Let me say immediately that I in NO WAY sympathize or agree with the actions of the Muslim extremists involved in 9-11 or the Iraq war.
People appear to be so outraged at the actions of the Muslims and condemn the religion as evil. As I've stated before, they may be right if the remainder of the Islamic followers stand around in silence and allow it all to happen. But how different is this from the actions of Christians during the Crusades and in particular, the Spanish Inquisition. The atrocities committed by the Islamic extremists pale in comparison to the barbarism of those "Christian" activities. Do we consider Christianity evil? Well, maybe some of us do, but the vast majority of Americans do not.
Does this leave them (the Muslim extremists) off the hook? Should we look the other way? No, absolutely not. We should continue to pursue the guilty and punish them accordingly. However, those that feel that their religion (Christianity, in particular) and the way it has been spread and defended is so superior to Islam, need to learn a little history. Christianity has committed the same crimes it's just that it got a 600 year headstart.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Death and Christian Extremists
What is it about death and funerals that brings the arrogant, holier-than-thou Christian fringe out of the woodwork? It's not just the public wackos like Pastor Phelps, but family members as well. I believe these people have a right to their opinions, as bizarre or closed-minded as they may be, but it's when and where they choose to express them that I find so frustrating and disrespectful.
Phelps chooses to air his outrageous views about god, gays, and the military at funerals for U.S. soldiers. He and his followers have absolutely no compassion or respect for the families that these brave men and women have left behind. I don't believe in god, but if god exists and if he/she truly feels the way Phelps says, then he/she is no "God" worthy of respect or worship. I believe that Phelps' views are so extreme that it's fair to say that he is truly "touched" - a rare aberration.
But then there are those that are less extreme, but just as exasperating. There goal is conversion, not punishment. They don't promote a vengeful god bent on punishing us for the so-called "degenerate" lifestyle of gay individuals. They want to convert all of us to Christianity. Not just Christianity, but their particular view of Christianity as observed at their church. I have been approached by such conversion-bent Christians twice in the past few years. Both incidents involved family members and both in conjunction with funerals.
The first was at home after the funeral for my mother-in-law. One of my nephews approached me with a casual enough conversation about death and religion. It soon turned to a discussion of how I was wrong in my views (I'm an atheist) and how I should accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. I don't mind discussions of religion with those with an open mind. In fact, I quite enjoy them. However, I didn't think that this was quite the appropriate time for the discussion. Although my nephew was nice enough during the conversation - in fact, we carried it on over several months of phone and email discussions - it was clear that he was not open minded despite his claims to be. His main goal was to convert me. He sent me a book to review, which I did, and said he would review a couple of books that I wanted to send to him. After several months, he has not read the books. Why? Because his goal was not a dialogue between those of different religions, it was to convert me to Christianity.
The second time was just a few weeks ago and was much more insulting and disrespectful. This time I was accosted by my uncle at my mother's (his sister) funeral. It started out with the typical backdoor way of talking about one subject (in this case music) and sliding the conversation over to religion. He has relatively recently become a "born-again" Christian (similar to my nephew) and largely through the influence of his 2nd wife. He started by assuming that my wife and I do not attend church even though he has so little contact he wouldn't know one way or another. In fact, my wife is Catholic, as are our kids, and does regularly attend church. Of course the fact that my wife is Christian was not sufficient. He had several slightly-veiled derogatory comments about Catholicism which he said freely to my wife. Then when he found out that I was an atheist, he was totally shocked that anyone could think that way. I felt that it was inappropriate to have such a discussion in the funeral home and let him know that he did not want to pursue this conversation with me. You would think that a follower of Jesus would have enough compassion to stop the conversation there. But NO!
My uncle proceeded to follow me up to my mother's casket and continue the conversation. After a few more attempts to show me the error of my ways, he then went to start the whole process over with my brother. When I rejoined the group in the back of the funeral home, he started again. I warned him that he was on very dangerous ground with me, but he continued. If not for another nephew, my uncle may have required stitches that night. I was furious. He was totally oblivious to how disrespectful he had been and was so arrogant in his view of the absolute truth of his religious views. He had no regard for anyone else's views. A few days after the funeral, I sent him a get well card and a letter wishing him a swift recovery from the disease of Religious Arrogance from which he was suffering. I haven't heard from him since.
I just don't understand why these individuals choose the times when people are the most stressed to start their crusades. I can only assume that they recognize our vulnerability at that time and are heartless enough to try and capitalize on it. If these people are accurate representatives of Christians, I am even more grateful than ever that I am not one of them.
Phelps chooses to air his outrageous views about god, gays, and the military at funerals for U.S. soldiers. He and his followers have absolutely no compassion or respect for the families that these brave men and women have left behind. I don't believe in god, but if god exists and if he/she truly feels the way Phelps says, then he/she is no "God" worthy of respect or worship. I believe that Phelps' views are so extreme that it's fair to say that he is truly "touched" - a rare aberration.
But then there are those that are less extreme, but just as exasperating. There goal is conversion, not punishment. They don't promote a vengeful god bent on punishing us for the so-called "degenerate" lifestyle of gay individuals. They want to convert all of us to Christianity. Not just Christianity, but their particular view of Christianity as observed at their church. I have been approached by such conversion-bent Christians twice in the past few years. Both incidents involved family members and both in conjunction with funerals.
The first was at home after the funeral for my mother-in-law. One of my nephews approached me with a casual enough conversation about death and religion. It soon turned to a discussion of how I was wrong in my views (I'm an atheist) and how I should accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour. I don't mind discussions of religion with those with an open mind. In fact, I quite enjoy them. However, I didn't think that this was quite the appropriate time for the discussion. Although my nephew was nice enough during the conversation - in fact, we carried it on over several months of phone and email discussions - it was clear that he was not open minded despite his claims to be. His main goal was to convert me. He sent me a book to review, which I did, and said he would review a couple of books that I wanted to send to him. After several months, he has not read the books. Why? Because his goal was not a dialogue between those of different religions, it was to convert me to Christianity.
The second time was just a few weeks ago and was much more insulting and disrespectful. This time I was accosted by my uncle at my mother's (his sister) funeral. It started out with the typical backdoor way of talking about one subject (in this case music) and sliding the conversation over to religion. He has relatively recently become a "born-again" Christian (similar to my nephew) and largely through the influence of his 2nd wife. He started by assuming that my wife and I do not attend church even though he has so little contact he wouldn't know one way or another. In fact, my wife is Catholic, as are our kids, and does regularly attend church. Of course the fact that my wife is Christian was not sufficient. He had several slightly-veiled derogatory comments about Catholicism which he said freely to my wife. Then when he found out that I was an atheist, he was totally shocked that anyone could think that way. I felt that it was inappropriate to have such a discussion in the funeral home and let him know that he did not want to pursue this conversation with me. You would think that a follower of Jesus would have enough compassion to stop the conversation there. But NO!
My uncle proceeded to follow me up to my mother's casket and continue the conversation. After a few more attempts to show me the error of my ways, he then went to start the whole process over with my brother. When I rejoined the group in the back of the funeral home, he started again. I warned him that he was on very dangerous ground with me, but he continued. If not for another nephew, my uncle may have required stitches that night. I was furious. He was totally oblivious to how disrespectful he had been and was so arrogant in his view of the absolute truth of his religious views. He had no regard for anyone else's views. A few days after the funeral, I sent him a get well card and a letter wishing him a swift recovery from the disease of Religious Arrogance from which he was suffering. I haven't heard from him since.
I just don't understand why these individuals choose the times when people are the most stressed to start their crusades. I can only assume that they recognize our vulnerability at that time and are heartless enough to try and capitalize on it. If these people are accurate representatives of Christians, I am even more grateful than ever that I am not one of them.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Pat May Be Right!! The End Must Be Near!
Lately, Pat Robertson has been in the news for spouting a lot of vile garbage. Nothing new there. But maybe, gulp...I really hate this....maybe Pat is right... this one time...maybe. There...I said it... hopefully for the last time in my life. Whew...what an awful taste that leaves in your mouth!!
Pat, and even Franklin Graham, have accused Islam of being an evil religion. I wouldn't quite go that far, but they do have a point. When a group that claims to be acting on behalf of Muslim people and following Muslim religious practices continues to use terrorism as a daily aspect of life and virtually NO ONE in there religion condemns them, what are we to think.
If these individuals are not doing Allah's work, then why aren't more Muslims - vast numbers of Muslims - openly reprimanding them for their actions. Standing by and saying nothing makes you an accomplice. I would think that letting a small group paint a negative picture of your religion would piss a few people off, but it seems only a very small few. What can Muslims expect the world to think? More people need to sound off like Dr. Wafa Sultan, but Muslims, not simple people of Middle Eastern background.
When the adherents of a religion stand back silently and say nothing while their religion is portrayed as a violent, evil force, perhaps they are, in fact, speaking loudly. Perhaps what they are saying is that they don't see a problem - that they agree with terrorism.
The deafening silence of this group lends support to Pat's statements. If he's wrong (and I truly hope he is -- I wouldn't want to ruin his losing streak), then Muslims the world over need to condemn the actions of a few and do it LOUDLY and CONTINUALLY. If they fail to do so, then we have to consider the possibility that the religion truly is evil and act appropriately.
As'salam Alaikum
Pat, and even Franklin Graham, have accused Islam of being an evil religion. I wouldn't quite go that far, but they do have a point. When a group that claims to be acting on behalf of Muslim people and following Muslim religious practices continues to use terrorism as a daily aspect of life and virtually NO ONE in there religion condemns them, what are we to think.
If these individuals are not doing Allah's work, then why aren't more Muslims - vast numbers of Muslims - openly reprimanding them for their actions. Standing by and saying nothing makes you an accomplice. I would think that letting a small group paint a negative picture of your religion would piss a few people off, but it seems only a very small few. What can Muslims expect the world to think? More people need to sound off like Dr. Wafa Sultan, but Muslims, not simple people of Middle Eastern background.
When the adherents of a religion stand back silently and say nothing while their religion is portrayed as a violent, evil force, perhaps they are, in fact, speaking loudly. Perhaps what they are saying is that they don't see a problem - that they agree with terrorism.
The deafening silence of this group lends support to Pat's statements. If he's wrong (and I truly hope he is -- I wouldn't want to ruin his losing streak), then Muslims the world over need to condemn the actions of a few and do it LOUDLY and CONTINUALLY. If they fail to do so, then we have to consider the possibility that the religion truly is evil and act appropriately.
As'salam Alaikum
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Unscientific Design
The recent court case involving the inclusion of Intelligent Design in Dover, PA science classes is yet another attempt to masquerade religion as science. While it may be suitable to discuss these issues in a philosophy or religion class, it is not appropriate for a science class. Intelligent Design is not science. It’s not even bad science. In fact, the basic premise of Intelligent Design is anti-scientific in nature.
Science attempts to explain the world through the rigorous analysis of observational data, peer review, and repetition of experiments. If experiments or new data prove that the original hypothesis is incorrect, theories are refined, adjusted, or perhaps discarded altogether. The process is not flawless. A rare few, either intentionally or through willful ignorance, will falsify, withhold, or otherwise fudge information. The process of science, however, eventually weeds these individuals out and reevaluates the results. The relentless pursuit of the truth marches on.
Unfortunately, it is only with rare exception(Buddhism being the prime example), that religion is as open minded. In general, religion is based on established, inalterable, supposedly infallible dogma. The practioners and proclaimers are more concerned about the propagation of propaganda than the pursuit of the truth. It is assumed that the Truth is already known. Such is the case with Intelligent Design.
Science and religion, although they view the world from different perspectives, should have the same goal of discovering the truth. Sometimes the search for scientific explanations must be put on hold while new techniques or technology catch up to the needs of the researcher, but the inexorable quest for the truth continues.
Intelligent Design starts its exploration of the truth by giving up. It assumes that the universe is simply too complex to have occurred without the help of a creator. It doesn’t attempt to use any form of scientific investigation. It simply assumes that humanity lacks the creative capacity to understand how the universe and life came to be and that we will always be in the dark about the matter. What if we had applied this approach to other issues of the past? We all would have been taught that the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the universe. All of the knowledge gained through the efforts of explorers of the truth such as Curie, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, and a myriad of others less well known would never have made its way into our classrooms. What kind of science is based on holding to the status quo?
Nothing called science deserves the name unless it is open to truth and willing to change in the face of new information. Likewise, religion should be open to truth and willing to change when information contrary to established doctrine is uncovered. Any religion unwilling to do so is unworthy of following. Intelligent Design fails on both counts, scientific and religious.
Science attempts to explain the world through the rigorous analysis of observational data, peer review, and repetition of experiments. If experiments or new data prove that the original hypothesis is incorrect, theories are refined, adjusted, or perhaps discarded altogether. The process is not flawless. A rare few, either intentionally or through willful ignorance, will falsify, withhold, or otherwise fudge information. The process of science, however, eventually weeds these individuals out and reevaluates the results. The relentless pursuit of the truth marches on.
Unfortunately, it is only with rare exception(Buddhism being the prime example), that religion is as open minded. In general, religion is based on established, inalterable, supposedly infallible dogma. The practioners and proclaimers are more concerned about the propagation of propaganda than the pursuit of the truth. It is assumed that the Truth is already known. Such is the case with Intelligent Design.
Science and religion, although they view the world from different perspectives, should have the same goal of discovering the truth. Sometimes the search for scientific explanations must be put on hold while new techniques or technology catch up to the needs of the researcher, but the inexorable quest for the truth continues.
Intelligent Design starts its exploration of the truth by giving up. It assumes that the universe is simply too complex to have occurred without the help of a creator. It doesn’t attempt to use any form of scientific investigation. It simply assumes that humanity lacks the creative capacity to understand how the universe and life came to be and that we will always be in the dark about the matter. What if we had applied this approach to other issues of the past? We all would have been taught that the world is flat and that the Earth is the center of the universe. All of the knowledge gained through the efforts of explorers of the truth such as Curie, Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, and a myriad of others less well known would never have made its way into our classrooms. What kind of science is based on holding to the status quo?
Nothing called science deserves the name unless it is open to truth and willing to change in the face of new information. Likewise, religion should be open to truth and willing to change when information contrary to established doctrine is uncovered. Any religion unwilling to do so is unworthy of following. Intelligent Design fails on both counts, scientific and religious.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
It seems pretty clear that those who favor teaching Intelligent Design in public schools don't understand what science is. Science deals with the natural world and natural processes. Science works by sifting through evidence, proposing theories, and gathering more evidence to either support or reject the original hypothesis. Intelligent Design offers no verifiable proof and is unwilling to alter its position based on new evidence.
By definition, any Creator would have to have worked through supernatural activities. Science will never prove whether God exists or not and science cannot confirm Intelligent Design. The two areas are mutually exclusive. Science may eventually fill in all of the gaps in evolutionary theory, but it still doesn't mean Intelligent Design is incorrect. Or science may never get a rock solid handle on evolution, but that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is correct.
There is no science in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design simply assumes that because science cannot currently answer all of the questions, that the universe is beyond our ability to understand because a "god" created it. It assumes that we mere mortals are incapable of putting together the pieces and solving this puzzle. What if we had gone along with this in the past and decided to give up on certain aspects of science? We would still think that the universe orbits the flat earth and that flies spontaneously appear in roadkill. We would have ignored progress in all fields of science and medicine because the problems appeared to intractable at the time.
Intelligent Design supporters simply say that if we can't give an answer NOW, then they must be right. That's like me asking a five year old to explain how a microwave works and when they can't tell me, I insist that my explanation (i.e., invisible radioactive hamsters on a treadmill) MUST be the right one. I have no proof (after all they're invisible), but they can't give me a provable answer NOW. It's not that they won't eventually be capable of understanding microwave radiation, rotational modes in water molecules, and other aspects of the process, its just that they currently don't have the necessary tools (education in this case) to discover the truth.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I'm willing to accept that it could be correct; it's just not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. I do believe in some form of evolution, but it could ultimately prove to be totally unlike the process that we currently accept. If another theory proves to be more in line with reality I will accept it. Are those who support Intelligent Design willing to be as open minded? So far, the evidence seems slim.
Let's leave science in the science classroom and religion (veiled as science) in the religion and philosophy classrooms.
By definition, any Creator would have to have worked through supernatural activities. Science will never prove whether God exists or not and science cannot confirm Intelligent Design. The two areas are mutually exclusive. Science may eventually fill in all of the gaps in evolutionary theory, but it still doesn't mean Intelligent Design is incorrect. Or science may never get a rock solid handle on evolution, but that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is correct.
There is no science in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design simply assumes that because science cannot currently answer all of the questions, that the universe is beyond our ability to understand because a "god" created it. It assumes that we mere mortals are incapable of putting together the pieces and solving this puzzle. What if we had gone along with this in the past and decided to give up on certain aspects of science? We would still think that the universe orbits the flat earth and that flies spontaneously appear in roadkill. We would have ignored progress in all fields of science and medicine because the problems appeared to intractable at the time.
Intelligent Design supporters simply say that if we can't give an answer NOW, then they must be right. That's like me asking a five year old to explain how a microwave works and when they can't tell me, I insist that my explanation (i.e., invisible radioactive hamsters on a treadmill) MUST be the right one. I have no proof (after all they're invisible), but they can't give me a provable answer NOW. It's not that they won't eventually be capable of understanding microwave radiation, rotational modes in water molecules, and other aspects of the process, its just that they currently don't have the necessary tools (education in this case) to discover the truth.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I'm willing to accept that it could be correct; it's just not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom. I do believe in some form of evolution, but it could ultimately prove to be totally unlike the process that we currently accept. If another theory proves to be more in line with reality I will accept it. Are those who support Intelligent Design willing to be as open minded? So far, the evidence seems slim.
Let's leave science in the science classroom and religion (veiled as science) in the religion and philosophy classrooms.
Pat Robertson
As an atheist, I don't believe in heaven and hell; but if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure I'll have a nice, warm room in hell awaiting me. Not that I'm a wild sinner, but it seems that God is more interested in worship and praise than actions. But there is one comforting thought; if I'm going to hell, I'm certain that Pat Robertson will be there making me laugh. Some things never change even in hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
