age or older and odds are they know exactly what is being talked about. They could probably give a more detailed description of either of them than they could for God. They may even have some rather warm and fuzzy feelings about them. Does that mean they are more real than God?
The Myth of Q
If you have never come across references to Q in scriptural study it is a hypothetical and highly speculative construct. It is sometimes also referred to as the Q Document or Q Gospel. A number of scriptural scholars have asserted that to explain the similarities between the Mathew and Luke Gospels as well as the disparities between these two and Mark there must have been a source earlier than Mark. Think about that for just a minute.
If it makes sense then you might have a lucrative career in Christian apologetics. If Q is an earlier source to all three why focus on disparities with Mark alone. For that matter, why would the disparities be so obvious to begin with. These three are often labeled the Synoptic Gospels for the similarities that exist among all three. This too makes very little logical sense since the differences are as numerous as the similarities. They are only "synoptic" in comparison to the 4th Gospel, John. Lets face it, that one is just flat out crazy.
So where does Q come in and what is its usefulness? It comes in as an attempt to make sense of something that does not really need much explanation. Most scholars who have promoted the Q hypothesis will freely admit that the Gospels most likely started out as oral tradition. It is also virtually impossible to deny that there are potentially multiple written versions. I say "potential" since it is hard to verify. Nearly all of the books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) only exist in fragments. Much of scriptural study amounts to cobbling together pieces that are most alike. If you are looking for similarities odds are good that you will find them. One aspect of Q that few scholars ever address is why they see a need for such a document to exist. It really does not make sense to insist it has to be so.
No one has ever found let alone verified any candidates for being part of this supposed lost gospel. Actively looking for Q seems like a tremendous waste of time and resources. If while seeking out and studying other sacred documents a candidate is found I would be the first to encourage renewed investigation. Finding Q would be an amazing discovery. Though, it would still not be the proof of Jesus existence that some seem to think it is. That, however, is another matter altogether. I would end by pointing out that this type of wild speculation seems to be limited to scriptural/theological study. Folklore has no problem coping with differences and similarities within narratives that do not seem to have one original source. Stories of dragons make a good example. There are tales of creatures around the world that are generally viewed as being about dragons. There is no one written source that all others are drawn from and I'm unaware of a single folklorist having a problem with that.
If anyone is interested in Scripture studies or the history of the early Christian Church (Judaism as well) I consider the follow books to be good introductory materials:
Karen Armstrong The Bible: A Biography
Tim Callahan Secret Origins of the Bible
Alan Dundes Holy Writ as Oral Lit
Bart Ehrman Lost Christianities
Stephen Harris Understanding the Bible
Ehrman actually has a new book that is due to be released March 20th that I am anxious to read.
If it makes sense then you might have a lucrative career in Christian apologetics. If Q is an earlier source to all three why focus on disparities with Mark alone. For that matter, why would the disparities be so obvious to begin with. These three are often labeled the Synoptic Gospels for the similarities that exist among all three. This too makes very little logical sense since the differences are as numerous as the similarities. They are only "synoptic" in comparison to the 4th Gospel, John. Lets face it, that one is just flat out crazy.
So where does Q come in and what is its usefulness? It comes in as an attempt to make sense of something that does not really need much explanation. Most scholars who have promoted the Q hypothesis will freely admit that the Gospels most likely started out as oral tradition. It is also virtually impossible to deny that there are potentially multiple written versions. I say "potential" since it is hard to verify. Nearly all of the books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) only exist in fragments. Much of scriptural study amounts to cobbling together pieces that are most alike. If you are looking for similarities odds are good that you will find them. One aspect of Q that few scholars ever address is why they see a need for such a document to exist. It really does not make sense to insist it has to be so.
No one has ever found let alone verified any candidates for being part of this supposed lost gospel. Actively looking for Q seems like a tremendous waste of time and resources. If while seeking out and studying other sacred documents a candidate is found I would be the first to encourage renewed investigation. Finding Q would be an amazing discovery. Though, it would still not be the proof of Jesus existence that some seem to think it is. That, however, is another matter altogether. I would end by pointing out that this type of wild speculation seems to be limited to scriptural/theological study. Folklore has no problem coping with differences and similarities within narratives that do not seem to have one original source. Stories of dragons make a good example. There are tales of creatures around the world that are generally viewed as being about dragons. There is no one written source that all others are drawn from and I'm unaware of a single folklorist having a problem with that.
If anyone is interested in Scripture studies or the history of the early Christian Church (Judaism as well) I consider the follow books to be good introductory materials:
Karen Armstrong The Bible: A Biography
Tim Callahan Secret Origins of the Bible
Alan Dundes Holy Writ as Oral Lit
Bart Ehrman Lost Christianities
Stephen Harris Understanding the Bible
Ehrman actually has a new book that is due to be released March 20th that I am anxious to read.
Proof of God: Scenario 2
It can and has been argued that aggression has served a variety of evolutionary purposes. However, it no longer seems to be of any benefit to our species in today's world. We also don't seem to be able to prevent it.
Another scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is the cessation of all forms of human aggression. Since it no longer seems to be of benefit to us and we can't seem to end it ourselves there is no reason God could not solve the problem for us. I am fully aware of the rationale many theist use to contradict this idea. Free will has always been a pathetic excuse. I do not know a single person who has chosen to be mugged or asked for children to shoot other children. Since, I and others routinely push for crime prevention measures and gun control why are we made to suffer along with those who refuse do do anything useful about these problems. If God created us and our world then there is no reason God cannot make such a modification as the elimination of all aggression. There would still be plenty for us to disagree and make decisions on. So assuming that free will is even possibly in the presence of a supreme being, which it isn't, it would be unaffected by the absence of aggression.
Another scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is the cessation of all forms of human aggression. Since it no longer seems to be of benefit to us and we can't seem to end it ourselves there is no reason God could not solve the problem for us. I am fully aware of the rationale many theist use to contradict this idea. Free will has always been a pathetic excuse. I do not know a single person who has chosen to be mugged or asked for children to shoot other children. Since, I and others routinely push for crime prevention measures and gun control why are we made to suffer along with those who refuse do do anything useful about these problems. If God created us and our world then there is no reason God cannot make such a modification as the elimination of all aggression. There would still be plenty for us to disagree and make decisions on. So assuming that free will is even possibly in the presence of a supreme being, which it isn't, it would be unaffected by the absence of aggression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)