Some news from around the web:
- The New Atheism – Excerpts from Marshall’s book The Truth Behind the New Atheism, and discussion of how atheism is built on the "Enlightenment myth" (also debunked in Stark’s book on the Biblical origins of Modern science)
- An atheist’s unexpected journey to faith – Relevant magazine, one of the most useful and thoughtful Christian ezines (and podcasts), has a nice story about one atheist’s path to faith.
- The Atheist’s Riddle – one armchair philosopher’s ongoing challenge to atheists – "the laws of physics and chemistry do not explain the existence of information."
- Atheism and human extermination – Creation Ministries International discusses neuroscientist Dr John Reid’s chilling speech on why the logical outcome of evolutionary thinking MUST be a reduction of the human population, and specific parts of humanity at that. Once again, when evolution and its bed-buddy atheism are applied logically, without Christian and human ethical restraints, they lead to where all such lies have always led in history – to atrocity.
- Top 15 Quotes By Famous Atheists – one of my favorite sites, The List Universe, published this controversial set of quotes – too bad most of the quotes didn’t come from actual atheists, and the atheists and religious people pointed this out.
Science wins. Thanks for playing.
Once again, when evolution and its bed-buddy atheism are applied logically, without Christian and human ethical restraints, they lead to where all such lies have always led in history – to atrocity.
Does this explain the various examples of atrocities committed by xians throughout history? For example, the Thirty Years War between Protestant and Catholic xians wherein 1 in 3 Germans were killed or murdered, or the 16th century mass murder of Protestant Huguenot by French Catholics? Or perhaps the genocide committed against Native Americans instigated by Catholic xians? Or the Catholic Inquisition? Or the numerous examples of murderous pogroms against Jews and gays committed by both Catholic and Protestant xians? I could go on, but you get the point.
It seems that, applied logically, without the restraint of secular human ethics or, indeed, simple human decency, xianity is just as capable of committing atrocities as any other philosophy. People in glass houses…
What does science win, and whom were they competing against? Does that have anything to do with this post?
Does this explain the various examples of atrocities committed by xians throughout history?
Yes, Louis, I have explained this repeatedly, as mentioned in the post linked to above on atrocities. The answers are clear and simple:
– Many wars attributed to religion are not religious in nature
– Religious fanatics commit evil in religion’s name, but Jesus’ teaching stand as a rebuke to such, not a support
– Religion is NOT the main progenitor of violence – really it is mankind, *unrestrained and unconverted by faith* who has been the worst problem
– Fanatics of all stripes embarrass their ideologies because humans are fallen, and can abuse even the most noble system of thought – the difference is that while Christian ideals logically and practically lead to peace and service, atheism (and Islam) logically lead to atrocity, whether or not such ends are intended by their followers (usually not).
As I wrote in a comment:
And lastly:
Oops! The link in my previous comment was to the wrong section of the page. This is what I was going for. Science is always at odds with religion; religion steps in when there's not definitive proof of something and states that divinity made it happen. Well, that's just as foolish as saying that thunder is giants throwing boulders at one another. It's a way in which things which cannot be explained are explained nonsensically.
That being said, it can be helpful to have fairy tales to lean on. I know a number of reformed alcoholics that rely on prayer to keep themselves out of bottles. However, that does not mean that somehow the hand of some divine being steps in and gives them the strength to resist alcohol, it means that they use a divine being as a focus point…much like that used in Lamaze to dampen the pain.
That is one way to look at the relationship between Faith and Reason, or religion and science.
You may like to read about one engineer's take on this, in Reconciling Faith and Science.
Or, you may take the view that historian Rodney Stark does, which is that monotheism, and specifically Christianity, gave rise to modern science, and that it was essential (see The biblical origins of science).
But to some extent, while you are right about superstition and some flavors of immature, institutional faith, you are also playing into the Atheist's Caricature of Faith.
More often, people of faith have not only made the most significant historical contributions to science (think Boyle, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Pascal, Faraday, Joule, and Pasteur, just to name a few), but have also added the necessary ethical and moral framework in which to curtail abuse (though in general, whatever IS possible will eventually be tried).
And again, the idea that faith hinders science was actually promulgated, not by FACT, but by anti-Catholic "enlightement" historians who misrepresented, or in some cases like that mentioned in the Rodney Stark article discussing the false accusation that the church supported a flat erath, *fabricated* such contentions.
Even with Galileo, a man of faith, his opposition was not so much the church as the established Aristotlian rubric accepted by science AND the church (unfortunately).
Yes,seeker,we've been over this many times. However, it always irritates me how xians constantly try to duck any responsibility for their religion for the historical atrocities in which it has been involved. The excuses are always the same: it's not the religion, it's man's depraved nature that's responsible, and it's only a perversion of the religion, not the "true" religion, which is at fault. I can agree that we can exract a philosophy from Jesus which, by itself, condemns the actions taken in his name. However, I maintain that the fault lies in the religion itself for much of what has occurred. It contains authoritarian and exclusivist dogmas which lie at the heart of the atrocities it commits. It maintains that it is the only one, true religion, and all others (including other philosophies) are not only false and misleading, but horribly so, because they result in the damnation of their followers. Also, as the Bible is so vague on so many points, and open to interpretation, it has spawned innumberable competing cults, all of which claim exclusive right to "truth."
I'm not interested in a numbers competition – which is responsible for the most atrocities, atheism or religion? – the very fact that organized xian religion does perpetrate atrocities based on the Bible, is shocking in itself. In my opinion, if God wanted to design a religion which is infallible, why didn't he make himself abolutely clear, and make frequent updates to communicate his intent to us? His "Word" combines vagueness with abolutist demands – a lethal combination.
I realize you will disagree, but I still think it's disingenuous of you to excuse the misuse of xianity while holding atheist to the hightest standard of responsibility possible. You are applying a double-standard which cannot be maintained.
Well, those are good comments which deserve more reflection and discussion – I think you are right about people making excuses, but also, some of the faults you find in religion are not only due to man's abuses, but due to the nature of objective truth and the need for justice in the light of real evil, which may seem harsh, yet it is unloving for God not to bring justice for the oppressed.
Atheism does not get off easily b/c, while it may be innocent of some abuses as xianity is, others it is fully responsible for are a result of atheism's ideas themselves. And perhaps you could argue something similar against christian ideas, but i think the argument would be a lot weaker b/c xianity works in many ways that atheism fails at.
I agree that things could be clearer. That too is a subject worth exploring.
But again, though we make demands on how we think God should do things if He exists, and we must answer or at least address our logical and ethical/moral objections to "God's plan," ultimately, the question is not "does it sound right to me?" but rather, "is it true?"
I don't like the fact that certain things are true, but that does not change them.
BTW, Louis, your comments have been very good lately, and show a respectful, if not non-argumentative approach. Thank you, nice job.