Two men, one question: How did we get here?
I know this is a bit dated, but I was checking out a site I just recently added to my blogroll (Fermi Paradox), when I stumbled onto Richard Dawkins' website. On his home page there is a very interesting video clip of an exchange between Dawkins and Bill O'Reilly. Actually, it was more like pitty pat between two grown men whose roles, ironically, should've been reversed. On one side was the steely eyed evolutionary proponent and militant atheist, Richard Dawkins. On the other was conservative political pundit and "philosophical theist," Bill O'Reilly.
Why should their roles have been reversed? Because while O'Reilly gave a rather squishy response and played steam roller, it was Dawkins' steely eyed conviction and stalwart faith in his philosophy which grabbed me. Since I am a Christian, I was not only very struck by Dawkins' confidence, but by the irony in this situation. Here is Bill O'Reilly putting forth a true proposition: that it is more reasonable to believe in a creator God as being responsible for our existence than matter and blind chance. His proposition is true, yet his response to Dawkins was weak, unpersuasive, and ultimately, without conviction. On the other side of the table sits Dawkins with all the conviction, certitude, and faith of a theologian. His passion, his surety, and his stern demeanor during this "interview" was persuasive all by itself, yet that which he believes in (that Matter is our creator) is devoid of truth.
Chad Phillips
That’s the problem with most folks who speak up in support of the Gospel- they don’t know what they’re talking about and they believe not because the gospel is true, but because they’ve been brainwashed to believe it’s true.
Jesse Ventura caught a lot of flack several years ago for his statement “Organized Religion is a crutch for the weakminded.” But he was very right: people who don’t want to think for themselves love to get in organizations that will do it for them, be they a big church, or the Democratic party.
There’s a lot of sad, but uninteresting reading about the Scopes monkey trial. That “case” was ultimately lost because the side that proclaimed themselves Christian couldn’t answer questions.
Always be wary- evolutionists have done their homework and are waiting to pick you apart. Christians on the other hand have seldom read the bible cover-to-cover and often engage in weak arguments when witnessing.
Bottom line: Don’t argue what you don’t know.
Oh, and read the Bible, at least once, cover-to-cover in your life, you slackers!
I agree that the exchange was rather timid. O’Reilly was not his usual hateful, blowhard self. I suspect because if he had acted as he normally does, it would’ve looked bad as as the one upholding the god theory.
The God Delusion was a very good book if not a little too detailed for my tastes. I suppose because he spent so much time destroying every single “argument” I’ve ever heard supporting a belief in god.
I can only hope that it will help people to wake up to reality and leave this remnant of our primitive, un-educated, voodoo, ghost and goblin world view behind.
O’Reilly brought up the same lame “argument” that not believing in god is the cause of evil–that ole Stalin, Mao, Hitler were atheists argument. These guys were psychopaths which is why they could kill so freely without conscious. Whether they believed in god or not is not even an issue. As Dawkins said, Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches too, are we to believe that was also a cause of their killings?
(By the way…the US is one of the the MOST religious countries in the world and also leads the civilized world in violence, crime, murder, teen-age mothers, bad-health, etc. While the countries with the highest rates of atheism [Sweden, Denmark, Japan, etc] have some of the lowest rates of these same things. Hmmmm)
RE:
“Here is Bill O’Reilly putting forth a true proposition: that it is more reasonable to believe in a creator God as being responsible for our existence than matter and blind chance. His proposition is true…”
That’s so patently illogical it’s almost unbelievable that people still say it. If you think that it’s more “reasonable” to believe that some magic genie created the universe, rather than by a process that we can clearly see all around us and prove with solid, hard evidence then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
You can believe whatever you want but to call it “reasonable” shows a complete disconnection from reality.
But I love you anyway
It is very easy to say that Christians or any who believe that a god created the universe are blind to everything that is around them, and suggest that they are mind-numbingly stupid.
I fully understand that if there was no god at all, what a pointless endeavor any religion would be. In fact, it amazes me that evolutionists can waste so much of their time refuting something that they believe does not exist.
However, I am as stalwart in believing in God as those who do not believe at all. Call it a crutch if you like. Belief that there is no god at all requires a faith too. And a person is free to exercise that faith. Maybe not believing is a crutch. After all, you have “no One” to answer to; you can do anything you darn well please.
However, I have had enough time on this earth to recogize that all which the atheist attributes to time and chance is designed. “Flaws” can be attributed to factors related not to the fact that God is imperfect but that we live in a fallen world. Hence there is death, waste, and what seem to be “imperfections” in the Creation.
It is falling apart right before our eyes, it is happening, but that was not the original intent. There is devolution but not Evolution. I look at the same “evidence” and interpret it differently.
I still have faith in God. I do this having carefully studied Scripture from beginning to end, AND with full knowledge of worldly theories and observation of the world around me. No amount of someone saying that I am blind and stupid will convince me that there is no god. Dawkins and O’Reilly are irrelevant to my conclusion. Christ is risen. -Cal Samuel August
Hi Cal,
I’ll just clarify a couple of points…
No amount of someone saying that I am blind and stupid will convince me that there is no god.
I can understand how someone saying you’re “blind and stupid” would make you defensive and more determined to hold onto your beliefs. No one convinces anyone of anything–they have to change their own mind, and of course they must first be open to the possibilities of change.
In fact, it amazes me that evolutionists can waste so much of their time refuting something that they believe does not exist.
I don’t recall any talk of “evolutionists” in the video so I’m not sure why you brought it up. But anyway, I don’t think most evolutionists “waste so much of their time refuting something they believe does not exist” just for the heck of it.
The reason they do it is generally because those who believe in god are are often, and have historically been bent on stopping the advancement of knowledge and science because with every new discovery and every new thing we learn about the universe, the more obvious it is that believing in god is ludicrous.
As Dawkins said in the book– I paraphrase–”god hides in the gaps of human knowledge. Whenever there is a gap in this knowledge, religious folks say that science has failed and that god is the only possible explanation. But as we learn more and more about the workings of the universe, the gaps in our knowledge grow smaller, and god has fewer places to hide.”
So that’s why scientists fight and argue with those who want to keep us in the dark ages. It’s not that they want to “waste their time arguing”, it’s that they’re fighting against darkness and superstition and fighting for for truth and reason.
It is very easy to say that Christians or any who believe that a god created the universe are blind to everything that is around them, and suggest that they are mind-numbingly stupid.
I’ve never (I don’t think) said that people who believe in god are stupid. (Though for what it’s worth, more educated people tend NOT to believe in god and also make more money, are healthier, and live longer
I realize that a belief in god is something that is taught to children, and children are genetically programmed (for lack of a better term) to believe what their elders tell them to believe.
This is often a positive evolutionary trait. For instance when your parents tell you not eat that poison root or run in front of a car, a child takes that as truth and it helps them to survive. It can also be a negative trait as in when your parents tell you to hate person because of their skin color, or or passes down any number of other prejudices, old wives tales, or just flat out bogus information.
So I fully understand why people believe this stuff-it’s what they’ve been taught since childhood. And as with most beliefs that people acquire or were given, they never challenge or even think critically about what their parents told them. That and groupthink are some of the main reasons why society progresses so slowly.
Maybe not believing is a crutch. After all, you have “no One” to answer to; you can do anything you darn well please.
That’s a common “argument” that religious folks make but it’s full of holes. From what I gather, people who say that are making a supposition that god is the only reason people are “good” and/or do the “right” thing.
It also arrogantly supposes/implies that the definitions of good and bad are only so because of the bible, 10 commandments, god said so, etc. Again, patently false. A belief in god has no bearing on whether a person is good or bad. You can look all around the world and see this.
This argument also apparently makes the sad supposition that people will not do the right thing unless they are threatened with punishment by god. Who’s more noble–the person who is “good” because they think god will punish them if they are not, or the person who is good out of love and kindness? I’d say the second person is.
So Cal, if you’re saying that “you have “no One” to answer to; you can do anything you darn well please”, I’d say you’re projecting those (your) feeling onto others.
Perhaps you’re sharing what is truly in your heart. Perhaps *you* need rules from god to make you be a good person. If that’s what you “need” then maybe it’s your first step to truly being a good and just person. I’d say though that when you’ve reached the place spiritually that you don’t require the threat of punishment to be good, then you’ll have truly arrived and will have found “god”.
Just something to consider…
Brad,
I’ll try to address things here. First off, perhaps I was a bit brash in responding at all, seeing that I did not see the original Dawkins and O’Reilly discussion. I do know a few things about O’Reilly and Dawkins, and after seeing some of your original comments I felt compelled to respond, because your comments insult religious people in general, not to take it personally. The implication of your comments is that religious people are simple-minded and backward, which they are not just by virtue of their believing in a god. You make arguments against religion, but one of my objections against those arguments is that your use of insults is false logic. Insulting comments are ad hominem arguments.
Going back to one of your original comments, you said,
The God Delusion was a very good book if not a little too detailed for my tastes. I suppose because he spent so much time destroying every single “argument” I’ve ever heard supporting a belief in god.
I can only hope that it will help people to wake up to reality and leave this remnant of our primitive, un-educated, voodoo, ghost and goblin world view behind.
Religious beliefs are a very complicated thing, which cannot be placed in a neat box. My Christian beliefs are very different from those of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or peoples with animistic beliefs. Each religion has its own “system” or “theology” for understanding the world. That system is a framework of belief, and each of those frameworks arrive at very different conclusions.
I do not accuse Hindus or others of being simplistic and backward by virtue of their not believing as I do. That does not mean that there are not simplistic and backward people among those groups, just as there are most certainly simplistic and backward Christians.
Your assumption is that “godlessness” is reality. However, that assumption is a matter of faith. That faith is based on your framework for understanding the world which seems to be evolution. In essence that faith is a kind of theology or UNtheology if you will. If that framework is found to be in error—which I believe is an arguable point even if you do not—your system collapses upon itself in a heap.
I brought up evolutionists in my original comment, because Dawkins is most certainly in that camp, and he seems to feel the need to rag on religious beliefs whenever he gets the chance. It often seems more like propaganda than argument to me. Whereas Dawkins sees no god in the universe, I see Him everywhere. It is also making a huge assumption to suggest that humans have conquered most of the frontiers of knowledge when we haven’t explored the depths of the ocean or very far beyond our own world at all. We don’t understand why gravity works as it does, why people sleep, nor have we conquered death, and these are very basic things that affect all people/creatures.
You write in your response to my comments, “The reason [evolutionists waste so much of their time refuting something they believe does not exist] is generally because those who believe in god are often and have historically been bent on stopping the advancement of knowledge and science because with every new discovery and every new thing we learn about the universe, the more obvious it is that believing in god is ludicrous.”
Actually, many of the most important discoveries in our world were made not only by Christians, but by others who have been believers in a god/s. By no means are Christians (speaking specifically here) a priori against the advancement of knowledge or science. Many people, generally speaking are against the advancement of knowledge and science, evolutionists not excepted (example – outdated/disproven medical methods). I would also maintain that science and evolution are two different kinds of philosophy. Evolution is often conflated with science, when the two are separate and distinct. Believers and nonbelievers alike can make discoveries about the world, without those discoveries conflicting with their frameworks for understanding the world. It is a matter of their interpretations of those discoveries. In terms of Scripture, one who reads the Bible carefully will understand that many ancient peoples had a very advanced understanding of their world. They were not “primitive” in the evolutionary sense at all, many certainly were not uneducated, and some of the “uneducated” ones did and discovered great things. It is arrogant for us to think that these were simpletons.
You may not have said that believers are stupid, but the implications are certainly there. It is also arguable whether or not atheists (because of their atheism) live longer as you contend. Long life in many cases I would suggest has more to do with genetics than belief or non-belief, just as there are some people who can smoke like chimneys and live very long lives. Belief or non-belief in terms of amount of education, health, wealth, etc. does not necessarily have to do with causation.
As for your idea that a person believes in god simply because they were taught that as a child is not necessarily true. Many come to believe as adults without an elder “telling them what to do.” Within the evolutionary framework, it could be argued that “religion” is helpful, but in reality it is often not. For example, I would suggest that Christian sects that engage in “snake-handling” are not engaging in positive, helpful behaviors, nor are religions of indigenous peoples that engage in human sacrifice.
Finally, as with all ideas, evolution has its consequences, and that was what I was trying to get at even if I didn’t say it so clearly. The true implication of evolution when taken to its furthest extent is that there really is no “good” or “bad.” Those distinctions imply an “absolute,” and my contention is that God is the source of all absolutes. A behavior that leads to further propagation of an animal population might be considered “good.” But there are animal/human behaviors that take a lot of philosophical maneuvering to get them to comply with the evolutionary paradigm—for example, helping others (altruistic behavior) does not necessarily provide an evolutionary advantage. Nor does sacrificing one’s own life to save another.
In fact, some of those behaviors from an evolutionary perspective might actually be “bad” behaviors that harm. Concepts such as “honor” aren’t necessarily explained by evolution.
In the meantime you write, “A belief in god has no bearing on whether a person is good or bad. You can look all around the world and see this.
This argument also apparently makes the sad supposition that people will not do the right thing unless they are threatened with punishment by god. Who’s more noble—the person who is “good” because they think god will punish them if they are not, or the person who is good out of love and kindness? I’d say the second person is.”
If one follows the evolutionary perspective actions simply are what they are; they have no inherent qualities. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no “good,” “bad,” “right,” “wrong,” “noble,” “love,” or “kindness.” These all become irrelevant. Qualities are not meaningful in the evolutionary world. They are simply a judgment call on how each person defines these things. One week an act might be “good”, another week it might be “bad.” Objective rules find their roots in God, who is absolute.
I often hear people say, “People are inherently good.” The assumption of Christianity is that morally, we are Fallen, and that God alone is good. Men continually sin (do evil; that is act contrary to God) and are in need of redemption. This assumption is wholly in line with biblical teaching (as in Genesis 8:21, Romans 3:23). In reality, there are plenty who claim belief in God who act as if they will not have to answer to Him.
You will likely not agree with this, but the biblical perspective is this:
True knowledge begins with God. (NKJV Proverbs 1:7): “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Good debating with you. It’s interesting to delve into these topics. -Cal
Cal, you continuously place the label “evolutionists” on Brad, even after he said he wasn’t arguing from such a framework. For example:
“If one follows the evolutionary perspective actions simply are what they are; they have no inherent qualities. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no “good,” “bad,” “right,” “wrong,” “noble,” “love,” or “kindness.”
He said no such thing, you attributed that to him because the irony is those from your side are the ones who engage in “ad hominem” attacks. You make implications time and again that “Evolutionists”, whatever the hell that is in the first place, are “relativists” “solipsists” blah blah blah. This implies they have no “morality” and that they believe people can do whatever they want. Now, I recognize this rhetoric is designed more for those already in your camp, to help keep them in check because, as demonstrated in the last elections,the average person will dismiss such assertions as blather, which is exactly what they are.
If your argument had any basis in reality the overwhelming majority of murderers, and criminals in general, would be “atheists”, but this doesn’t pan out. Hitler was not an atheist, nor was Mussolini, Edi Amin, Pinochet, etc etc. In fact, most criminals say they believe in God. Of course I’m sure there’s some semantic distinction you can make saying their “belief” isn’t “true” or “honest”.
And that’s what I love the most about those in your camp, you’re not stupid at all, you’re very clever. You always have a caveat in your backpocket.
“Evolution isn’t true because the science isn’t 100%. I can’t believe in that until it’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
“Uh, you believe one man built a boat large enough to carry two of every species of animal on earth. Not only is that impossible, you have no evidence whatsoever except for a book that has been written and re-written over and over again.”
“Well, that’s different. God wrote the Bible, and you have to have faith.”
With “faith” you can make any claim you want because “faith” can’t be tested at all, at least not scientifically. And by hiding behind “faith” your camp insulates itself from the very criticism it dishes out. “Evolution has holes, that means it’s wrong.” “Religion is nothing but a hole.” “That’s different, you have to have “faith” to understand.”
But there is one caveat the “Evolutionists” have, and that is Science has the potential, as Brad pointed out, to prove God does not exist. And whether you and your camp will acknowledge that openly is irrelevant. You know it does.
Throughout history Science has put Christianity on its face. Great Example; “The sun revolves around the earth b/c God made earth the center of the universe. We are the only ones.”
Oooops, our bad.
To be honest I have no problem with God, it’s with people who use God to further a political agenda. Whenever I visit over here, I quickly become aware of two things; One, there is a lot of anger. The posts are always angry. I never, not once have read anything about the “Joy” brought by turning over your (plural) lives to Jesus. Not once. Two, All that anger is political. “Liberals this” “Liberals that”. It’s always poltical, not religious. You never complain or write about the numerous phony Christians on the Right who use Religion to make money, gain power, etc. Never. It’s always the “Liberals” b/c it’s all about Politics and religion is just a veil to hide behind.
Go Diego go! Blammo!
As the song goes…”The truth hits everybody”
Nice job. You hit the nail (faith) on the head. It’s a house of cards.
Demand 100% scientific proof of things you don’t want to believe in. But in things where there is not the slightest thread of evidence much less “proof” (like a guy walking on water or a magic fairy controlling the universe) then you’ll just take that on “faith”. How convenient! Can’t you guys see the disconnect there?
There’s nothing wrong with believing in something or having faith in something if it makes you feel better, but don’t fool yourself into thinking it has any effect whatsoever on reality. Well I guess that’s maybe the point…people want to fool themselves or lie to themselves for a variety of reasons to escape from reality.
As they say…”Put faith in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which one fills up faster.”
If you have faith that what you do in this life doesn’t matter because all you have to do it ask jesus to forgive you then you’re pretty much absolved of any responsibility for self-control or for your actions in general.
If you do something bad you can either say it was the work of satan or that you’re “forgiven” by jesus. Kind of like a moral get out of jail free card.
The irony is that’s the exact argument (see above) often used to say why someone who doesn’t believe in god has no moral compass, etc. The irony is dripping off the page.
But Chad and Cal you know I don’t have anything against you personally don’t you? I’m just calling out BS where I see it. I realize that your “faith” defines you and is probably your main reference for self, and for that reason some of what I say you might take extrememly personally.
Calling something your religion doesn’t give it any more weight than any other opinion you might have, nor does it deserve special deference. So like I said I’m just calling out BS like I would on any of your other opinions that I thought were off base.
Really though, as Diego said, what does any of this have to do with religion anyway? This is all politics and science.
If you want to believe in god then go ahead. But why then are the facts of evolution so scary to you? (Oh yeah, I guess I know the answer to that one.) As the song says…