Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to What about the chosen people?
Creative indeed, gome!
The creationists tend to grasp at straws. An example is using "the design of the human brain" as evidence for creation. There's really no evidence either way that the brain is the way it is, either through "creation" or through "evolution". There is, however, a dynamic fossil record; a scientific testing and dating process; observed evolutions on a smaller scale within various species. I could go on and on.
Part of the problem is that many religious people believe that science is contrary to religion, and if it's too far explored then the findings will cause people to lose faith--a logic that is contrary to the very concept of faith itself.
A few years back, a scientist wanted to carbon date the Shroud of Tourin. He was openly granted the request, and found that the shroud dated to the 12th or 13th century (granted, fire damage known to altar a carbon date test was not factored in, but that point is subjective and irrelevant). When asked if the results of this test would bear any weight on his faith, the priest that keeps the shroud in Tourin answered, "none at all. My faith is in God, not in a piece of cloth." I'm glad that this kind of thinking has been the official stance of the Catholic Church (though not of considerably more than just a few Catholics) regarding Science in general for quite some time now.
Science is Science. Religion is Religion. Mixing the two is like mixing bleach and ammonia.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on November 2, 2007 at 2:03 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I agree that the parrallels to the flat earth proponents
of years past is very appropriate.
Without even touching on any of the hot button topics such as creationism versus evolution, we have "young earth" proponents simply refusing to accept reality. There is no refuting the fact that the age of the earth does not reconcile with the chronology as found in ancient religious texts. There are but two choices that should be drawn from this irrefutable conclusion: either the text are wrong, or the widely held interpretations of those text have been wrong for centuries. The latter choice however casts all longstanding interpretations into doubt. . . . but what do we get instead? Scientists are liars, dating techniques are unreliable or their is a grand conspiracy being perpetrated by the evolutionists! . . . as the aforementioned disconnect continues to grow, it takes more effort on the part of those who insist on reconciling these ancient observations with reality. You have to admit though, . . some of them are fairly creative in doing so.
posted by
gomedome
on November 2, 2007 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Kayzzaman - a three word comment this time - now don't strain yourself
I will reply with three words: Thank you very . . .
posted by
gomedome
on November 2, 2007 at 12:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Exactly, Gome! I just posted a comment yesterday about this same logic---
The context was completely different, but the thought process is the same. It's as if there is a group of people that are insisting that the world is flat, even though we've circumnavigated earth thousands upon thousands of times and have photographs from space capturing the roundness of earth, just because some medieval (or even ancient) text referred to "the four corners of the earth".
Rationalizing. The New Truth.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on November 2, 2007 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Very good post.
posted by
Kayzzaman
on November 2, 2007 at 9:45 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I feel that all ancient scriptures of any religion are
nothing more than the perceptions of ancient man.
As these scriptures became popularized within their respective regions and societies, mankind at the time collectively held an understanding of the world around them that was in conjunction with these perceptions. The supernatural forces and outright magic described almost universally within ancient scriptures had a common denominator in that people believed that all of these things were possible at one time. As our collective knowledge base has grown over the centuries and as we have come to learn much more about the universe surrounding us, the conjunction between these beliefs as chronicled by ancient man and what we know to be true has become more and more disconnected. Yet our species has now developed a new means of dealing with this ever widening chasm between reality and ancient perception. They change reality to suit, ignore all that doesn't fit and insist that the rest of mankind dumb it down to accept such implausable stories.
posted by
gomedome
on November 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM
| link to this | reply
"The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone"
popped into my mind as I read this post.
You bring up some really great points of discussion in this post, gomedome. It never ceases to amaze me that people calling themselves Christians don't know the history of their doctrines, or understand what the Christian faith(s) teach(es).
I've long held a view that Abram/Abraham was chosen because he was listening, and that's pretty much all there is to it. I have stated many times before that I believe Scripture is an account of a people's understanding of God, and not channeled words of God directly as many people seem to believe.
I've also noticed that John of the Gospels is only referred to as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in his own account.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on November 2, 2007 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply