An email about the young earth belief
October 10, 2009 by Patrick
Filed under - The Phileas Club, .Articles, Patrick's plog
Yesterday I got an email by a listener of The Phileas Club. I often get emails and answer them privately, but after writing this one I thought that it was summarizing my thoughts on the topic enough that I should make a blog post about it. So here is the original email, and my answer.
Quick note: the topic is sensitive, and in the past we have managed to keep these kinds of debates very civilized on this blog. If you chose to comment, please keep that tradition alive, thanks! 
B.’s email:
I recently started listening to your show and started from the beginning and have been slowly catching up to the recent shows. I was a little disappointed at the sara palen talk because of the anti religious tone it took but let it go because i figured that was going on in the media at the time as well. Then I got to episode 10 and was completely offended at the comment you made that something should be done to people that preach the young earth theory. Evolution is not fact, it might be the majority view but remember that the majority also thought the world was flat at one point. There are scientists that use the same research as evolutionist and show it to back the theory of a young earth. I don’t expect you to change your view on this subject but I think you should know that our comment upset me.
And my answer (I didn’t address the Sarah Palin comments or the other details, as I thought they weren’t really the core of the issue):
Hi B.,
First of all let me thank you for taking the time to write to me; I really appreciate it.
That being said, I’m very sorry but I’m afraid that I cannot subscribe to what you’re saying… The “young earth theory” is not a theory, it’s a belief. The people who support it aren’t scientists, they’re spokespeople for organisations that have other agendas. A theory is supported by verifiable fact, and no fact comes to support the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. No scientist worth their salt, and no one who understands the meaning of the word, will give any credit to it.
This is my whole argument: by treating this “idea” as a theory, we validate it and lead people to believe that there might be some truth to it. There isn’t, and we should stop indulging it altogether. Don’t get me wrong: you are of course free to believe whatever you want, but believing something like that is very simply ignorance and missinformation, not “just another theory”.
It’s very ironic that you would use the “flat earth” example as a comparison, because you are on the very side of the people who defended it for so long, and they did it for the exact same reasons! How saddening is it that hundreds of years later we have to be fighting the same fight against the same people in the same way? Thankfully no one is getting burned today…
Also, I have to say that I don’t understand why some people need to discredit evolution in order to be comfortable with their faith. I think this agenda comes from a very literal reading of the bible that some people need to maintain in order to follow other literal interpretations also. I guess their thinking is: “if you discredit this one, then maybe the other ones aren’t valid either!”. So they will do everything they can to maintain it, no matter how ludicrous or just plain silly. But why couldn’t have God planted, planned and even executed evolution? Why couldn’t he be watching our every move, tweeking and adjusting his creations and their DNA to take them where he wants to take them? He could, and that’s probably what he did.
Evolution is NOT incompatible with faith. It is only incompatible with a very narrow and literal view of the bible, which only the more extreme want to uphold. The bible is a guide and a light to help you grow, not an instruction booklet for mindless drones who should follow it blindly and be forbidden to think about the meaning.
I know that you won’t believe me and I won’t change your mind, and that’s absolutely fine. We can disagree and stay civilized, but I won’t treat that idea as just a theory, because it devalues us and our progress: if we indulge ignorance, we start regressing as a society. And by the way, even the pope says that this concept is ridiculous and acknowledges evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt… Who am I to disagree with the pope?
Anyway, that’s my two cents about the topic. I hope I didn’t offend you (too much) and I’d like to thank you again for writing to me about this. I might sound harsh but I truly appreciate the fact that you would want to let me know how you felt rather than just being angry at me in your corner of our beautiful (round) planet!
Patrick,
That view (your view i should say) is very well thought out and very well read. It’s a view I also hold, as I have found that we share a view on many things you and I.
Unfortunately, these same views get me into trouble with my church. I’m a member of the layclergy of the local Salvation Army, who is also very outspoken on topics such as this, and gay marriage. And unfortunately, it gets me into trouble to the point that I don’t feel right going.
As you said, I’m not saying these people can’t have their belief. But why can’t it be the other way around too? Why am I not allowed to have my belief of evolution and still be considered a Christian? It comes down to personal belief.
This is something that troubles me also: I have often seen or heard of people being shunned for not sharing religious beliefs in the US. It pains me greatly, and FAR from me the idea of demonizing the Church (no pun intended) because I know for a fact that these people are in the minority.
But I guess that intolerance is always an ugly beast, and it rears its head far too often.
The thing that makes me shake my head the most is the tendency of these same people who would belittle you for your ideas to then themselves accuse you of intolerance if you disagree with theirs. I think a lot of people confuse difference of opinion and intolerance, and while the two can certainly coexist, they aren’t always the same. I don’t have a problem with people who wouldn’t want gays to marry, I just disagree with them. But some of them often disagree with me a little bit more… violently. And that’s where I draw the line.
Some of the issue probably comes from the fact that a belief is based on itself, so by challenging it you challenge its basis, thus the ones holding it feel threatened. And if the basis for the belief is the bible, the core of your whole system, then I can certainly understand that it is difficult to bear.
I guess my point is that I’m sorry you have to go through something like that Lou, and I hope you can be strong enough to stand for what you believe, as it is in our everyday life that we can make the biggest differences (little by little). I would say that to anyone, even the people I disagree with, but if your beliefs try to bring peace and understanding, then I can also stand behind them.
This makes me think that I should probably start thinking about doing a “Gays for dummies” special episode of the Phileas Club, if only to show people who are afraid of gays that they are just as much idiots as the rest of us!
If you ever need anyone on your show for the Christian point of view, Patrick, I will be happy to be on. Same with the “Christian but now unsure or atheist” point of view.
I think my credentials as a layclergymen speak for themselves
Nicely summed up. I think one of the big stumbling blocks is the meaning of the word “theory.” In English it’s got two meanings, and in common usage it’s used very differently than the way it would be used in a discussion about science or scientific topics.
I know when a debate gets down to the dictionary point it’s already lost meaning but I think this really is a big part of it here. The non-scientists use theory in the way that means, “something that someone said that may or may not be true but isn’t it fun to think about” way and the scientists use it differently as in “Here are the facts that support this idea and the idea hasn’t been proven or disproved it yet, but the evidence seems to indicate…”
Very important nuance there. We need another word for the one that’s got facts behind it because the ones who are elevating belief to theory aren’t going to adopt a non-KJV word.
Wait! Theory’s not IN the King James Version!
I understand your argument, but I think it doesn’t hold in this case.
Proponents of the “young earth theory” designed the term specifically to put it on the same level as, and challenge, the theory of evolution.
More than once have I heard the phrase “the theory of evolution is just a theory”. We know that it is a theory in the scientific sense of the term, but in the confused minds of those who use that argument, it is a way to put the two on the same level. Which is, of course, a gross mistake and misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.
So whatever meaning you chose to give the word, that idea of a “young earth theory” is conceived as a deceptive intellectual device to specifically blur the lines you are speaking of. It’s not a misunderstanding of the two meanings of the word, it’s a very intentional manipulation of it.
Which is why I far prefer the use of that term I just made up “young earth belief”. If you want to think it’s true, fine. But don’t equate it to a theory, because you’re giving theories a bad name.
Hi Patrick,
I really appreciate how you managed to present your point of view in a very civilized way. Definitelly something I lack when I have to answer to people who discredit evolution and treat creationism as a theory. I think I have suggested this before, but it would be a very good idea to make a phileas “atheism” for dummies just like you did for islam. Of course the participants should agree to keep the discussion as civilized as your email above.
Cheers,
Julio
I will probably put an “Atheism for dummies” in the works the next few weeks / months. And the idea won’t just be to confront atheism and religion (although I’m sure that will happen too). We’ll see…
As Julio said, congrats for your answer to B.’s email Patrick, I guess I’d have answered differently, probably not as kindly though
Atheism for dummies, that’s the one topic I’ve been hoping you’d discuss on the show. ; there’s a lot to talk about, beyond the usual atheism v. religion debate ; I’d really like to know why certain religious people just can’t understand how I can even survive without a religion. I find it strange how some people will understand and tolerate people who have a different religion, but who condemn atheism. I think it’d really be an interesting topic for a future Phileas Club episode, and I’m sure you’ll manage to keep the debate constructive. Keep tweeting about it, as I’ll have a couple questions for you to ask the guests.
Rock on !
Camille.
As a Ph.D. physicist currently working in the genomics department at an Ivy League university, I think I have the credentials to address this debate based on more than my own opinion.
Evolution is a theory that has withstood rigourous scientific scrutiny. Like any field of science, there are established principles and there are details up for debate and study.
The age of the earth has been measured in a variety of ways leading to numerical values, each with an associated uncertainty. 6000 years is well outside of the accuracy of the measue, and as such can be discarded as false.
These facts about evolution and earth’s age are so universally understood among scientists that it is a frustrating waste of time for any of them to discuss it. It’s like a mathemetician having to re-explain that 1 1=2 every time a 2 shows up in one of his/her equations.
When repeatedly challenging science with no effort to understand the subject, do not take a lack of rigorous effort to disprove you as confirmation that your unconfirmed idea has merit. It means you need to go learn that 1 1=2 in order to deserve their time.
If you want a scientist on your panel, I’d be happy to contribute.
Send me a verifiable email with credentials, we’ll talk.
[Edit]
And by the way, I love the way you phrased the equivalent to 1+1. I have been struggling to put into words the idea that a theory is based on verifiable experimentation, in that a lot of people try to say that we just “believe” in evolution in the same way that they do in “young earth”.
I would try to find a way to say that the difference lies in the fact that evolution, like all science based reasoning, stems from things that are simple and that we can check, and works its way from there.
If you like your TV, your iPod or your computer, then you probably already believe in the same methods that lead us to evolution.
If you “believe” that 1+1 = 2, then you already “believe” in evolution.
And if you can show me where the fault lies in the chain of reasoning that leads from 1+1 to my TV or evolution, then I will listen to you and probably abandon my support of TVs and evolutions!
This is why I am in such disbelief of the people who throw around the young earth ideas: how could they be convinced evolution is wrong while still enjoying the wonders of the iPhone? They are basically the same thing!!
As with most things in science, evolution is called a ‘theory’. Theory is, however, not just an idea. Theory is a scientific working model that is supported by much research, thought, and experimentation. To discredit evolution, would be to discredit most biological progress in the time following Darwin. However, I do not think that science has the answers to everything. There are phenomena in the world that science cannot explain such as the mind-brain problem. Is the mind a product of the brain? How does the brain tell the mind that it has observed something ‘beautiful’? Where do concepts come from? How does one become inspired? I’m sure many writers and artists would love to know a scientific explanation of how to become inspired
. If then, we knew how people become inspired, that would take away the single most extraordinary experience any human can have.
I rambled a bit, and I apologize, but I do think that sometimes young earth Creationists are vilified. They are just looking to their God for literal answers from the Bible. They may have had spiritual experiences in their lives that led them to feel so strongly to trust in the Bible. I don’t think we should take that away from people. Also, I don’t believe we should try to dissuade people from believing in evolution. It is a well respected cornerstone in the scientific community.
In conclusion, I hope no one lets these differences breed hate. I don’t believe as Richard Dawkins does, that religion is the prime source of problems in the world, nor do I think people like Richard Dawkins are the source. The source of the world’s problems are largely greed, hate, and ignorance. I hope we as humans can avoid these things, and accept one another for what we are.
Wow, I’m spending my day answering these comments, thanks so much for posting everyone!
It’s an interesting idea you’re putting forth Jo, but even if I agree in principle, I have to point out that science isn’t a monolithic force that claims it has answers to everything.
There’s what it can explain, and what it can’t. For what it can’t, it very simply states: “well, we don’t know”, and tries to find out. And I have to point out also that it’s been finding out more and more and more, and the realm of what we don’t know, which was previously the realm of beliefs, has been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking.
So maybe we will find out where inspiration and beauty comes from, and maybe we won’t, and maybe they come from God and he’s gonna be pissed when I come before him (I’ll try to explain I was just kidding). I’d argue that beauty is a byproduct of the need to reproduce: seeing beauty in a partner is most probably a way to select the best mate to share your DNA with and give the best chances for your spawns to live on and / or dominate. Symmetry, for example, is a sign of an undamaged DNA sequence. And the people who are usually considered beautiful are the ones who show the most symmetric features. In the 1800, beauty was a bit overweight, which was a sign of health and proper nourishment. Today, beauty is skinny, which is, guess what: also a sign of health and proper nourishment (I’m not talking about those scary skeletor like models of course!) And then Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written, comes from somewhere deep in a damaged psyche that stemmed from all those needs and desires and imperatives…
But that’s just me and maybe I’m wrong, I guess there isn’t any definitive scientific evidence on that.
Anyway, on your last point about greed, hate and ignorance, I think that I’d strike out one and two and focus on three. Ignorance is probably at the source of all these issues, and by far the most important factor in them. But that’s a debate for another time…
Thank you for replying. I didn’t mean to vilify science here either, I apologize for coming off that way. I just wanted to point out that there are two sides of the story that shouldn’t focus on proving the other wrong. Educating people is important, and as you said ignorance is the biggest part of the world’s problems. While I don’t think conversion to either side should be the focus of education, I do think it is important to inform people that there are many beliefs in the world. What would that type of lecture be called? “How the hell did we get here, and what the hell for?” The next lecture could be music appreciation hailing Dark Side of the Moon as the most beautiful piece ever written. I jest, but really, thank you so much for the reply!
We are in agreement sir. I also don’t believe in telling people what to think. I believe in showing them the facts and the arguments and letting them decide.
Even in the case of that person who’s email I’m answering, I wouldn’t presume to impose my values and ideas on them. I’m only pointing out the difference between what we choose to call a theory and their belief, and explaining that contrary to what they are saying, they are really not the same thing.
So even there, I’m not telling them what to think, only “showing them the evidence”…
Well met, sir. I agree that theory and belief aren’t the same. I didn’t get the impression you were trying to dissuade the person who emailed you from their beliefs. You were quite diplomatic. One more point, I’m a lady, and a rather lovely one at that
, not a sir. (Johanna, Jo for short)
Patrick, it should first be noted that i am an atheist and firmly believe in evolution. in your reply, you mentioned that creationists are pushing other agendas, but you failed to give credit to your comment. that seemed a little unfair to me. just my two cents. And i totally side with you on this one. I would love an atheists for dummies episode. sorry for the lack of line-breaks, im on a phone. Dan B.
Hey Dan, thanks for the comment but I’m not sure what you mean by “giving credit to my own comment”.
Do you mean to say I’m pushing another agenda also? If that’s the case, I can assure you that I’m not, at least in this instance.
I might have other ideas that are linked to this one (and I discuss some of them in the comments), but the email is mainly about the issue I have with “young earth” being considered a theory, which I consider to be a very big issue.
If you’re talking about something else I’d be glad to know and address it.
Patrick, Sorry for the misunderstanding. what i meant was that you stated that creationists are pushing “other” agendas but didnt say what those might be.
Oh right. Well, I addressed it vaguely, but I think that it has to do with keeping people in a system where they have to accept everything from the bible is literal and true. Certainly some religious leaders believe that and are truthful about it, but the point that I tried to make is that in this system, there is a fear that if one card falls, then they might all follow.
If you tell your people that the bible is the literal word of God and that it is all true (never mind the multiple translations and things you leave out), then you can’t have one part of it *not* be true, because then what happens to the others? If the earth isn’t really 6000 years old, then maybe it’s OK to be Gay. Or to have sex before marriage. Or God knows what else…
And just to make things clear, I think that many of the people who take the bible literally are just trying to understand religion in a deeper way than others and trying to get back to the source, which is a perfectly respectable goal. I just think it is misguided with the premise that the bible, written by men, often about decade old accounts, is the literal word of God.
I’d also be willing to bet that most of the people who support these ideas don’t really know how the bible was transmitted to us throughout the ages or what languages, version, or translations it went through…
Patrick,
An interesting and well thought post as usual. I do have one issue with your initial argument (though no disagreement with your viewpoint). My issue is this: Why refer to “any scientist worth their salt”? This weakens your arguement greatly as it implies that any scientist who disagrees would be “not worth said salt” and therefore an invalid voice.
I don’t think this is your belief, but it’s right there in the post. This particular logical flaw is more bothersome in debates that are less clear cut, but it exists here nonetheless.
Hmmm I understand this can be seen as harsh, but after thinking about it I have to say that I stand by my statement. It doesn’t discredit the person as a whole, but certainly their scientific reasoning becomes questionable to me.
It’s like saying that gravity is a myth; if you do, your judgement will probably become suspicious. The young earth belief is just a notch below that level of absurd.
I always like it when this issue can be discussed in a courteous and civil matter.
One thing that the original poster mentioned, Patrick, is that you intimated that “something should be done to people that preach the young earth theory”. I haven’t gone back to listen to the episode, and I’m sure there’s a lot of room for interpretation of the comment, but reading it on the page it does sound perhaps a little over the top. Maybe you could address that particular issue.
As far as my experience, I’m a professional engineer and practicing Christian. I am totally comfortable with the scientific explanations of evolution, and I’m totally comfortable with the value of Scripture as a way to guide one’s behavior in society. The only way these two notions are incompatible is if one reads the Bible as a history text, rather than as a set of parables. I always think it’s amusing that people say that the Bible is the literal, historical record, but can’t reconcile the two different accounts of genesis in the first few pages of Genesis.
If you read the Bible as a cosmological allegory, it actually works reasonably well. If you’re trying to explain to nomadic illiterate sheep herders how the Earth came in to being, you don’t bust out quantum mechanical models of the Big Bang.
I’ll be over here with Galileo. “The Bible is not a book about how the heavens go, it is about how to go to Heaven.”
I suppose it does work in that sense indeed… I don’t really have a point to argue here, I mostly agree with what you say.
As to the episode itself, I’ll have to listen back yet but maybe I made some sort of disparaging comment, which I would be sorry for. We sometimes get playful and poke fun at one another in the show, and I don’t think it would have been terribly offensive. I think the most important thing is that I fully admit to not giving any credit or respect to the young earth belief, which will probably rub the ones that do the wrong way even with a little pun or joke…
Great debate and so refreshing to see that it’s being carried out in a civil manner, so often missing on the net. My personal opinion is that young earth theorists, creationists and people who advocate this type of dogmatism should be challenged at every turn. So thank you Patrick for that. This type of ignorance is the close relative of what goes on in sub-Saharan Africa, where the church tells followers that it is a sin to use condoms despite the fact that millions are dying from AIDS; the same type of ignorance whereby the Pope states that homosexuality is a greater threat to the world than environmental change. And the same type of ignorance whereby the Archbishop of San Salvador openly supports making abortion illegal and a jailable offence. So that when a young girl is rescued in hospital from Internal bleeding from a backstreet abortion, she wil nextday be thrown I’m jail. Richard Dawkins may not be exactly right in putting religion at the top of the tree of human diseases. But it’s definitely in the top 3. Imagine no honour killings, no Balkan massacres, no Troubles in Northern Ireland, no Middle East conflicts, no Al Qaeda, no suicide bombers, no female circumcision. Apologies for the rant and the bad spelling and grammar as I am using an iPhone and I have big evolutionary opposable thumbs.
Unfortunately, though, Johnny..you would have problems in different areas.
“you look different then me.” “no, you look different then me.” and a war starts.
Religion is certainly a top branch in that tree, as is prejudice, and ignorance. And you combine all three, it’s a dangerous mix.
Hi Lou
Sadly for us all your exactly right.
Johnny
Lou, I have to point out how very wrong you are with your statement. The vast majority of wars have been fought over territory and resources. Very very few wars have been fought exclusively over religious and/or racial issues.
There have been religious and racial wars, and they tend to stand out as they tend to be more sensational. In reality those conflicts make up only a small amount of the actual fighting that has ever happened. Please do not perpetuate the falsehood that religion is the main cause of war. In reality the main cause of war is probably food.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame religion. Religion is part of the human evolution (nearly a constant in all civilizations). So based on the evolution theory, it’s mean that religion was favorable for the reproduction of the DNA. Religion have certainly caused many wars but it should have also beneficial in some ways. Try to think about it…
On the point that religion favored the transmission of DNA… Absolutely! Or rather, the survival of the species: for a few centuries, it was the only vector of education and was very much needed. They would teach hygiene and civil obedience for example. So yes, religion did favor the groups that practiced it.
Your tirade saying that there would be no Balkan massacres or problems in Northern Ireland if it weren’t for religion. What a simplistic and intellectually lazy screed is that? What, did you and your quadmates at college come with nonsense while drinking or toking up? So religion is only bad. How do you explain National Socialists or Communists massacring millions? Where was the religious component there? Or how about the genocide in Rwanda? Grow up. God doesn’t do those things Humans do. The religious components to horrendous deeds are usually just an excuse to perpetrate them. The real motivations are usually economic. Someone has something I want and how do I get it?
I guess if one were to blame ‘religion’ they would have to specify which one in particular. Many religions are quite peaceful and promote world peace and brotherhood. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, or Muslim have varied impacts on the world and its problems. Atheism and Christianity are not the only two contestants in the world of religion.
Also, I suppose one could further make an argument that religion, faith, and spirituality are all different things and can all have their own implications. I think that, like Patrick said, keeping a very strong distinction between church and state is key. Having two forces like political leaders and religious leaders who wield vest power over people have often gone hand in hand and that is the real danger.
I’m not saying things done for the sake of religion are right all of the time, in fact, some of the most atrocious crimes of all time have been committed in the name of religion. I wonder sometimes, though, if they were doing it sincerely for God or if they did it for power or aggrandizement. I just don’t believe that all religions are at the root of ‘evil’ in the world. I think not one thing can really be blamed, except maybe ignorance as I said earlier today, for the problems the world faces. I also think that in order to progress in the world, we have to give and take from each other. The world has to learn from each other so we can more closely understand one another. Christians learning from Taoists, Hindus learning from Atheists; without losing our own personal values, we could learn so much from our brothers around the globe and I think we could all be a little more at peace. (And no, I’m not a hippie
)
Sorry, I classified Atheism in with religion. I hope that didn’t offend anyone. Since there is a belief in no god or a theological arrangement, does that make it a religion or a state of being? I’m not quite sure. I suppose as there could be numerous views from different Atheists just as there are many differing views among Christians and Buddhists… but I just wanted to clarify that I didn’t mean to lump everyone together like that, and didn’t intend to offend.
Brian, I don’t think anyone is saying that religion is all bad. And if they are, they are severely misguided. It’s very late here in Paris so I won’t get into how it did / does a tremendous amount of good, both on the planet and for the human psyche, but rest assured we don’t believe that. Or at least I don’t.
I think you did a good job here Patrick. But I do think you need to pay a little attention on the show. A lot of times it sounds like you and some of your guests are attacking Christians.
It would be good to point out that although this particular belief is provably wrong, it is important to respect peoples beliefs and religions. This includes Christians as well as Muslims, Jews and Hindus. It seems very easy in the western world to attack and demonize a large portion of the Cristian community based upon the actions of one of their extreme ends. this is not tolerated in regards to Muslims, and the same respect should be applied here.
Not that I think you are attacking anyone. The Phileas club is a great example of civil discussion on the web. It really is a great thing to see.
Also regarding the comment you made above about aetheists being shunned in the states. there are a quite a few “militant” aetheists out there. The comedian David Cross is one. When people say things like ” I don’t want to be a part of your stupid fucking cult”(David Cross quote) and things of this nature, it tends to alienate them. I think a lot of the shunned aetheists get themselves in trouble. I have never seen anyone taken to task just for being an aetheist. I have seen people pushed away for not respecting the beliefs of others though. It is a two way street, and I have seen quite a few beligerent aethiests in my time. They are kinda like those really loud obnoxios vegans you see from time to time. You know, the kind that try to convert all they see? Yah just like that.
Oh, and you may have inspired a new iRant out of this thread. Thank you.
Very good point about Atheists antagonizing Christians; I guess you see that for a lot of beliefs in the US. I would think that’s the normal way people interact, if not for the fact that France has no conflict of the kind whatsoever. We have the occasional debate about the Islamic veil, but that’s about it. We have a very large Atheist population, and a large Christian population, and we NEVER argue about it, EVER. It’s quite amazing really; I guess we just don’t presume to impose our values and ideas on others.
That being said, we have a very very clear and strong separation of church and state; if churches started campaigning for putting the 10 commandments in schools and courts, it would definitely be a problem.
So anyway, I think that you’re very right about people creating conflict, and as you know I usually try to avoid it as much as possible. I’m sorry if it comes off differently sometimes; I guess I’m still just human in the end, and I have emotions and opinions as well…
Patrick, you need a reply to comment of a comment function.
A lot of the difference between the rest of the world and the US I think comes from the local government idea. It’s easy to forget that each state in the US is really a little country. They all have their own governance and power equal to that of the federal government. This is what leads local areas to have things like the 10 commandments on their statehouse or court. It’s a local matter. Things are very different when your country is smaller than Texas.
That and the US definition of the separation of church and state is a bit less defined than the french one. But then your constitution was written in 1905, so you had time to look at us and do it a bit differently. For us all out laws state is that the state (government) will not appoint an official religion at the federal level. the really interesting thing is that a state could. None have, but they could, weird huh?
But back on point, it all seems to stem from the idea that people are pushing something on each other. There is a trend of do not back down, force your view, win the fight recently. This is shown from laws passed about religion to the flying spaggetti monster. While funny, it is a direct insult to people of faith. It is also shown our politics. This whole “us or them” ideal. For me, it is starting to get a bit scary. Groups keep escalating in all areas.
To some extent I think it is due to the fact that people in California are pissed about what the people in Alabama are doing. Really they shouldn’t care that much. The seperation has been lost and as a giant mass it is very very hard to get people to be reasonable.
I am a christian and practice but I have never seen that there is a major conflict between religion and science. People who believe religion trumps science are just as wrong people who think science trumps religion. The two are compatible. When it comes to science and religion my church’s stance is this:
“Episcopalians believe that the Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 868): it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. But physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, following sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, reminds us Anglicans and Episcopalians that the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.”
It is possible to be a good christian and still believe in scientific theory. How fragile as a religion would Christianity be if we couldn’t. Science has it’s own quasi-religious beliefs. Theoretical physics comes to mind. Some physicists believe in String Theory but it has yet to be proven but they still believe in it.
Below is a link that expounds more on Episcopal thought regarding science and evolution.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm
And yes Patrick is a big fat Sarah Palin hater. LOL
I agree with you on the first part, but think you’re doing a very popular line blurring in the second part when you essentially say “scientists believe in their stuff in just the same way…”
String theory is a theory in the scientific sense of the word; it’s been hinted as by clues and would answer a lot of questions we have about the confines of physics. Scientists choosing to “believe” in it means that they think it might be accurate, and they will work towards trying to prove it. If they can find enough compelling evidence for it, then they will conclude it describes reality. But if they find compelling evidence to the contrary, then they will abandon it and try to think of one that describes reality more accurately.
I don’t think there is anything similar to a religious faith in that mindset. Trying to equate the two in the way you are doing is, at the very least, inaccurate.
That being said, I completely agree that faith and science are absolutely compatible, as I’ve stated many times. It’s ignorance and proper reasoning that don’t seem to mix very well…
And yes, I’m not a Palin lover, that’s for sure. The previous comment can also apply to that part.
I agree that in one sense it is convenient to say that religion and science are compatible, but when you think about it really they are not. Rather they are at almost opposing ends of an ‘evidence’ continuum. Science in all its areas has the foundation of proving things through evidence, ideally hard empirical evidence which is consistent when looked at again and again by various people. Religion on the other hand (and when I say religion I mean the belief in a personal God), when it is asked for any evidence that a God exists, cannot bring about any at all, none. Just a sense of belief. We could apply the same sense of belief to our ability to fly when we jump of buildings, but the evidence which has been tested many many times, will show that our belief is wrong. I feel the same applies for science and religion. I dont think that science will ever truly convince 100% of people that a God does not exist, but I do think that now and more so over time, it really will push that belief into more and more untenable space within reasoned thought. Going back to one of Dawkins points, I think it is very telling to look at the percentage of members of the Royal Society who believe in a ‘personal God’, I can’t recall exactly but I think it was about 3% of those polled.
I agree, but frame it in a different way: to simplify, I would say that religion can easily occupy the spaces that science hasn’t yet understood. And admittedly science has been understanding more and more and in the past hundred years.
Which incidentally is probably also why a lot of people take a lot of liberties with their beliefs in their own religion, or giving it up altogether.
But it will be a long time (if ever) before science has *every* answer… I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Personally I don’t think one should compare or oppose science and religion. I agree that science can impact religion and vice-versa (e.g. people pushing for creationism theory). But that’s just two different things.
Let me explain this in more detail. It may look like weird, but actually it makes sense (well… at least for me) and I will try to make it short.
We know that species are evolving according their environment. That’s evolution. Usually, when we think about evolution, we consider only evolution of DNA. But for most of the species on earth, there is a second DNA level. Let’s call it macro DNA. For human specie, this macro DNA corresponds for instance to habits, government style, society trends, etc… Everything which is not hardly coded into our genes and which favours the reproduction of human specie. And I think religion belongs also to this macro DNA. And macro DNA, like our chemical DNA has to change and adapt upon environment’s changes.
Science has nothing to do with this macro DNA. It’s the knowledge of our environment. In other words, it’s part of our environment. Science has progressed a lot since the last 3 hundred years, so the environment for our macro DNA. As a consequence religion has to change and adapt to this new environment. But it’s also mean that it is not something you can ignore or just erase because it dose not fit anymore to the current environment. Religion will evolve and we should participate all together to support this change.
for EngelGW:
I follow what you’re trying to say. But a couple points I’d make. What you are calling “macro DNA” is really a sort on interactive complexity. Social interaction falls in there, a subset of which is religion, and it all can be modeled I’m sure. It’s definitely science, though not very developed yet I will admit.
Science and religion are certainly at odds if you choose to apply science to any religious ideas. But that doesn’t mean a scientist cannot be religious. They just cannot combine the two. i think of it this way. As a scientist learning his/her craft, you are building a foundation of knowledge, brick by brick. If you discover something was wrong down the road, that brick disappears and you have to adjust your structure. If you’re putting your religious ideas into your foundation as you go, you’ll end up with a very weak foundation that can easily be toppled by someone else. But if you built your foundation sturdily, and made a second teetering structure behind it your science is still sound and of value, whether the other one ever gets knocked down or not. Many scientists do this. I don’t poke fun at scientists with religious beliefs out of respect for their careers which have obviously proven their worth. But I’m sure there are many examples of bad scientists I’ve never met because they had too many bad bricks in their foundation. And as information is readily available now, younger scientists are less and less likely to be religious. This is because they have access at a younger age to information about the deeper questions, before they’ve built the foundation that they really don’t want to have to build again.
Even if I understand your point of view, I cannot share it totally. As I have said, I prefer to have a clear distinction between science and religion. We certainly have different definitions for these two domains too… Having a Ph.D. and working in a research’s department, I think I qualify to the scientist category. As many of my colleagues, I got a religious education but current religions are not really compatible and therefore useless. However, I need to have something, a kind of substitute. It’s fuzzy, still at an embryonic stage and can be considered as a personal religion. I strongly believe that a lot of people are in this case. I don’t think that a religion need to have a god, it’s too restrictive. I would rather consider as a religion any belief that makes us and our world better.
Wow, I have alot of thoughts on this subject but I had to really filter through all thats posted to avoid going over certain points that have already covered. Forgive me if I am about to do that anyway though.
Ok where do I start. Firstly I have to start with a point that has already been made but I feel is important enough to re-iterate because it seems to get continually taken out of context. The ‘theory’ of evolution is not a theory at all… it is a fact. It is about as close to a fact as you can get. People who are not researched enough (either in science, or religion) discuss evolution as if it was something that is a political debate – its not. Decades (nay, centuries) ago Darwin presented this theory and since then not a single person has been able to come up with an alternative that comes anywhere near disproving evolution. Further to this, ever since then scientist have be amassing a colossal collection of evidence in its favour, with more being uncovered every year. So for us to entertain the idea of discussing its credibility as a theory, is forgetting the centuries of critical study that has gone into the subject before any of us were even born.
What I find a sad re-occurance is that a large number of creationists jump on the word ‘theory’ as their driving disproving argument. I recall having a very eye-opening discussion with a creationist (I say eye-opening because it revealed to me just how passionate some people can be about things they dont know much about), and we discussed for hours the varying different topics that people have mentioned here. But the most difficult thing to discuss with him was evolution because as one eloquent poster tried to detail, it is simply more complicated than a basic debate could ever describe. The creationist told me that a stone could never evolve into a horse so the evolution theory falls on its face. This revealed to me the clear lack of understanding of even the basics of evolution, but more importantly and more worryingly, it revealed that the person was willing to ignore the facts because it suited him and his argument.
This leads me onto my next point in which i have to disagree with a few posters here. Science and religion do not go together because they cant. This is not a stubborn athiest view and its not even anything to do with my thoughts or feelings on religion, its just plain common sense. How could it? Brain you write:
“Science and religion are certainly at odds if you choose to apply science to any religious ideas. But that doesn’t mean a scientist cannot be religious”
What? Why do we need to chose to apply science to religous ideas? Surely its the other way round!?!? Science strives and goes to great lengths to discover answers, and on the scientific scale of discovery we have learned alot and amassed huge amounts of evidence. Yet the viewpoint that science is somehow required to answer to religious scrutiny is shared by millions and unfortunatly a futile task. The unfortunate result is that often the ‘gaps’ in scentific knowledge that we as humans are working towards answering become the safe-haven for those who prefer to ask questions than answer them. But anyway, I digress slightly. My point is that to state with conviction that science and religion can go together is kinda starry-eyed and avoids the issue.
This takes me onto my final point of this post.
With regards to the original emailer, why so offended? It’s a rhetorical question as I believe I know the answer but it would be wrong to jump to it without a bit of observational background. It seems that religion has found a perfect place in society. Unlike political views, sporting views, parental views etc etc, religion is the one area where we as a general population are somehow not allowed to criticise. There are poster(s?) here that have indicated that they have soul-searched through their religous beliefs and been found wanting, yet those around them have been intolerant of this. Again why?
I believe the answer is that when standing up to scrutiny, religious people are perhaps are faced with the issue that the beliefs that they have been brought up all their life to understand (and lets face it – accept without question) are in their eyes callously disregarded by someone. What those religous people like patrick’s emailer forget though, is that not everybody cares as much about your belief as you do…. why would they? It doesn’t mean that they don’t respect the fact that you have a different belief or that you even have a belief at all, but just ‘because you believe something wholeheartedly all your life… it doesnt elevate your belief above criticism from those who don’t share it. My response to you would have been to ask why it is that you resort to being offended, when the opportunity is there for you to present a counter argument to patrick’s statement? However I think that two rhetorical questions is enough for one post
Great discussion though.
sorry i just realised how long that post was, I didnt meant to write an essay but it didnt look that long in the text box! Any way of introducing a preview funtion patrick? LOL
No problem Andy. Quite an interesting read.
I also think we might be getting to the end of the argument here… We’ll see!
Andy,
You said: “What? Why do we need to chose to apply science to religous ideas? Surely its the other way round!?!? Science strives and goes to great lengths to discover answers, and on the scientific scale of discovery we have learned alot and amassed huge amounts of evidence. Yet the viewpoint that science is somehow required to answer to religious scrutiny is shared by millions and unfortunatly a futile task. The unfortunate result is that often the ‘gaps’ in scentific knowledge that we as humans are working towards answering become the safe-haven for those who prefer to ask questions than answer them. But anyway, I digress slightly. My point is that to state with conviction that science and religion can go together is kinda starry-eyed and avoids the issue.”
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that science has a responsibility to prove religious ideas. Far from it. To make something up without logic and then require a logical person to figure out a way to confire your whim is both lazy and insulting. My meaning in saying “Science and religion are certainly at odds if you choose to apply science to any religious ideas” is that I disagree that they are completely separate in all peoples minds. Hence my bricklaying analogy. I mean a religious person with scientific aspirations can go his/her whole life without having a conflict, but if the two ever do cross they will be at odds. Perhaps I would have been more clear if I had said “Science and religion are certainly at odds if they are both relevant to your inquiry”?
I think I did misunderstand what you said as I was trying to summarize in my head a number of posts, and my response, in the 30 minutes or so that i had for my lunchbreak. LOL
Yes I am inclined to agree with you, and I have a bank of further thoughts on that subject but I am going to hold off on them as the discussion seems to be gently veering away from what the original subject was… which was the email that described the offense taken at Patricks ‘anti-religious’ comments. I hope that B gains a better toleration for other peoples views of his/her religion. I have a feeling if he/she can’t learn to take less offense, then I suspect like so many others out there who follow a religion there is always going be something out there to offend you… and these days with the ongoing demand for answers (either through science or otherwise) the world is going to continue to be a more and more offensive place for you to live in.
Evolution and The Young earth belief are both silly ideas.
Absurdism(philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail) is the only logical thinking. Evolution and every other theory of how the world was created has faith involved.
“The ‘theory’ of evolution is not a theory at all… it is a fact. It is about as close to a fact as you can get. People who are not researched enough (either in science, or religion) discuss evolution as if it was something that is a political debate – its not. Decades (nay, centuries) ago Darwin presented this theory and since then not a single person has been able to come up with an alternative that comes anywhere near disproving evolution.” Lol you don’t seem to be the educated one.. A well educated person would noticed the guess work involved in evolution and how stupid it can be. “Oh this skeleton of a human has a larger skull.. Hmm must be a subclass of human… LOL I cant wait for future generations to dig up a midget and think its a subclass of humans. Evolution and the Christian faith both have flaws.. And noone will never know how all this shit happened. So Absurdism is the only way.0
Btw stop saying creationists when referring to the Christian faith because I can be a creationist and have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Maybe I believe Thor created the world?
Matt,
Totally agree. Does this shit really matter to anyone? If the earth is 6 billion years old, or 6 thousand years old what does that mean to us today?
I’m glad I’m not the only crazy one!