12 Nov 2004 @ 4:06 PM
Some worry evolution dispute hurts image
bq. “I think the (evolution) theory is atheistic. And it’s all that’s presented. It’s an insult to their intelligence that they’re only taught evolution,” said Marjorie Rogers, the parent who first complained about the biology texts.
Um, yeah. All science is atheistic. That is, it is completely unrelated to religion or theology. That’s not to say it is anti-religion, just unconcerned with it. That’s what the “a” in front of “theistic” means.
Previous 
Next 
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Last 50 Posts
Back
Void 
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire
No, I don’t think that’s what the “a” in front of theistic means. My understanding is that the letter a means “without”. In other words, atheism is a firm belief that there is no God, not just a way of thinking that is unconcerned with God. This means that there can possibly be science that is not atheistic, which is what the intelligent design theory of science is all about.
This ignores the fact that evolution, although a scientific theory, is on a par with the theory of gravity, so Intelligent Design needs to have some demonstrable evidence of being a reasonable scientific theory to compete with evolution. Since the entirety of ID can be summed up by, “we don’t know” it’s not much of a theory. A complete lack of explanation does not make for a scientific discussion. Since, by definition, any deity is supernatural, trying to use the supernatural to explain the natural world is pointless. The twain shall never meet. If we just relied on a deity to explain the way things work, we’d never have automobiles or artificial satellites, among other things. Science is naturally unconcerned with the supernatural, because it reduces everything to deus ex machina explanations, which stop any further investigation. The history of theist sciences does not lead me to believe that any “science” that bears the approval of an established religion will ever stand up to long-term scrutiny or reliably describe the world as it is.
Also, the “a” for “without” is exactly my point. Without God does not mean “against God” in any way. Just as someone can be amoral, which is to say without any moral guidance at all (unconcerned with societal norms); as opposed to someone who is immoral, which is to say actively against the established norms of morality. I see many people who claim to be atheist who are actively antitheist. This perplexes me, as it would seem that a true atheist would not really care all that much what other people chose to believe. “You believe the Easter Bunny created the world and placed it on a giant tortoise? How charming.”
It’s interesting, I didn’t even know that there was such a thing as Intelligent Design theory. That’s somehow even more outlandish as a science than studying ghosts and the paranormal. At least with the paranormal, those pursuing said science believe they have actual physical evidence of a sort they can pursue, which they hope will someday lead to quantifiable proof. How does one quantify God? What physical evidence can be shown that can be measured, documented, and tested? Can you apply the scientific method to God? After all, supposed manifestations of God are all based on “witness testimony”. No matter how many people claim to have experienced God, no provable physical evidence of these experiences can ever be found. Stigmata has most often been shown to be a hoax perpetuated by the person showing it. It essentially comes down to folklore and storytelling. Folklore is not science. And stories can become exaggerated. You can’t even hold the Bible up as any sort of proof. The Bible has, since its creation, been retranslated hundreds of times into many different languages. It is proven historical fact that translation of a document many times loses something in the translation, because no two languages are an exact match for one another. Then we have the fact that for many decades, the Bible wasn’t even written, it was shared by oral repetition. Here we have another historical fact: cultures who were successful at oral tradition (meaning the story didn’t get distorted with each telling) have been throughout history uncommon, and usually were tribal cultures. These cultures were NOT the ones passing biblical stories via oral tradition. So, we cannot accept blindly that the Bible that is being read today is the same as the bible that was created 2,000 years ago. Especially when you do an in depth comparison of the Christian bible to older, earlier religions. Many, many stories which comprise the Christian bible can be found in earlier religions, including Jesus. The Mesopotamians invented Noah some 3,000 years before Christians did. Zoroastrians invented the Son of God over a thousand years before the Christians. This makes the supposed “proof” found in the bible a tad suspicious and open to raw skepticism. So I ask again…how does one quantify God?
For the record…Wikipedia defines atheism as “the condition of lacking theistic belief”. Dictionary.com breaks down the etymology of the word as “without God”. So, if you are lacking in theistic belief, and without God, then how does that translate into a firm belief that there is no god? Atheism simply means you just don’t care. Now, in light of this, I’ve just learned I’m acually an antitheist…I actively believe there is no god and that religion is a tool to subdue and control the masses. Not much of a lack of concern on my part, is it?
Yes, Lysa, you are an antitheist. It’s always confused me how you can be so vehemently opposed to theist thought. It shouldn’t matter. Do you get mad when people tell their kids that Santa Claus is coming? Does your neighbor’s belief structure affect your life? I mean, except when we use religion as a basis for voting an idiot into office, of course. 😉
You know, it’s funny, I have no problem with the concept of Santa, even though in a way, Santa and God are quite similar. Both are “men” of legend and mythology who (depending on which God you attend) treat humanity with kindness. But there the two diverge. Santa is a known myth, a legend we act out for our children. We outgrow Santa. God is accepted by the faithful as fact. They never outgrow God. No, my neighbor’s religious beliefs have no bearing on my life, although she did just tell me, indirectly, that I’m not living God’s plan for my life right now. Boo for me, I guess. And actually, the thing is, I don’t hold it against anyone for believing in God. I have many fine friends who believe in God, and I would always defend tooth and nail their right to believe in such. If that’s what their soul wants, that’s what their soul wants. What I am vehemently again is religion, the brainwashing of the masses, the control of free thought. Religion can be so very damaging. Look at the historical harm done to humanity in the name of the Church and God: Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, etc, etc. Even the Great Plague was brought about by religious dogma…the Church believed that cats were the messengers of witches and other evil, so they ordered them killed. Fewer cats meant more rats, more rats meant more fleas, more fleas meant more plague, and so thousands of innocent people died because church officials declared kitties evil. Then we have all those squabbles over whose god is the REAL god. Death, destruction, disaster, all in the battle to establish whose invisible man is the one true invisible man. Issues of control over women and their bodies, over whether people are allowed be be gay and be married if they are….is it ANY wonder I’m an antitheist??
Santa Claus, now, I’m down with that jolly old guy. You don’t have to worship him to enjoy him. Nobody burns people alive in his name. Maybe a yule log, or reindeer shaped cookies, but never people. 🙂