Modern Man, Primitive Beliefs (moved from Freethinking Anonymous)
Offline If there is one thing of which I am certain, it is this: When one leaves the “Western world” and ventures abroad, one enters a completely new world. Primitive cultures and civilizations abound, many of which cling to incredibly strange beliefs. One wonders, how could these people actually believe in that? Surely, we should expect more from the fellow representatives of our species, even if they are behind the scientific curve when compared to the United States. The Fang people of Cameroon are as good an example as any is. The following passage comes from “Religion Explained,” by Pascal Boyer.
The Fang people believe “… that witches have an extra internal animal-like organ that flies away at night and ruins other people’s crops or poisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimes assemble for huge banquets, where they devour their victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell you that a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying over the village at night, sitting on a banana leaf and throwing magical darts at various unsuspecting victims.”
Yes, apparently they really believe such crazy fairy tales, which rightfully are laughed off by we in the sophisticated West. In fact, Boyer makes a point of noting that, “… a prominent Cambridge theologian, turned to me and said: ‘That is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe such nonsense’.”
Well, with that, I probably have given away my thesis. As I am sure almost all of you immediately discerned, all of the preceding self-aggrandizing “Western world” ethnocentrism was a thinly disguised ruse meant to illustrate our breathtaking hypocrisy with respect to the esteem in which we hold our fanciful delusions in contrast to the ridicule we express toward the silly superstitions of other peoples. In his wonderful book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins accurately articulates some fundamental beliefs associated with contemporary Christianity.
Dawkins writes:
* In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
* The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.
* The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.
* Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.
* If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his “father” (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
* If you do something bad, or something good, the same fatherless man sees all, even if nobody else does. You may be rewarded or punished accordingly, including after your death.
* The fatherless man’s virgin mother never died but “ascended” bodily into heaven.
* Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), “become” the body and blood of the fatherless man.
After laying out this patently irrational belief set, Dawkins asks, “What would an objective anthropologist, coming fresh to this set of beliefs while on fieldwork in Cambridge, make of them?” Suddenly, it is we who look positively tribal.
For those raised in the Christian faith, remember this: You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is not silly. You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is not weird. You have been conditioned to believe that the Christian belief set is less far-fetched than the beliefs of the Raelians, Scientologists or Fang people. But, alas, that childhood conditioning has made you blind—blind to the fact that the claims of Christianity are deeply, profoundly and shockingly inane. The Christian belief platter, as a matter of fact, is just as fantastically crazy as the Fang people’s collection of lunatic delusions.
Ever eloquent, Dawkins economically summarizes: “The findings of anthropologists seem weird to us only because they are unfamiliar. All religious beliefs seem weird to those not brought up in them.” Liberate yourself from your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and examine the claims of Christianity as though they are completely new to you. Look at them from the perspective of a sophisticated, well-educated adult, as opposed to a credulous child.
Is there room in your consciousness for such utter silliness—for such contempt of scientific knowledge and natural principles?
What is the quickest, most efficient way of abandoning your religious mythology? Overcome your deep-seated childhood indoctrination and think of those myths as if you are hearing them, just now, for the first time. You soon will realize that such lunacy ought to be confined to the lands of the primitives.
The road to truth is paved with evidence.
- Login to post comments
Well done. That was fantastic, well explained, and ruthless (which is a good thing).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thank you for the kind words!
The road to truth is paved with evidence.
Sorry....dubble post.
Bravo, excellent read.
Wonderful job man!
I love what you have done in this post, and what Harris and Dawkins do in their books. In the simplest ways, they (and you) have shown how ridiculous it is to hold any sort of superstitious belief. Well done.
Great post! I'd say you should post this in the Atheist vs. Theist thread, were theists can read it. Very well done.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
Thanks, again, for the kind words about my essay!
Based upon your suggestion, I will re-post this in Atheist vs. Theist. If I inadvertently violate a board rule by doing so, then you may delete one of the posts.
Let's see how they respond!
The road to truth is paved with evidence.
Theists can READ the Freethinker's posts, but are not allowed to post comments here.
Every once in awhile a theist posts in this forum and the mods delete it.
Please do not re-post the same thread. If you want them to read it, they probably already have.
If you want theist responses, I can move this thread to Atheist vs Theist. Please let me know.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yes, please do so.
Thank you!
it's a good read. but i'm not sure i like the way some people adopt the title of "free thinker". if you are truly free, then you have to consider all sides of the argument. although i agree that psychology is the key to explaining religion, not science
Your stated "explanation" is apparently childhood indoctrination. This ignores converts, especially athiest converts. Incidentally, this particular Christian never really "got" Christianity and went agnostic for at least a decade. After that, a deist. Only recently has this Christian really become a Christian, and it is most certainly after long speculation and doubt.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Even so, Christianity was not introduced to you—for the very first time—when you were, say, a sophisticated and well-educated 25-year-old individual. As a child, Christian ideas, stories and myths were given time to soak into your mind. As such, Christianity is infinitely more familiar to you than, say, the delusional beliefs of the Fang people of Cameroon. Familiarity breeds comfort, even with the strangest and most nonscientific of concepts.
Introduce a 25-year-old Harvard graduate to Christianity—for the very first time—and you will find somebody perplexed by its popularity as a belief system in the post-Enlightenment world.
The road to truth is paved with evidence.
The initlal spread of Christianity was almost exclusively to people who had never heard of it, most of whom were raised pagan. This seems a necessary assumption. Either it is a made-up cult (in which case only a handful could reasonably be instigators), or it is as Biblically accounted (in which case, the initial revelation was only to a bit more than five hundred). I suppose other options are possible, but I can't imagine them off-hand.
On education, there's an extremely clear case: Paul of Tarsus. I am assuming, on the combined evidence of his physical letters and the results of work attributed to him (both by others and claimed in said letters) founding the church corroborated in said letters, that Paul is at least not considered fictitious.
Could he have made it all up? Considering he got his start killing Christians, that's unlikely. Could his conversion story on the road to Damascus be false? Sure, but by what motive? He stood to gain nothing, and as a devout Jew he actually stood to lose respect, authority, security, and many other things we crave instinctively.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
In ancient times of widespread credulousness and scientific ignorance, it surely was much easier to spread religious ideas around. People did not know about evolution, which effectively explains the question of how humans came to be. People did not know about many human physiological properties, such as brain death being irreversible and final. People did not know that, rather than Heaven being above, there actually are other planets, other solar systems, other galaxies and galaxy clusters, and, quite possibly, other universes. Around the time of Jesus, the Middle East and surrounding areas were crowded with "savior" figures, for example Apollonius of Tyana. Of course, Apollonius was not divine at all; but yet, he was a formidable "savior" before the rise of the Jesus craze.
I suppose my point is this: When you have a mass of ignorant, scientifically illiterate people, it is quite easy to perpetrate an enticing metaphysical fraud, whether deliberately or not. Jesus could have claimed divinity, sold his case to his followers, and they, in good faith, could have spread that falsehood. I do not mean to imply that Christianity spread as a deliberate fiction meant to harm or swindle people. Rather, I think it could have been passed around innocently by the unsophisticated and the credulous [Rather like people inadvertently pass around cold germs by not washing their hands.]
Of course, I give no credence at all to any "divine visions" leading to spiritual discoveries. Nowadays, when people have visions, we rightfully label them crazy. All those people who see UFOs, ghosts, demons, Big Foot, “Nessie,” etcetera are either delusional, liars, honestly mistaken or some combination thereof. It is not possible for Paul truly to have seen the risen Jesus, because Jesus had died and suffered brain death, which is irreversible. Dead corpses do not walk around now, and they did not do so two thousand years ago.
So, if Paul's account has any relationship to reality whatsoever, he either made the whole story up or had some sort of vivid delusion. Those are the only scientifically sound answers to be found, given, once again, the non-negotiability of brain death. I do not want to speculate on Paul's motives for lying, if he indeed was not simply delusional. Rather, I will say that lies, delusions or honest mistakes are much, much more probable than rotted corpses traipsing around like some George A. Romero picture.
This world operates according to natural principles. Rotting, lifeless carcasses do not walk around. Virgin women (especially before modern science’s amazing advances) do not become impregnated and give birth. Snakes and donkeys do not speak in human tongues. Human beings do not live to be 900 (or more!) years old. People do not ascend bodily into outer space (what the primitives falsely believed was Heaven). The post-delusion writings of a scientifically illiterate individual cannot convince me to abandon my well-evidenced scientific grounding. I would much sooner attribute Paul of Tarsus’ life's work (or what is alleged of it) to hallucination, lies or time-period-attributable ignorance to natural phenomena.
The road to truth is paved with evidence.
Scientific ignorance is relative. Some time in the future, and the way things are changing now probably not the too distant future, we will look scientifically ignorant for the conclusions we draw today. This is the basis for an argument that we don't know everything yet and so arguments that certain things are impossible cannot be substantiated purely through what we know now. You can argue for improbability or lack of evidence but impossibility is problematic in most cases.
Does it? And you have conclusive proof that evolution is a fact? The correct answer to that question is no. You have a large body of circumstantial evidence that supports a theory which makes huge leaps of faith when extrapolating from the few fossil specimens to a full blown evolutionary history. The fact of the matter is the evidence shows that micro evolution is indeed a fact, while macro evolution remains difficult to prove. All evidence points to the fact that macdro evolution is in fact nonsense. The fossil record should have a proliferation of inter species specimens, it doesn't. Punctuated equilibirum is an argument that has no basis and is in fact itself evidence that macro evolution is difficult to prove. So your statement is an assumption, and the fact that it is solidified in your mind as established and immutable is a problem for a free thinking discussion.
Why quite possibly? Another assumption. It may not be impossible. A more correct statement might be, "possibly other universes exist". Again an indication of the bias that you have to making your point and having made up your mind. Not a characteristic of a true free thinker.
This is not proof of anything. I see the point you are making but it really doesn't prove a thing. You'd have to bundle this with a bunch of other evidence before it becomes anywhere near useful.
Fair enough.
Possible, but there is a lot of substance and consistency in Biblical accounts that is noit so easily written off. This will come out with further free discussion. I'm hoping you agree that free and open discussion is only possible where the parties are open to pursuasion. Dogmatic, preconceived ideas are bound to come from both sides but both sides must be willing to accept when they have been caught out and be willing to change. Otherwise we are doomed from the start.
Based on what evidence do you not give credence? You say "of course" as if it is established fact that such visions are impossible. That is an unsubstantiated assertion - not a hall mark of reason and logic. Because you have not had such an experience does not make it impossible. I concede some visions are the result of delusions but as with all evidence you need to apply due dilligence to establish that fact. Provide evidence before allowing these ideas to solidify in your mind.
Another blanket statement that assumes facts without any evidence whatsoever. So all people that have visions are "crazy"? No substance to your argument. Are you a free thinker? Hmmmm.
Possibly. A more correct statement, since you are without proof, would be "are either correct and accurate, delusional, liars, ...".
The claim is that Jesus did rise from the dead. If you have proof, that He in fact did not then present it. Your argument that in general corpses do not walk is valid but is not conclusive proof that Jesus did not. There is a claim, which is evidence. You need a rebuttal backed up by evidence to make any conclusive statement. You don't have to believe it but you cannot say for sure that it did not happen. Again, your free thinking is in doubt here.
Oops. This sounds like you are about to draw conclusions based on some shaky ground .
Or he was telling the truth. Where's your evidence that this is not one possible answer?
Since we may actually be scientifically ignorant now relative to some time in the future,sound answers now may look silly then. We don;t know everything yet. So you need to open your mind to the possibility that we just can;t explain everything.
For now.
No, but regenerated bodies of the risen dead could.
Not in general but in that particular case a claim has been made. Now you continue to appeal to some generally accepted scientific principle, this is similar to a theist appeal to tradition. You should rather be looking for conclusive proof.
Your argument lacks substance and is not well grounded. You have shown signs of being entirely convinced of thigns which are not established by conclusive proof. You have some valid evidence, some valid points. None are conclusive however.
How did the universe come into existence, scientifically speaking that is?
Hello Icebergin.
Your signature is interesting. Who are you so strongly encouraging to keep silent? Whose the WE that is/are going to save America? What does America need salvation from? Are the other countries in danger?
I agree that supersitious belief is ridiculous. The assumption you make here however is that Christianity is supersitious. THat's an assumption. Chistianity is based on both reason and knowledge thereby disqualifying it as superstition.
Do you believe in free thinking and reasoned argument? I expect so. If so this assertion is wild and unfounded and shows that you are not a free thinker at all.
If you say Christianity is superstition do you simply discount all the knowledge and reasoning that forms it's foundation? By what reasoning do you do so? This could be a can of worms so maybe we should start slowly.
Can you prove that Jesus is not the Son of God?
deludedgod (heh, that's really cool name, I like calling you that).
You seem to have a bone to pick with religion. Fine. Since Christianity is not a religion (although there may be religions based on Christianity) I take it you do not have an issue with Christianity.
If you do then your understanding of Christianity is flawed and based on misconception.
Can you prove that Herakles is not the son of Zeus? That unicorns don't exist? That motherfucking cocksucking goblins won't come into my room tonight and fist-fuck me to death?
Pardon my colour, but I have the strangest feeling this point is being reiterated for the umpteen gatrillionth time.
I do not buy your implication that we, today, are scientifically ignorant. Of course, our understanding of various things is imperfect, perhaps even substantially flawed. Yet, we have gained a remarkable understanding of gravity, human origins, the workings of our solar system, etc. We know a great deal about diseases, human physiology, the animal kingdom, etc. I am not citing anything in substantial doubt when I say human brain death is irreversible, or serpents and donkeys cannot speak in human tongues, or that virginal women cannot become pregnant (without big-time help from the modern medical community). I am not operating on the fringes of science, but rather firmly in the mainstream.
I have had these discussions with evolution doubters for years now. I'm thoroughly sick of going through the reams of evidence and still having the anti-evolutionist refuse to accept the theory's factual validity. The truth of the matter is that evolution is a fact exactly like gravity is a fact and heliocentrism is a fact. If you do not wish to acknowledge the fact, then you are free to ignore it. The legitimate scientific community has about as much patience for creationists as the legitimate historian community has for Holocaust-deniers.
You mention the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, which is hardly important and yet creationists love to harp on it. Macroevolution, largely, is the accumulation of microevolution. If you have identified a mechanism which prevents microevolution from accumulating to form macroevolution, then please present definitive proof of that amazing mechanism. Otherwise, just leave this topic be, because I've retired from defending facts like evolution (since defending opinions is much more interesting).
I stated my case exactly correctly. It is quite possible that there are other universes. Maybe not probable. Maybe not likely. But, certainly, quite possible. I don't want to waste time going into why it's possible. If you care to learn about it, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He has several paragraphs on the matter.
I'm making no devastating argument in this instance. Basically, I'm stating that frauds like Apollonius of Tyana--clearly not in any way divine--were able to convince a substantial number of people that they were, indeed, of God. I attribute that to widespread credulousness and scientific ignorance. I also argue that, if Apollonius could be a fraud, Jesus also could be one. The major difference is that Jesus' mythology caught on better.
Actually, it's quite easy to write off most of the Bible. We have no way of knowing whether any of the Gospels has much grounding in reality. For all we know, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John could have been plagiarizing each other (in various combinations), and using real people, places and historical milestones to couch their fiction in a veil of truth. Certainly, no book with talking snakes and 930-year-old men and the walking dead is particularly credible to me.
Now, I think it's important I tell you one thing: I'm not entirely certain what you mean by free and open discussions. I can promise you that I will never budge on issues of science. Until I see peer-reviewed evidence otherwise, human brain death is irreversible. Until I see peer-reviewed evidence otherwise, serpents and donkeys cannot speak human language. The same for virgin birth 2000 years ago. The same for 900-year-olds. My worldview does not allow the concept of miracles, since I am convinced that the universe operates solely by natural principles. If entertaining the miraculous is a necessity, then I do not meet your standard.
I have learned to disbelieve in "visions" because they, nearly invariably, are poorly supported by evidence. Think of things associated with "visions": Alien abductions, encounters with Big Foot, ghostly visitations, meetings with the Loch Ness Monster, various horror characters like Moth Man--all of these goings on are equally unburdened by hard evidence. There is no hard evidence of anybody, ever, being abducted by aliens. There is no hard evidence to support cryptozoological characters like Big Foot. The evidence for ghosts is almost all anecdotal (a hugely unreliable form of evidence). And that's the big problem with "visions"; they amount to taking somebody's word for something. People lie, deceive and are deceived. That, nearly always, is a more probable explanation than any otherworldly vision.
At the risk of bringing this discussion to the level of the excremental, people who claim visions are usually full of shit. That's why, most of the time, the only evidence for the vision in question is the person's say so. Again, think of alien abductions. Where's the hard evidence to support the tall tales? Where are the unearthly knowledge and scientific breakthroughs? Where are the otherworldly gadgets and machines? My level of belief in people's claims is directly related to the amount of hard evidence people present to me. If the vision is accompanied by hard evidence, then I hardly consider it a vision. Rather, I'd consider it a hypothesis waiting to be tested. If, on the other hand, one simply has a story to tell me, then I'm not all that interested.
I believe I've already pretty well covered this. Tall tales with hard evidence are worth considering. Tall tales without hard evidence are a waste of my time, and everybody else's. What proportion of "visions" are accompanied by convincing hard evidence?
Where is the alien gadgetry?
Where is the Big Foot hair?
Where is the Loch Ness monster scale?
Where is the alien video tape?
Where is the definitive video footage of ghosts walking around?
Since people lie, deceive and are deceived, I do not care to hear stories unsupported by hard evidence.
I see no substantial hope of us having a good discussion on this point. You are willing to consider a suspension of natural principles; I am not willing to consider the possibility of such a suspension. Human brain death is irreversible. Jesus died and suffered brain death. Therefore, he could not have risen bodily. It's as simple as that. Anything otherwise would be a violation of natural principles, a violation which I do not consider possible.
To have any hope of moving me on this matter, you would have to operate strictly in the realm of hard evidence. You could, for example, present Jesus' living brain matter to me. Or, you could refute the scientific community's claim that brain death is irreversible. But I will not consider "miracles," "divine intervention" or other such fantasy. I care only for hard evidence...not stories, anecdotes or metaphysics.
Human brain death is irreversible. Look it up. It's part of the very definition of the term.
To our credit, we have gained a remarkable, enviable understanding of science and natural principles. It is not perfect; it is not definitive. But, it's pretty fucking great. And I, for one, am not willing to trade in hard-fought scientific knowledge in exchange for 2000-year-old Jewish folklore about the walking dead, talking animals, pregnant virgins and nearly 1000-year-old men. To trade away our scientific knowledge would be to pull the plug on civilization and invite the most shameful of disaster.
Well, with that, we've entirely left the realm of science and hard evidence, at least given the time period about which we're talking. You now are appealing to the miraculous, explicitly and shamelessly in violation of natural principles.
A 2000-year-old claim, in a book of Jewish folklore, about a pregnant virgin is of no interest to me, especially sans hard evidence to support the clearly specious assertion. The Christian claim of a pregnant virgin demands refutation about as much as a hypothetical claim of invisible garden banshees demands rebuttal. Some things are just laughable on their face, including both of those nonscience assertions.
You might say none is conclusive, but that is because you apparently have a deep mistrust of science and cling to the hope that major natural principles will be proved false. Contrary to your stated claims, we have a tremendous amount of scientific knowledge about which we can be fully confidant. I did not choose my biblical absurdities at random. Rather, I chose the most absurd of biblical absurdities. Dead people cannot walk around. Virgin women cannot become pregnant without modern medicine's help. Snakes and donkeys cannot speak Hebrew or Aramaic. Humans cannot live to be nearly 1000. These are offshoots of core natural principles. Those well-evidenced natural principles shape my worldview, and I'll be damned if old Jewish folklore is going to convince me to throw away hard-fought scientific knowledge, which is the very basis for our continuing civilization.
The road to truth is paved with evidence.
This was addressed to 22jesus22 who assumes that Christianity is a superstition thereby implying that Jesus is not the Son of God. He has no proof so his comments about superstition are based on a false assumption.
Does it? And you have conclusive proof that evolution is a fact? The correct answer to that question is no. You have a large body of circumstantial evidence that supports a theory which makes huge leaps of faith when extrapolating from the few fossil specimens to a full blown evolutionary history. The fact of the matter is the evidence shows that micro evolution is indeed a fact, while macro evolution remains difficult to prove. All evidence points to the fact that macdro evolution is in fact nonsense. The fossil record should have a proliferation of inter species specimens, it doesn't. Punctuated equilibirum is an argument that has no basis and is in fact itself evidence that macro evolution is difficult to prove. So your statement is an assumption, and the fact that it is solidified in your mind as established and immutable is a problem for a free thinking discussion.
That is ridiculous, and you should know that as a geneticist and a molecular biologist, I am laughing my ass off over this. Firstly, if you want proof of macroevolution, look no further than in your own genes. We have tracking techniques whose accuracy you would not believe. Before continuing, see if you can answer this
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465
and if not, your a hypocrite.
Moving on...
The idea of a "transitional fossil" is a joke. THe whole process of evolution is transition in small steps, but often two close species (measured in terms of amino acid divergences in conserved protein domains) are too alike in phenotype for there to be what anyone would consider a "transitional form". As cladogenestic speciation tends to occur when two populations become geographically seperated, the stream of genetic change that causes population X to become unable to interbreed with Y (hence called speciation) is too slow for there to be major recognizable changes within less than several thousand generations.
I had one guy tell me that if evolution is true we should see “bird-reptiles” or something along those lines. That is ridiculous. Those two Orders are separated by 200 million years of divergence. Evolution does not work along such broad lines. These three groups used to live in primordial single cell communities, promiscuously exchanging genes. This is how the foundation genes of all life were selected. But as the three groups went their separate ways, the gene flow pump shut off, and now, it is a rare occurrence when these groups exchange genetic material. By the same logic as the “bird-reptile” fallacy, molecular biologists should see weird Eukaryote-prokaryote hybrids. The divergence occurs long before different Orders proliferate. For instance, let us take the split on the level of Kingdoms. Plants and Animals, these are both Eukaroyta, yet their fundamental differences are much more then genetics. All plants have deep within them the result of an ancient symbioses, chloroplasts as well as Mitochondria, which have the astonishing ability to metabolize light (well, they don’t actually metabolize light, they just use it as a catalyst, but it’s still impressive) The truth is, all 300,000 species of plants are extremely closely related, and all have one thing in common How do we know this? Amino acid tracking. Evolution is dependent on homologous sets of genes called orthologs and paralogs. Genes in multiple organisms that obviously descended from the same common ancestor (anyone who bothers should check the amino acid tracking branching tree of hemoglobin evolution as an example) are called orthologs, while genes which occurred as the result of mutation descended from a single gene (thereby producing two or more new genes) are called paralogs. Both of these are called homologs.
The gene flow pump is shut off long before the divergence at order level. How can these groups interchange genetic material when only within a species can organisms breed? Obviously we are not going to see bird-reptiles or anything ridiculous like that. The different paths of evolution go their different ways.
Onto the issue of “transition fossils” or “missing links” or whatever you call them. There is no such thing. What on earth do they mean “transitional”? If they mean the “bird-reptile” hybrid or something along those ridiculous lines, they need to study classification biology. If they mean that the fossil record is incomplete, well of course it is! Fossils are almost never formed. When nearly all animals die, anoxic layers of silt pile on top of them, converting their organic remains into hydrocarbon sludge…that’s where we get our oil from (How do creationists explain oil anyway?) There are so many steps in evolution lost forever because the fossil record is not complete.
Moving on again...
Across the spectrum of life we see very little originality. From the time of the primordial genome, it has expanded in size due to duplication error. This provides the mutation carrier with superfluous genetic baggage, basically an extra copy of a gene. This copy is free to mutate based solely on random frequency probability. It diverges from its original function guided by Natural selection.
This new gene or section will be closely related to the original, both in function and sequence (although divergence starts widening over time). These two genes are said to be paralogous of each other in the same carrier. For instance, the human genome contains seven haemoglobin proteins, all of which are in a gene family called the haemoglobin family. This is part of a larger family called the globin family, under which all oxygen binding proteins are classed like myoglobins.
When two species diverge, the new genetic arm of the phylogenic tree retains much of the genetic code of it's predecessor. Any related batches of genes in two species are said to be orthologous of each other. The seven human haemoglobins are orthologous to the seven chimp ones.
Basically this is how all of evolution works. Genes duplicate by accident, then these new copies diverge in function over time, species branch off, and whole families of related genes spring up. However, when we trace it back to the proto-cells, all the genes are related. There is no such thing as a truly original gene.
The existence of paralogies of genetics across the families in the proteome, even diverged as far as seperations between the three domains themselves, and the fact that amino acid tracking reveals this to narrow as the organisms in question become more closely related (a fact which is reinforced by advanced radiometry) can only be possible via repeated duplication and divergence of genes, thusly bearing gene families which in turn branched out depending on the survival requisites of the organism and location, the lack of originality in the proteome, especially the vertebrae proteome, which can be explained entirely in terms of domain shuffling and protein string recombination can only be explained by origin from a common descent, a primordial genome who bore only the survival requisites for the simplest of life. What this genome may have looked like is mysterious, but insight into a small bacteria called Mycoplasm genitalium can give us the answer, when computationally recombined with cross-references of genes exclusive to archae, eubacteria and eukaryotes (Excluding ESP proteins of course) we arrive at an answer of roughly 200 genes dedicated to basic metabolic and structural proteins, rRNAs and mitosis control gates. Ad it is from this humble beginning that life evolved. A fact which is correlated 100% by genomic/proteomic analysis and ortholog/paralog/xenolog tracking.
Quite simply, molecular genetics tracking, ERVs and mtDNA, in addition to computational searches for paralogies across the spectrum, leads us inevitably to the conclusion that the whole swath of life arose from a single, simple, primodial cell.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Clearly, your expectation for hard evidence is quite reasonable. There is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning however. You rely entirely on science for your understanding, that is limiting, and you discredit the entire canon of scripture based on a select few "absurdities".
I don't say you should just accept things that are scientifically inexplicable, or even contrary to science. What I am saying is it is not reasonable to chuck the whole lot out based on a couple of events that challenge your view of reality.
I'm not trying to mince words here and argue for the sake of it. We have to admit that science has its limits, which you have done. That means that you have a twofold flaw in your reasoning:
1. You assume if it cannot be explained by science, or is contrary to science, it is not possible.
2. You generally dismiss the entire canon based on a select few events (you alluded to the fact there are more than the few you mentionedbut the point remains). This is flawed because there may be context that lends credibility to the parts you dimiss.
Maybe I can relate to your evolution frustration. You claim evolution to be a fact. I say there is disputable. You firmly believe there is sufficient evidence to assert it is a fact. I dispute that because I believe there is insufficient evidence. You may be able to plug the holes in evidence with perfectly reasonable and scientifically acceptable extrapolation, interpolation and other reasoning but there are still holes in the evidence.
Similar tension in the debate of the scripture. You can dispute the claims all you like with scientific reasoning. The fact is you don't know for a fact that these things did not happen. So you claim is based entirely on reasoning and extrapolation. Not on hard evidence. You weren't there to say it didn't happen. You are extrapolating based on evidence that is not directly related to the event.
OK. Point made and taken. I thought I had the fundamentals down there. Clearly that is not the case.
Ouch. I think I have to cop this. OK. I'll stay out of the stuff I don't understand.
I should know better anyway - evolution and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are not mutually exclusive. So it is a pointless argument. Thanks for taking the time to provide good information there.
Now this is what I do know - knowledge is a very good thing. Progress and the application of knowledge to improve life for all mankind is all very good. Knowledge however (and this is not in defense of my clear ignorance of the evolution story) has its limits.
You can be simultaneously knowledgeable and ignorant. Extensive knowledge does not guarantee wisdom. It is a gift from God however and when coupled with wisdom it is a very good thing.
I know what the general consensus is. That's not what I asked for.
See above.
His "assumption" is no more groundless than yours regarding the physical absurdities associated with Greek myth and unicorns.
You missed the point I was getting at, so here it is for the umpteen trillion-and-first time:
Because you can't DISPROVE something does not make it true. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE POSITIVE CLAIM.
That means you. Happy hunting.
Can you show me this factual basis for Christianity of which you speak? Can you show me also difinitive proof that Jesus was the son of God. Can you show me proof that Jesus existed. As is rightly pointed out by The Happy Nihilist Christianity has all sorts of beliefs that are beyond reasoning, virgin births, great big sky daddies. There is a lot of superstition, if you do bad things you will go to hell! You think it real because you believe it, in fact you have to think it real in order to believe.
In terms of micro/macro evolution, how is it you can believe in one but not the other. Going back in time to the age of the dinosaurs you have a population of creatures all with many reptilian features but which are actually somewhere between reptiles and birds, and there are later dinosaurs which are more bird like than earlier dinosaurs. There are also fossil remains of creatures that are partially reptilian partially mammalian living throughout the many millions of years dinosaurs existed for, which were never dominant but were evolutionarily successful, these creatures would walk very much like repitles with a slippery form but gave birth to live young and mated for life as many mammals do. There are many species of proto-mammal and early mammals emerging in this period.
You have a misunderstanding of evolution, you do not get crocaducks. It is a slow process, you don't get a new species in a generation, you get a new species when it can no longer breed with its ancestors or cousins from way back. Humans cannot breed with gorillas but they may be able to breed with neanderthals if neanderthals still existed. Similarly it is physically impossible to breed a great dane with a chiwawa (sp?), both are dogs. They quite probably could still breed through artificial insemination but, in the case with a male great dane and a female chiwawa, the puppy would grow too big for the chiwawas womb and the result would be fatal to the mother and quite possibly the puppy. Both breeds of dog have grown to a stage where they can no longer breed together effectively, the next stage is the inability to breed genetically, the genes will eventually diverge so much, perhaps the addition of extra chromosones in one breed, perhaps the subtraction of chromosones from one breed that would make breeding impossible, we then have a new species. Similarly there are many missing links between humans and primates. Watch the British TV series Walking with Cavemen, it shows the various stages of our evolution from apes over the course of a few episodes, the early ones using computer graphics, the later ones actors in prosthetics and then up to homo sapiens sapiens where the actors need no prosthetics.
Macro Evolution does happen. But you seem to expect that it happens overnight. A dog will not give birth to a cat, but it may give birth to a dog that cannot breed with evolutionary cousins, where the link is a long way back. Yet the new dog will still be able to breed with its own kind, even if it itself is different, the new dogs genes will prosper if they give it an advantage.
Evolution is fact. It happens on a long timescale. I am not going to suddenly morph into a homo futurismo right now, that isn't how it works. The fruit of my loins will not be a homo futurismo, when I have a family. But, if there is a specific advantage that my child has through any mutation that might occur, then he/she will be better equipped to survive. Indeed there may actually be several species that evolve from homo sapiens sapiens.
Mutation happens. It happens all the time. Many humans have a mutation that gives them webbed feet. This is well documented. If sea levels rise due to global warming then our webbed footed friends will be better equipped to survive in the sea, if their offspring mutate again and their feet become even more suitable for water living then those offspring will survive better than their parents or members of the same species. They will pass on their genes. On the other hand there will be mutations that offer no advantages, or weaken the species, those variations die out. Eventually through natural selection we may get homo aquarian. Perhaps after that, future offspring will develop from the webbed feet, fins, perhaps, legs will merge together, arms will shorten and they too become fin like, and then such future descendants of ourselves will no longer be primates but an entire new breed of aquatic mammal. So yes micro evolution does happen you are quite right, but micro evolution always leads to macro if it keeps going.
Atheist Books
Yes yes . I;ve probably heard this a few times my self. The thing is I make a positive claim, say "the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God". An atheist comes along and asks "Where's your proof?", I counter with some evidence which he dismisses by way of some reasoning and says "So I don't believe tehre is a god". Fine we are all happy.
However, when the atheist makes a positive statement such as "faith in Jesus Christ is superstition" that is in turn a positive statement. So the burden of proof has now shifted.
Am I missing something? Do your rules only apply to theists?
Proof that believing in Christianity is superstition:
1) Belief in prophecy - Many Christians, especially those in America believe that the rapture is coming because of some book in the bible. This is accepted on faith. There is prophecy in other religions too and this is also called superstition. Believing that the bible tells us what will happen is no different from believing that the stars hold secrets to the future or tea leaves, or Nostre Damus.
2) Hell - Most Christians believe in hell (not all, my ex girlfriend's mother was a minister who did not believe in hell). Again, you would probably call the phrase "Don't step on the cracks or you'll fall and break your back" superstitious. Now replace step on the cracks with "sin" and "break your back with "go to hell". Neither can be founded on any evidence. That again is superstitious.
3) Belief in the supernatural - You believe in something that is beyond nature and therefore beyond anything that is verifyable and testable. There is no evidence or scientifically provable hypothesis for it.
4) Belief in virgin births - Again, a supernatural event. We know that science has shown us that a baby cannot be born without a sperm and an egg.
5) Witches/ Atheists are the devil's work - Again an unprovable hypothesis. This is a belief that comes from a dislike of difference. In the middle of last millenium there was a massive drive towards burning witches on the basis that they were servants of the devil. Slight differences were picked upon, being left-handed was one. Also suspected witches would be tied to a chair and tied up in a bag, if they floated that was satan keeping them afloat and they were definately a witch. If they drowned well, it was a price worth paying because you can never be too sure. Guess what they all drowned. There is a similar but somewhat less brutal thing going on today with atheists, they are socially persecuted because many Christians, Muslims, Jews etc believe that the devil has corrupted them. People here have some pretty horrific stories of abuse and alienation.
6) Jesus as the son of God - There is very little proof that Jesus existed as a real person. So you believe that a man, born of a virgin with a father who was supernatural but also himself brought someone back to life, walked on water, turned water to wine, fed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves of bread and a few measly fish, died upon a cross for the sins of people who just happened to be descended from two people who ate from the tree of knowledge in a garden that never existed, was crucified but several days later came back to life for a while before floating up into heaven with his virgin mother. Please tell me how that isn't superstitious? Please tell me how that is rational?
7) Faith - Faith is by nature a kind of superstition. It is belief without evidence.
Now, if you really are adament that Christianity is not superstitious but rational, (you're making a positive claim too) please provide some evidence. A decent argument, preferably one that I haven't refuted a million times before (I get bored see). Cheers,
Jake.
Atheist Books
I do not rely solely on science for my understanding. But, indeed, I consider science to be the single most reliable method by which truthful information can be discerned. As my signature quote says, "The road to truth is paved with evidence." I believe that fully. When it comes right down to it, biblical claims are basically 2000-year-old anecdotes contained in a book many believe is comprised largely of metaphors, poetry, fables, morality plays, folklore, etc. As you obviously read, I cite a few particular claims that, to me, smack of outright absurdity. Some are minor; for example, the donkey speaking after witnessing an angel. Some are crucial; for example, the bodily resurrection. Nevertheless, it is tremendously difficult for me to take seriously biblical claims that are surrounded by metaphor and poetry, nonscience and absurdity.
We have hard, tested, written-about evidence that brain death is irreversible. We also have hard evidence attesting to the centrality of spermatozoa in a woman becoming pregnant. We have hard evidence that donkeys and serpents do not have the physiological tools to speak human language. We have hard evidence that humans are not physically cut out to live to be 930. So, what you are asking me to do is look past the hard evidence we have and take a leap of faith on a book of Jewish folklore being the actual truth. It is not in me to do that.
But, it is much more than simply challenging my view of reality. What you are asking me to do is set aside the scientific knowledge I have been fortunate enough to gain and take a leap of faith to believe biblical claims for which no hard evidence exists. What’s more, many biblical claims are wholly extraordinary and contrary to known natural principles, which makes hard evidence an absolute necessity in order to gain any degree of confidence in the claims’ veracity.
Realize that there are about 10,000 distinct religions in the world today, all vying for my adherence. Most, if not all, include nonscientific, extraordinary claims which flatly contradict known natural principles and established hard evidence. Should I take a leap of faith and give credence to the claims of all 10,000? You seem to admit that Christianity does not have actual hard evidence for some (if not most, if not all) of its extraordinary claims. I assume this is the case for almost every world religion, too. When one discounts the centrality of hard evidence, how does one decide which nonscience to take on faith, and which to write off as the absurdity it appears to be?
I am not the dogmatic follower of scientism that you might perceive me to be. I do not write off everything contrary to science. But, I never stray from my demand for hard evidence (whether testable in a laboratory setting or not). My belief in anything has a direct relationship with the amount of good evidence presented to me. You might consider something being written in the Bible evidence in itself; however, going back to the 10,000 distinct religions in the world, that would leave me with 10,000 equally plausible alternate realities (since I’m sure almost every religion has its own sacred texts), none of which is particularly endowed with hard evidence to substantiate it. And, again, I would stress that the examples I chose to harp on are firmly in the mainstream of science. It is extremely doubtful scientists will soon discover that brain death easily may reverse itself, or spermatozoa are optional to achieve pregnancy. I feel very comfortable standing my scientific ground on those four key absurdities.
I do not mean to “throw the baby out with the bath water” when I cite my short-list of absurdities. That, in itself, does not disprove Christianity [I never claimed to disprove your religion, by the way.] Rather, it is a cumulative thing. There are multiple nonscientific absurdities. There is admitted use of metaphor, poetry, fable, morality play, etcetera within the body of the “factual” text. There is a dearth of hard evidence to substantiate the more extraordinary claims within the text. And, there are 9,999 other religions, boasting starkly different worldviews, and possessing equally cocksure adherents. I keep thinking back to the days of Enlil and Ninlil—gods worshiped all over the ancient civilized world for years. Those believers, too, took a leap of faith. Tellingly, nobody believes in those gods anymore.
No matter what the actual truth is (either one religion actually is correct or none is correct), there sure are a lot of people wasting their time…
I do not think these are precisely analogous. When evolutionists and creationists debate, at least they are discussing hard evidence one way or the other. They discuss the fossil record, transitional species, mutation, speciation, exaption, the Tree of Life, etc. Some of these things are philosophical, to be sure, but at least they are firmly grounded in the hard sciences of anthropology, archaeology, biology, chemistry and ecology. Very seldom are evolution debates mired in anecdotes and first-hand accounts unsupported by actual evidence or data.
The Bible, at its core, is a collection of claims. Some are ordinary; some are wholly extraordinary. Since the events of the Bible happened millennia in the past, there is very little hard evidence for many of the claims, both ordinary and extraordinary. There is no data about the Resurrection, the Virgin Mary’s impregnation, Adam and Eve rising from the dust, Noah’s unreasonably long life, etc. There is no video evidence of (the substantially decayed) Lazarus rising from the dead as Jesus called to him. These are stories—possibly true but probably false. Every religion has them; to be sure, Christianity is not alone.
When faced with 10,000 religions, all equally unburdened by hard facts (at least with respect to their extraordinary nonscience assertions), and then, on the other hand, one set of agreed-upon natural principles, boasting magnificent mountains of supporting data, I must choose the way of nature. I know that people can be delusional, deceptive, deceived and credulous. I know that man is a story-telling animal. For this reason, and so many others, I must hold to the fact that the road to truth is paved with evidence.
The road to truth is paved with evidence.