- The creation museum
Many (probably most?) Christians don’t look at the Bible in those terms, and nor was much of it written to be viewed in those terms.
Whilst I’d broadly concur with the first half of that statement, I’m going to call you out on the second.
When it was written, it was absolutely intended to be viewed in those terms. Humans are inquisitive, they want answers to big questions. The Bible was an early punt at answering those questions. People – including great scientists, astronomers – have been put into exile or worse for daring to question some of the ‘scientific’ claims made in the Bible. Galileo spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest for his heretical theories around heliocentricity.
The notion that the Bible was always supposed to be viewed as a collection of allegories has as much basis in historical fact as the Museum of Lies in the OP.
Anyone is allowed to believe anything but that does not give them a special pass to avoid ridicule
Whilst I’d agree with this, the dinosaur in the room here is whether ridiculing people is a particularly nice thing to do.
Jesus as a blond northern european type is funny as well.
And Adam with a belly button.Posted 10 months ago
Also – a book of allegories is a very odd thing upon which to base a religion, is it not? I don’t think many people would have signed up to follow the teachings of Fictional Jesus.
Deciding which bits are fact and which bits are intended to be “just” stories is problematic. If one part of the Bible is questionable, surely that throws the veracity of the rest of it into question? So what do people do in modern times, they pick and choose what to believe in based on what bits they like, and then get cross when someone suggests that their “faith” may not be wholly accurate because it must be true, it says so in the Bible.
It’s not a dichotomy I’d relish having to deal with. If nothing else, being an atheist is a whole lot more straight forward. You base your understanding on available knowledge and evidence, and if later something comes along which shows that you were wrong then you can easily revise your understanding. Religion’s stance of “this is the way it is” has little scope for evolution (ah, irony), there’s no mechanism for revising things we now know absolutely to be untrue.Posted 10 months ago
Veering wildly back on topic – anyone else think that museum is massively detrimental to kids’ education, dangerous even? There could be potential future scientists and academics visiting that place who are being brainwashed (literally – that video of teachers talking about evolution looks the sort of mind control thing you’d see in a movie) into rejecting established science and stunting what could’ve been a promising career. Some kid who, perhaps, would otherwise have gone on to cure cancer, or a revolutionary renewable energy source. Shocking stuff.Posted 10 months ago
It requires no proof. “
It requires no THINKING – it’s a lazy, superstitious, cynical, mediaevally ignorant way to absolve yourself of personally responsibility for the **** mess the world is in (caused in no small part by “faith”); and it’s the essence of hypocrisy, because it allows you to judge everything else – science, empirical evidence – by the same lazy “facts don’t matter” standards.
Revelling in ignorance is your choice, but don’t you DARE try to argue that “faith” has the same evidential value as rational, scientifically demonstrable truth.Posted 10 months ago
Yes it is cougar. I think religious indoctrination is very dangerous. Places like that should not be allowed by law to claim its anything but a fairy story. Not some sort of truth
However I guess that parents who take kids there will already be indoctrinating them so the damage will be done – just reinforced by the visit.Posted 10 months agofunkmasterpSubscriber
Sadly TJ is absolutely right. Kids who are visiting that place will be doing so with their parents. That’s my biggest annoyance with all faiths / religions. By all means believe in what ever you wish, but let your children make their own minds up. Forcing your archaic beliefs on to your children is wrong.Posted 10 months ago
Ridiculing isn’t nice, however, when you actually believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two, Jesus was born of a virgin, the resurrection etc. they’re almost inviting it. They’re brainwashed, it’s not like they’re open to a reasoned debate, reason goes out the window here.
The likes of Wendy Wright deserve to be ridiculed, how do you have a reasoned discussion with a nutter like her (Google her).Posted 10 months agoCountZeroMember
I’m a 100% atheist, but I’m not arrogant enough to assert that everyone with religious faith is a blind idiot. The ones that miss the whole point and get tied up in knots about fossil records though, they are blind idiots imho.
Pantheistic humanist here, but the quote stands as far as I’m concerned.Posted 10 months ago
I also like the quote about religion being like a penis! 😀
This, basically. I don’t get religion but that’s no reason to go around being a **** to people.
Which would be great were it not for the fact that being a **** to some of these people is simply a case of fighting fire with fire…
And as Dirtydog points out so significantly, it’s not as if we can rely on reason and rationalism as a way to win the argument.
They’re like the donkey here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw except that in the Real World people die from their wilfully ignorant, implacable fundamentalism.
So I don’t really understand why we should we feel particularly obliged to cut them much slack.
It’s not as if they’d recognise that they don’t have the moral high ground…Posted 10 months ago
Yeah, I’m not so sure about that. The greatest minds of all time, from the pre-Socratics to contemporary philosophers, tend to see ‘faith’ as a separate, and quite legitimate, epistemological category… as I have stated more than once on here before.
As for the Dawkins clip above, while the interviewee is borderline certifiable – she never stood a chance with the famous polemicist. He hand picks the people he speaks with precisely to illustrate how mind-bogglingly dim religious people must be. Interesting that Alister McGrath got cut out of his footage, and that he never filmed his conversations with Rowan Williams.
And as Dirtydog points out so significantly, it’s not as if we can rely on reason and rationalism as a way to win the argument.
You may be surprised to learn that mainstream religious folk don’t sit around waiting for people of different or no beliefs to argue with. Surprisingly, for the most part, you wouldn’t even recognise them, because they’re just normal people going about life the same way anyone does.
Weird, huh? I mean, who’d have thought that people who have their daily lives to think about, or better yet, a faith more complex than can be described with crayons, aren’t really that interested in arguing?
I have never in my life even thought about arguing about faith and whether or not God exists. I grew up with faith, while one of my brothers has none at all. Believe it or not, we mostly cycle together, talk about music, bug each other, and commiserate over Brexit. Meanwhile, I am interested in ancient texts, the transmission of ideas in late antiquity/the early middle ages, while friends who share the same faith perspective I do spend their time thinking about ethics, or philosophy, or physics, or whatever.
Contemporary atheists have no monopoly on ‘reason and rationality’. But whatever.Posted 10 months ago
tj, it isn’t and it never has been. In epistemology, there are different categories of knowing and perception. It is only now – and I mean, quite literally, in the last few years and in non-philosophical circles – that such dichotomies have been given any traction.Posted 10 months ago
Saxonrider – faith is belief without evidence. That is the opposite of rational thought. Rational thought is looking at the evidence and making up your mind based on that.
there is no evidence for faith – indeed the very definition of faith is so.
So faith is not rational.
simple as. Its what the words meanPosted 10 months ago
‘Faith is belief without evidence’
‘Faith is belief without proof’
Two quite different statements in my view. Probably due to my line of work, my mind works along the lines of ‘how much evidence is there, do we have enough evidence to prove the case, is our evidence good enough?’ and so on.
People who believe in God no doubt consider lots of things they see or experience or read as evidence for God’s existence – the world around them, their experiences, the bible, their conscience, all sorts of things I suppose. They consider what the religion says and consider ‘does that make sense in light of what I can see around me, what I’ve experienced etc.’ and they reach whatever conclusion they reach. To some it adds up, to others it doesn’t. Just the same as in a courtroom, both sides make their case on the evidence presented, the jury considers the evidence and whether it supports the prosecutions argument or the defences theory makes more sense (burden of proof arguments aside of course).
One person might say there is no evidence for God’s existence, while another might say there is plenty. That comes down to the individuals perspective, whether they consider the evidence as credible or not. E.g. the bible – it exists, nobody would argue otherwise. It is put forward as evidence because of what is claimed within it. The disagreement comes after consideration of its evidential value, some people decide it has some, some conclude it has none. The credibility or value or relevance of the evidence is what is in question, rather than its existence in the first place, and that’s why people reach different conclusions.
There are of course many people, on both sides of the argument, who are brainwashed and do not consider things for themselves and dogmatically stick to what they were told. Similarly, there are many very intelligent people who have spent years considering the evidence for and against, and some reach one conclusion and some the other.
I think ‘faith is belief without evidence’ is incorrect, but ‘faith is belief without proof’ is correct – many people with faith will have thought long and hard about the matter, and while there is not 100%, absolute, incontrovertible proof of God’s existence, they still conclude, based on all the evidence for and against, that he does exist. It is not the preserve of the hard of thinking.Posted 10 months ago
think ‘faith is belief without evidence’ is incorrect, but ‘faith is belief without proof’ is correct
Really? By extension that would suggest that the scientific method (empirical) is predicated upon belief.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.
I much prefer the scientific method of evaluation, which does not deal with ‘proof’. Instead it relies on the observable, repeatable, predictable. I would say that faith is belief regardless of evidence. The faithful may (and do) choose to apply the word ‘evidence’ to anything they like. ‘Face’ in toast? <— Evidence. Goat? <— Evidence. Someone once wrote in a book that should you mock what’s in the book then this makes the book true? <— Evidence!
You can’t simply use ‘the World’ as ‘evidence’ of a ‘deity’. There are no existing known examples/instances by which to draw such a conclusion.
Take for example: If someone saw a car parked in the street – one might assume that it was driven there? Reasonable evidence being that it is a car, and cars are normally driven. Cars are made in factories by humans. Cars are made to be driven. We have testable, observable, repeatable evidence of these facts. Of course, the car may have been assembled at the side of the road and never driven. It may have been bounced across from the other side of the road. It may have been towed there by Geoff Capes.
So the existence of a car is not in itself watertight evidence of a driver. The existence of a car production line is evidence of a maker. The existence of traceable, testable parts is further evidence of a maker.
But that doesn’t (IMO) work for ‘the Earth’. We simply assume that because we make things, so it goes that anything not manufactured by humans must still have been manufactured by a ‘person’? A ‘mind’?
I supposes ‘proof’ exists within a legal system, and in that I can see how people would compare a belief in God with belief in innocence or wrongdoing. But the ‘evidence’ for a so-called ‘deity’ is what, exactly? If I were up in court for some cooked-up or otherwise wrongful charge I wonder if I’d prefer to be evaluated by a jury using the scientific method or the faith method?Posted 10 months ago
Faith does not seek to prove anything. The word simply describes an internal response to certain types of experiences.
It’s a long article, but have a read of this piece, which articulates the difference very nicely. But remember, if you do read it, neither the author, nor I, are positing it as an argument. It is merely an attempt to explain the difference between faith and knowledge from a faith point of view.Posted 10 months ago
thegreatape – Member
It presents an almost limitless opportunity for a huge arguathon on what ‘evidence’ is, with everyone wearing their semantics hats
with great opportunity to offend folk as well. I am sure I had to apologise to you once after a debate on this topic having strayed from the general to the personal.
Be careful folkPosted 10 months ago
As I say, the possibilities for arguments about what evidence is are almost limitless.. Crossed posts!
I don’t recall that TJ so it must have been very trivial 🙂
The crux of what I was trying to say is that faith or belief in a deity is not the preserve of the thick. Plenty of very intelligent people have considered the matter at great length, with some reaching one conclusion and others the opposite conclusion. Whichever way they’ve settled, they haven’t got there without giving great thought to the arguments for and against.Posted 10 months agomikewsmithSubscriber
Whichever way they’ve settled, they haven’t got there without giving great thought to the arguments for and against, as baffling as that may be to some who’ve reached the opposite conclusion.
On this subject one conclusion involves this blokePosted 10 months ago
designing fjords and burying skeletons all over the surface of a giant computer in order to fool people into thinking evolution etc occurred and human life was not created by one all powerful being, the other involves accepting the evidence that we have found and how it fits with the facts we have established.
I’m off to get my brain sliced and fed into the super computer
42 and out
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.