I think that we can often get bogged down by semantics and the power of words and concepts as relates to this debate. But I think when you look past the “look at these kids and this diverse group of people and listen to their message” of this, what is essentially an ad, and get to the message, I couldn’t agree more: human suffering. How do we, as a species, alleviate the suffering of our fellow humans? How do we work to increase the quality of life? If you do it under the guise of doing what Christ told you, or what your church is telling you, or what you personally think is right, then what is there to argue?

We can argue semantics and talk about Truth; we can read ten books or one. The point, gentlemen and ladies, the only thing that matters is that is does matter. It matters to me just as much as it matters to anyone else. And that is why we must keep talking about it. When we stop talking about it people get dragged through the streets and tortured, disappear in the night, or fly planes into skyscrapers.

I don’t have the cosmos or heaven or an all-knowing, all-powerful creator’s blessing to back up my claims, but I am going to keep making them. And I expect someone to keep countering them. And then I’ll counter you and we’ll go on not shooting each other. But today I pick back up the torch that I picked up when Katie and I started this blog, because it matters to me that this perspective be a part of the discussion. I want you to be intellectually curious enough to question the rules set arbitrarily before you, even the secular ones. And I want you to keep talking to me about why you can’t not believe in God and why I should start. Why your god? Why any god?

Let’s let loose the Leviathan of discourse and see where we end up, shall we?

-RFK, 1967

via Esquire, Jan. 2010 issue

Thank you to the brilliant minds at The Onion.

The single biggest problem I have with Kirk Cameron and many of his Apologetics compatriots is the relentless assertions of misinformation.

While TMZ is being snarky, I think it’s important to propagate these videos and encourage people to think about the things that he says and how intellectually thin and transparently refutable they are.

Video 1: http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/24/kirk-cameron-mauled-by-a-bruin-in-darwin-fight/

Video 2: http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/22/kirk-cameron-plays-the-hitler-card/

Anyone else? Just me? Does anyone actually think that kids can’t pray in public? Does anyone think the Gideons should be allowed to hand out bibles in schools (Read: PUBLIC schools)?

Also, Darwin NEVER claims, scientifically or unscientifically, that “nothing created everything” (the image there seems to allude to the Big Bang Theory, which is NOT Darwin’s). Darwin was also COMPLETELY IGNORANT OF DNA—and genes, for that matter. Those discoveries come later.

Also [also], I’d like to know where he gets that Albert Einstein supports Creationism?

I’m just sayin’.

For instance, there’s not a “Religion” section of the newspaper, and it is very common for articles with religious themes to be categorized in the Science/Technology section (as is the case with the article which inspired this post). Or, as is pointed out in the article, there are books on religion sometimes found in the science section of the bookstore, even though the “science” content is questionable.

This conflation becomes conflagratory when religion starts cherry-picking scientific genres—and subdivides even finer topics within those—and then disseminates the information matter-of-factly: “Physics is OK, but Biology is blasphemy.” “Evolution is a workable theory so long as it excludes humanity from the equation.” “That fossil can be a million years old, but humans can’t have evolved from a less complex life-form, even though other fossils would support that theory.”

According to the article, Creationism is largely a Western concept, and it’s only recently beginning to pick up in the Middle East. I was surprised to learn this. “For many Muslims, even evolution and the notion that life flourished without the intervening hand of Allah is largely compatible with their religion.” The Koran specifically states that the six days in which Allah created the Earth are not literal, 24-hour days (which seems to be more highly disputed in the Christian world).

The problem arises when humans are implicated in the theory of Evolution. “‘Everything is O.K. until the apes stand up,’ Dr. Hoodbhoy [a prominent atomic physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan] said.” The problem is again that religion stakes a claim on truth, even if that truth only conflicts with a single, scientific concept. Everything else can have evolved from lesser species, but humans were necessarily created in the form were are now. “Biology education, even in places like Pakistan that otherwise teach evolution, largely omits the question of where humans came from.” Say what?

The history of scientific discovery is not like the Old Testament: it’s laws can’t be interpreted as either literal or metaphorical, picked like a wisdomfruit from the Tree of Knowledge; you can’t respect gravity but choose to ignore inertia. It’s not No Meat On Fridays vs. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Ecclesiastes vs. Ephesians. As science advances, we learn new things: old theories are augmented or disproved, new ones are developed; new discoveries are made and once-mysteries become banal taken-for-granteds (see: what causes a solar eclipse).

But the processes remain scientific, even if that process itself evolves. If you believe one particular science (or theory or law) is false, and believe this based on non-scientific factors, then how to you justify believing the rest of science to be true?

I’d be interested to know what other think on this subject…

I’ll end with a funny, topical clip from the Daily Show.

The takeaway from his spiel was this: Jesus Christ is your lord and Savior; accept him and be saved or don’t and be damned… He quoted some verses and brought up a few topical references to examples of the mighty power of god, etc. Overall his message was uplifting and not too harsh on the sinners.

But for some reason, for the rest of the night and even today, I am left with the burning, simple, perennial question: why? Why? Why Jesus. Why God? Why can’t you just be a good person? Why can’t you care about mankind and the world, read the newspaper, read books, participate in life, exercise, love your parents, make mistakes, experiment with drugs and unreasonable behavior, learn your lessons, travel, eat, test your limits… why can’t you donate your time and money when you feel moved, help people carry stuff up subway steps, get into a fist fight with someone over something stupid, help old ladies with their groceries, bake, be relentlessly yourself and not care… why can’t you be thankful for the life you have and the opportunities you’re given and your achievements and your struggles… why can’t you do all of these godlessly? Or with your own god? Yahweh. Allah. Zues. John From. Is the creator of the universe so caught up in semantics? I can’t believe it.

1. Violence: which side has perpetrated more violence?
2. Morality: who has the moral high ground? How is such a thing defined and by what/whose standards? God? If not by god than who/what? What are morals without god?
3. Faith/Reason: Atheism isn’t a religion (etc.); Religion has no evidentiary support; faith is believing without seeing; atheists ‘believe’ in the absence of god based on ‘faith’; etc. etc.
4. Evolution/creation: was the world/universe created or not; see also the Faith/Reason category.

I’m not sure this post has a conclusion, but I think the problem is largely that we’re not speaking similar languages. Is there a shared vernacular between believers and nonbelievers? Are those the best distinctions, believer/nonbeliever? Atheist/Theist? Secular/Religious? How do you speak about the cosmos, or anything, on the same level when one person believes in a supernatural and omnipotent being and one does not?