This is a continuation of an earlier piece. There was clearly a lot more to say on this subject, so…here’s Part 2…and it may not be the last.
Here is a link to the first part:
I handed Al a cold mug of Heinekens and we headed for the rockers on the patio. It was a beautiful late afternoon in southern California…light breeze, about 75 degrees. The binoculars and the bird finder book were on the table between the rockers, so that we could watch and identify the birds at the feeders in the back yard. As usual, there was a flurry of activity around the feeders. Several varieties of finches and sparrows plus several mourning doves jockeyed and sometimes fought for a position at a feeding station. Neither of our local Cooper’s Hawks had made an appearance. When they did, the feeders would empty with a “whoosh.” The hawks rarely stayed long, and as soon as they left, the feeders would be populated again very quickly.
Usually, we spent our first beer doing small talk…weather, family and the fortunes of local sports teams, but today, I could see that Al had something on his mind. He wasted no time getting to it as soon as we were seated.
“I have been thinking about our discussion last week...about your theory that religious belief is a virus. You don’t really believe that do you?”
“Not literally. Darrel Ray, the author of the book, “The God Virus,” shows that religious belief spreads through a population much like a biological virus does, and he draws many analogies…priests and pastors as vectors, the attempts by the virus to suppress the immune response, etc. He shows convincingly that the primary concern of all religions is survival of the religion, and the spreading of the virus, not the well-being of the hosts…the infected people.”
“While Dr. Ray acknowledges that there does not appear to be a biological basis for religious belief, he asserts that its characteristics and the strategies used to spread it are very similar. He also believes that reason and critical thinking are inhibited by it, so that its influence is not beneficial to the human race.”
“To paraphrase James Whitcomb Riley, ‘If it looks like a lion, walks like a lion and acts like a lion, it still may not be a lion, but if you assume that, you may end up as lion dinner.’”
Al laughed at that, but then grew serious.
“Religions do a lot of good things in society. Surely you can’t deny that. Our laws and moral codes are all derived from the Bible. The charitable work of churches fills an important need in our society.”
We had been over all this before, and I was not surprised that my arguments had not changed his mind. I could have repeated my arguments that the basis for most laws is the Golden Rule, which far predates Christianity, or even the much older Judaism, having its origins in hunter-gatherer groups as much as 50 thousand years ago. The Egyptians had an elaborate system of laws and moral codes long before Christianity came on the scene. But Dr. Ray had an even stronger argument, and I decided to lay it out.
“Religions spend a tiny fraction of their accumulated wealth on charitable work. Dr. Ray was raised in a Christian fundamentalist household, and he looked into the budgets of churches. He found that a typical church spends 5% or less of its budget on what he calls “good works,” which he defines as helping people who are in trouble…the poor, victims of natural disasters, etc. Most of the rest that is not spent on maintenance of their facilities is targeted at proselytization…missions, Bible Schools, youth camps, buying Bibles to place in hotel rooms, and even public schools if they can get away with it. His point is that the overwhelming emphasis of the church is on spreading the word…infecting as many people as possible. That is how the church increases its wealth and power. Helping people is far down the priority list, unless it includes an opportunity to spread the word…infect some new people to increase the flock.”
Al was irritated, I could see that. “That’s nonsense! Our church spends a lot more than that on helping the poor and disadvantaged.”
“What percentage of your total budget would you say is spent on that?”
He shrugged. “I have never really looked at the books, but I know it’s more than that.”
“Could you find out?”
He wasn’t sure. “The finances of the church, as you know, are not subject to any public audit. They are controlled by the church officials. I am not sure that I could ask questions without raising eyebrows.”
“Unlike churches, secular charities are required to submit to an IRS audit to keep their tax-exempt status.” I commented. “Most of them spend at least 65% of their funds on “good works,” limiting administrative and fundraising costs to 35% or less, according to Dr. Ray. Do you think your church does that well?”
Al shrugged. “Probably not. They have a much larger physical plant to maintain than a charity. Not to mention the Bible School, summer camp and the community outreach programs.”
“Yeah those are all attempts to spread the virus,” I said, and then regretted that I had.
Al’s face reddened. “C’mon, get off that virus thing. It’s just another way that you nonbelievers are trying to attack us…to make religious faith look like a sickness. Well, if it is, most of the human race is sick!”
I grabbed my beer and took a long pull. I didn’t want this to turn into a shouting match. Al did the same. I think we both regretted our words. It is really hard to keep a discussion on religion, even among friends, civil and objective.
I decided to let him make the next move. He had raised the subject. Now it was up to him to continue or change it.
To my surprise, he did not change the subject. Instead, his anger gone, he continued.
“I guess the word ‘virus’ just put me off. If you think about it, lots of ideas spread through a populace in the same fashion. How about the ‘freedom virus?” Surely, our founders must have spread that to get the support for the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was the ‘Bible” of the Revolution, wasn’t it?
I had to admit that he was right. And then, I remembered Richard Dawkins’ introduction of memes in his book, “The Selfish Gene.” Dawkins had specifically identified religious beliefs as memes. I described the concept to Al, and I could see that he much preferred ‘meme’ to ‘virus.’ It’s interesting how certain words carry emotional baggage. Using them at the wrong time can really disrupt a conversation!
Al wasn’t through yet.
“Now, let’s talk about this guy’s claims that reason and critical thinking are inhibited by religiosity. What is his basis for that idea?”
“Well, he cites the clear double standard that believers invoke when they judge the tenets of their religion versus any other religion. They are able to evaluate the flaws, inconsistencies and alleged miracles of other religions, and disparage them, but they are completely unable to perform the same evaluation of their own religious beliefs.”
“Then there’s the business of measured intelligence…IQ.” I continued.
Al looked at me quizzically. “What are you talking about?”
I grinned. “Well, I read about a study done in Belgium at a University there. They looked at a sample of 7000 subjects, and correlated religious belief with IQ. Atheists came out 5.8 points higher.”
“That’s a crock,” Al shot back. “You don’t really believe that.”
“Well, I dunno. Peer reviews found no errors in the research. Here’s another one: Free Inquiry magazine did a comprehensive review of 31 IQ studies, some dating back to 1927. Every one found a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence.”
“Isn’t that an atheist magazine?”
“They call it secular humanism,” I corrected.
“Yeah, well, I suppose I could find some studies by fundamentalist church groups that would show that atheists, agnostics and secular humanists are all idiots. Was there a peer review of that study?”
I shrugged. “I don’t know, but if you think about all those ‘young earth’ creationists taking IQ tests, it seems like they could pull down the average.”
I knew that Al is an “old earth” creationist. He accepts the scientific evidence that the earth is several billion years old. He also believes in “little evolution,” although he thinks God created Man pretty much as he is today. He disagrees completely with “young earth” creationists who believe that the earth and all living things on it were created about 6000 years ago, and have remained unchanged since that time. He says there is just too much evidence that they are wrong.
I also knew that, as a scientist, Al could not just reject the IQ data that I had presented. He had to consider it, at least tentatively. But if he did, he was backed into a corner. Either religious believers weren’t as smart as nonbelievers, or the religious virus/meme was affecting their performance in IQ tests, validating Dr. Ray’s conclusions.
I sipped my beer and waited for him to work it out.
“Several years ago, it was discovered that IQ tests were racially biased,” he said finally. “The tests favored whites over African-Americans. I wonder if the tests could be religiously biased somehow.”
My admiration for Al was reinforced yet again. As a scientist, he could not reject data just because he didn’t like its conclusions. So he dealt with it, and showed another possible way it could be interpreted. That is the Scientific Method at work!
It was also obvious that if we wanted to pursue this, we were going to have to learn more about biases in IQ test methodology.
Al settled back and took another pull on his beer.
“Here’s what I conclude about all this ‘virus’ thing. If the writer of that book had called it “The Religion Meme” instead of “The God Virus,” nobody would have gotten very excited about it…and he probably would have sold about ten books. So, my suspicion is that he picked that name to promote sales…and profits for himself. It’s all Much Ado About Nothing.”
I wasn’t willing to let him get off that easily.
“He may have chosen the name to sell the book, but his conclusions are the same whether you call it a meme or a virus, and I still think he’s right about the inhibition of critical thinking and reason.”
Al got the last word. “IF those IQ tests aren’t biased.”
Stay tuned…
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 377
They get the message and walk away without any sales pitch. I guess the look on my face tells them that I am a hopeless case.
I wonder, though, if my fictional character Al is right...that somehow the questions on standard IQ tests put believers at a disadvantage. If you have any more info that you can share, please do...or write your own article and reference it here.
I don't know much about IQ tests (never took one), but I always was good at standardized tests, which are usually multiple choice format. I could usually narrow the answers down to 2 out of 4, then had a reasonable chance of picking the right one. Others who were just as smart as I, but didn't have that skill, didn't do as well. I have since seen books on test-taking skills, one of which is to narrow down the choices.
Bottom line - maybe the tests are measuring test taking skills, not IQ.
HOWEVER, these skills are related to logic and deductive powers. It is not hard to relate a lack of deductive reasoning to the religious...and the more religious (the more they believe in the unbelievable "magic" parts of religion) the less their reasoning power.
Yeah, I also benefited from my test-taking ability.
Knowing how to take tests can carry you a long ways...without really knowiing anything! I plead guilty.
introducing analytical, even psychological, language
into the discussion. Freud really set them off when
he framed paranormal behavior in terms of
auto-suggestion, the herd instinct, projection,
identification, and, the subconscious.
I iz slow today! LOL
It sure is, so how did it come up here ?
themselves convinced the answers lie
in identifying the brain sectors and pathways
and associating them with specific impulses,
skills, behaviors, and so forth.
I don't think Freud made his points by
cracking that maze, but, rather, by
illustrating that psychotic behavior may
be considered odd or even normal
behavior somehow taken to the
reaches of the pathological range,
through no fault of the sufferer.
I have long argued that, Kristi.
I work with mentally challenged adults. They're not considered to be intelligent by any stretch, can't read or write, can't even remember more than one given instruction at a time to be able to follow it. But are they wise? They're wise enough to go to the refrigerator and get some food for themselves when they're hungry without me having to prompt them to do that. An intelligent man will make a fancy casserole dish for his supper, whereas an unintelligent man will just eat the food raw, but does that matter? The point is that they're both wise enough to go get some food if they're hungry because that is a practical, common sense solution that will solve the problem. You don't have to be intelligent to be wise. But a fool, especially a stubborn fool, is generally considered to be stupid :-)
But wisdom implies some ability to observe and evaluate, or so it seems to me.
And I can't see how a truly unintelligent person could do that.
Maybe I don't understand the definitions of the terms.
Foolish: devoid of good sense or judgment
Wise: judicious: marked by the exercise of good judgment or common sense in practical matters
Intelligent: having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree
The center is a complete acceptance.
A child can do that.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not "spiritual in any sense of any currently used definitions.
But I do understand what the one thing is.
And never mind it is all unspeakable because there is no "language" there.
First off -- THANKS BERT for framing your visions of what your term 'GOD virus' is all about. Second, tell AL that sciences (as I see the trends) are beginning to doubt that they really have answers to the deep questions which interest him (and me).
I've just ambled through a modern 'Philosophy of Science' course (Teaching Company) to work into my understanding of what relationships there are among (1) the PHYSICAL SCIENCES , (2) the PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES , and (3) our new INFORMATION SCIENCES to find out what they have to say about an older interest of mine. That older interest has a couple of descriptors! One important movement was called the Austrian School and ts 'LOGICAL POSITIVISM'. Here in the East, and especially at Harvard and MIT, the works of William James -- the famous transformed scientist/psychologist/philosopher/MD PROFESSOR at Harvard in the late 1800's and early 1900's barrelled into distinction with his "RADICAL EMPIRICIST" arguments and their relationships to mental health, grrowth, and religious and theological thought. In the implications of both there was a critique of whether what was truth could only studying ISNESSES. Their root methodologies had to do with analysis of ONLY the material. Thus the arising of the seeming importance of PHYSICS. That got a bit shaken up in the last century by the seeming greater importance of Developmental (growth) issues and of course -- MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Only this afternoon I was tuned into a radio show and heard talk about new ANTHROPOLOGICAL findings and studies in Africa that are SERIOUSLY challenging the 'scientific OLD idea that we HUMAN BEINGS (HOMO SAPIENS) have strong links IN EVOLUTION to both chimpanzees and apes. A key anthropologist on the program said that that OLD dea may soon be buried with the new evidence.
In two of my recent explorations -- in Cosmology and Philosophy -- I grabbed up a notion that I had heard about from a key professor at the Harvard medical School about the (INNATE?) logic in materiality that seems (in Nature) always bent upon building and proliferating living material species from materiality (atoms and molecules) and derivate LIVING cells (DNA, RNA, ipogenetic STUFF). The criticism in the philosophies of (present day science, and especially PHYSICS) are starting to suggest that physical evidence (as we know it now) is far from adequate to explain the complexity of the multiplicity of species and their attendant diverse characteristics. All of that transforms the underlying epistemological issue into a calling for a VERY deep explanation of (1) How energy (whatever it is) transforms into diverse organized materialities (atoms and molecules) and from that base of existences turns around and creates coordinate assemblies of COMPLEXITIES like hands, hearts, legs, arms, lungs, brains into a LIVING (scientists know LITTLE (thus far) about WHAT SUCH COMPLEX PARTS ARE) but nary a significant clue about the (engineering) construction of ORGAN CONSTRUCTIONS and coordination with symmetries and asymmetries that abound in all human beings (real mystery here too) OR any VIRUS -- dangerous or good!
In philosophical terms there is a massive research issue brewing and beckoning. I can simply call it to be what I imperfectly see and understand it to look like : in current day language the quest for forward movement of the understanding of species developments has to do with (1) REDUCTIONISM, and then (2) HOLISTIC (coherent) SYNTHESIZING (WITH NEW AND POWERFUL THEORIES WHICH DO NOT YET EXIST) of diverse basic extant and invisible (like 'waves and electromagnetism) phenomena.
For ME, I simply appreciate the fact that our UNIVERSE is so damn interesting! Full of answerable and perhaps unanswerable questions, and of course WONDER! That's sort of my religion. Its (LIFE, etc) so COMPLEX and WONDROUS that as an engineer of sorts, I ponder over the questions of HOW the coordinated complexities came into existence! GOD, NATURE, GOD-NATURE, NATURE-GOD???
Dick
Thanks for an interesting and informative comment.
You said:
"How energy (whatever it is) transforms into diverse organized materialities (atoms and molecules) and from that base of existences turns around and creates coordinate assemblies of COMPLEXITIES like hands, hearts, legs, arms, lungs, brains into a LIVING (scientists know LITTLE (thus far) about WHAT SUCH COMPLEX PARTS ARE) but nary a significant clue about the (engineering) construction of ORGAN CONSTRUCTIONS..."
I think the human genome studies are beginning to get a handle on this...on special genes that are activated to create an arm or a pancreas. They in turn activate "lower level" genes that do the work, and then once the job is done, they are deactivated. I am trying to remember where I read about this recently. My main point: Things that seem mysterious and wondrous, that could only be accomplished by a supernatural entity...a God...are slowly being demystified, and every step we take in our scientific knowledge drives the "Mystery Frontier" back another notch.
Another way to test IQ is by how quickly a reflex such as eye blinking happens.
McGill University in Toronto has done a lot of studies.
It would not surprise me if brain imaging will be able to do Processing evaluations in the future.
To me IQ shows how quikly the brain is able to process and load new information.
If get the energy to do some writing this weekend, I'll do some research and see what is currently being triumphed in education circles.
One thing I will say about tests, when I went to school back in the 1930s tests in school mostly required essay answers. I don't remember running in to them until I reached high school. I have no respect for multiple choice answers. They can be tricky and as someone above pointed out they can be gamed to better the odds of picking the right choice without knowing much of anything about the subject.
I followed a thread offered on the sidebar about what happened to the church that Jesus built. I agree with them in that I doubt many church congregations are following what Christ taught. If he came back I think he might feel more at home in a storefront church that offers solice and guidance to the down and outers. There is a church like that in a book and movie. A man was indirectly responsible for the death of his brother because of unkind remarks he made about his brother's wife. He was so sorry he walked the streets and came across The Church of a Second Chance. He went in and sat in the back row and listened. The young pastor later welcomed with just the right words and our sinner became a member for life. He gave up his dreams of college, adopted his brother's children (I forget how their mother died) and became a master fine furniture craftsman. That is the kind of thing I would expect Jesus would like, not all the ceremony and big fancy churches.
I have cousins who converted to the Mormon church. I admire a lot of what the Mormon's do but they consider women and people of color as less equal than white males, and they spend enormous amounts of money on fancy cathedrals - money that could help needy people. You don't need a fancy cathedral to make a what feels like a connection to whatever you want to call the creator of this universe. The best place for me to do that is alone outside on a mountain or among beautiful trees. Church buildings and cathedrals are strictly of man not God, to me.
the ostentatious buildings. If on a cold and rainy day,
a Christian felt the sudden need to commune with his
savior, he would find the ornate hardware on the
massive wooden door was locked.
The old myth of the weary traveler knocking on the
church door and having the decrepit caretaker come
to the door went out with radio.
SHAME!
Al looked at me quizzically. “What are you talking about?”
I grinned. “Well, I read about a study done in Belgium at a University there. They looked at a sample of 7000 subjects, and correlated religious belief with IQ. Atheists came out 5.8 points higher.”
Hasn't God told us that it would be this way?
“The first Noel the angels did say was to certain poor shepherds in fields where they lay.”
Excerpt from “The First Noel”
If God had so desired, His heavenly host would have announced His Son’s nativity to a more respectable lot. Perhaps they would have broken the good news to the Sanhedrin or to the Scribes and Pharisees; after all, they were the brain trust, the intellectual elite, the religionists of their day. Instead, God directed that the singular privilege of hearing the Good News be bestowed upon a small group of poor men on a chilly hillside above Bethlehem.
Not many wise after the flesh;
Nobility displays its crest;
Not many mighty will be called;
Such puffed-up, proud flesh He will scald!
The Living God is not impressed.
The weak, the mighty do detest,
But God has held them to His breast
And remembered them, but recalled
Not many wise.
Foolishness passes heaven’s test;
Grace is to the despised addressed;
All arrogance flounced, pride is galled;
Pilgrims approach a heaven walled;
Base things enter, but in have pressed
Not many wise.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are; that no flesh should glory in His presence.
1 Corinthians 1: 26-29
-Mark
But the report that I referenced, Mark, said quite the opposite. It said atheists tested higher, not "religionists."
"Foolishness passes heaven’s test;"
One conclusion I could draw from this is that your religion appeals only to fools...and I know that's not true. I know many highly intelligent believers.
Would you care to clarify?
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18
Nonbelief is not faith, Mark. It is skepticism.
What do atheists believe?
-Mark
Carl Sagan said it much better than I can:
"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature."
Another quote that I like:
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
I agree with you, but superstition and religion share many common features. Many people believe that religion IS a form of superstition.
Here is one definition of superstition:
"Belief in the direct agency of superior powers in certain extraordinary or singular events, or in magic, omens, prognostics, or the like."
Keeping the above definition in mind, consider the following:
Religion is faith-based belief, right?
Superstition is also faith-based belief.
So...if you agree with me that I am not superstitious if I do NOT believe in luck, then how can you claim that I am religious if I do NOT believe in your god?
Do you hold to your beliefs religiously? Do you argue your points fervently? Do you worship reason? You insist on capitalizing it. . .
Aren't you placing a whole lot of faith in things that perjure themselves every day?
-Mark
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
Have you found this to be true?
-Mark
Sigh. I am a skeptic, Mark. Show me evidence and I will be convinced.
I would only be holding an idea religiously if it were not supported by evidence, and yet I insisted on beliving it anyway.
I'm not gettin' through to you, am I? You still don't seem to get it that skepticism is NOT religious belief. You, and a lot of other Christians keep trying to insist on this, and it simply ain't so.
Shall we take your word for this Bert or do you have some hard evidence to show us?
You never responded to my assertions that both religious beliefs and superstitious beliefs are faith based. Do you agree or not?
Is it your policy to ignore questions that cause discomfort?
Skepticism regarding a faith-based belief is NOT faith, Mark, no matter how you try to spin it.
priesthood plies its trade among the poor and
uneducated, teaching them, "the rich are no
better than you are, so there." Hitler,
Mussolini, Marx, and Lenin did the same thing.
Edward, you don't have to worry a bit about what I say, but you had best attend to what God says. . .eh?
-Mark
maybe you had His direct line.
-Mark
Would the significance and efficacy of the laws of gravity depend upon the object acted upon?
-Mark
I am sure you know that. You are evading the point of my argument. It is not the OBJECT of the law...it is the SOURCE of the "law" that I am questioning.
To you, your god's word is law. I do not dispute that. I say that you are intolerant when you do not recognize that others do not agree with you, or even consider the word of your god significant at all.
Call me intolerant then and I'll wear the badge proudly, Bert. Was Moses labelled the same way when he ground the golden calf into a potion and compelled the idolators to quaff it?
-Mark
Okay, thanks for finally acknowledging it. As I have said many times, religious intolerance...the lack of respect for other religions...is one of the main sources of hatred, persecution, suffering and war. Not the ONLY source, but certainly right up there as one of the most important.
Until we rid the world of such dangerous superstitions, the future of mankind remains threatened.
“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.”
-Mark
To people who do not view that book as sacred those words carry no weight.
I am not asking (or expecting) you to change your view. I am asking you to look at it from the point of view of a nonbeliever. If you do, you will see that quoting your book to nonbelievers is a waste of time unless you are doing it for your own amusement...or maybe to convince...yourself!
I can imagine God's words would trouble a disbeliever. . .
-Mark
Please give us your definition of the difference between a nonbeliever and a disbeliever.
There is no such thing as a nonbeliever. Everyone believes in something and act on these beliefs. A nonbeliever would be incapable of belief in anything and this is simply not possible in a rational being. . .
A disbeliever is one who has considered a proposition and rejected it as being patently untrue or rejected it as being inconvenient (to steal Al Gore's term). For example, God reveals this propositional truth in the first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the Bible:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Have you believed this or disbelieved it?
-Mark
You would be a disbeliever, then. . .
-Mark
-Mark
It's meaningless.
You flatter me, hun! Actually, tho, the book is His not mine. . . I'm glad you're reading it; if the Holy Spirit ever decides to impress it on to your heart - look out!
-Mark
His love, -Mark
Well in the broader sense, I suppose that is true. I was applying it to the subject at hand...i.e., the existence of any god or "word" of god in any supposedly sacred text. If it makes you happy to call me a "disbeliever," I have no objection, based on your definition above. It's an unimportant point in the discussion at hand, but I had a great deal of trouble with you in the last thread over this, so I am glad to get it settled.
I am a nonbeliever/disbeliever but I have read some of the Bible, and studied several analyses of it. How else could I conclude that it is just a book of no particular significance?
Right now, I am reading two books sort-of concurrently. One is called "Self-Contradictions of the Bible" by William Henry Burr. The other has a name that I am sure you will enjoy. It's called "Biblical Nonsense," by Dr. Jason Long.
But even though 45% of respondents called themselves religious, 50% said they rarely or never attend worship services. More than a quarter (27%) of respondents said they don’t practice any kind of religion.
What's going on in this country? We seem to be more threatened every day by fanatical religionists, and yet I have read that religiosity is declining steadily in this country. Is it that the ones who remain devout have become more articulate? Are they more politically active than believers were fifty or a hundred years ago?
I think the latter is certainly the case. Although there have always been the tent evangelists and fulminators, I think most religious people used to believe that churches should stay the Hell out of politics.
That all changed with The Moral Majority and the rise of Jerry Falwell about thirty years ago. Now, he has a whole "host" (not heavenly) of imitators.
Do you suppose these men are disbelievers just like you, Bert? To make a long story short, they're attempting to place a burr underneath the reader's saddle. . .
-Mark
Of course they are nonbelievers, Mark. Would a devout Christian write a book criticizing Christians or the Bible? Their beliefs, or lack of beliefs do not diminish what they have to say. Do not confuse the medium with the message.
By the way, I looked up the definition of nonbeliever.
Here's the first one I found:
nonbeliever: disbeliever: someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)
I believe the terms are synonomous, Mark.
Would O.J. Simpson have been acquitted by a jury comprised strictly of Klu Klux Klanners? Don't be naive, Bert. . .
-Mark
I believe the terms are synonomous, Mark.
Fair enough; then you won't object to me referring to you and rebels like you as disbelievers.
-Mark
What on earth does that have to do with this discussion? We are talking about people expression ideas, Mark. When they support them with reason and logic, they are substantiated. When they support them with faith or prejudice, they are not.
"Fair enough; then you won't object to me referring to you and rebels like you as disbelievers."
Ah, you do love to throw in your little pejorative terms, don't you, Mark.
In this case, I am as proud to wear your "rebel" label as you are to wear my "intolerant" label. Rebelling against superstition and intolerance seems quite laudable to me.
Who observed this? Whose good spiel are you taking for gospel on this little anecdote?
-Mark
I have a book for you to read, Mark. It's called "The Science of Good and Evil," by Michael Schermer. If you really want the answer to that question, go read the book.
Ironic, isn't it?
Those that are quickest to savage the divine oracles are just as quick to appeal to some merely human treatise as authoritative. . .
-Mark
Of course,THAT is the problem, isn't it? It's the reason books are written criticizing the Bible, showing its errors, contradictions and inconsistencies. Some (not all) Christians think it is divine...just as Muslims think the Koran is divinely inspired. Some time...just once...I would like to hear you say..."in my opinion..." when you talk about the Bible being your god's word. Then I would be willing to acknowledge that a Christian can show some tolerance for opposing beliefs.
I'll bet you would, Bert. My opinion matters not a wit - nor does yours. But Thus saith the Lord:
All scripture is God-breathed . . .
-Mark
"
In YOUR opinion...
If John wrote Revelations thee authors of the Bible history books figured he would have been over 100 years, if I remember rightly he would have been 120 years old. What medicines was he taken or what mushrooms did he eat for him to have such fantastic visions. The Bible stories were originated by men whose knowledge of the world was limited to their surroundings and superstitions. It gives us a lot of insight into human nature and of the times it represents, but it is hard to believe anyone could think it was supernatural and have such absolute faith in every word in it for their decisions in their day-to-day life. There is so much variation in the Bible that almost anything quoted from the Bible can be refuted by other quotes from the Bible. My grandfather made a game of outquoting ministers he met by giving them back a Bible quote for every one they fired at him.
As far as the Golden Rule goes, the hunter/gatherers from thousands of years before Jesus or the Jews would have seen readily the advantage of being nice to each other to get cooperation in killing the larger and most dangerous animals like mammoths.
Ah, yes, the theory tale of evolution; here is the very thing taken on faith which is a horned beasty and smells like smoke. . .
-Mark
I'm sure even someone like yourself can understand how that has happened over the millenia. A group of humans move from a warm, sunny climate to a cold, cloudy climate. Over time, the need for extra melatonin that provides the body guard from skin damage is not needed and is eventually 'weeded out' of the human population by selection.
We once had tails. We didn't need them anymore when we came down from the trees, so they eventually disappeared, but the vestiges are still there.
As much as you would love to believe the Adam and Eve myth, it's simply not true. Unfortunately, your myth has given rise to the ugliness of some people thinking themselves superior to others simply by the color of their skins. The color of one's skin has everything to do with where your ancestors lived...and absolutely nothing else. No 'god' decided to make this one yellow, and this one pink and this one black. The very thought of that idea seems absolutely infantile to me. How can people who have advanced so much in the areas of genetics and science still believe such nonsense? Because a book that is hundreds and hundreds of years old told them so?
Look at any species on earth and you can observe natural, homosexual behavior. We are no different than the animals around us in that respect. We possess a wide range of sexual orientation...from extremely homosexual to extremely heterosexual in our makeups, based on a great variety of physical, genetic factors. To believe an ancient, societal taboo on a natural behavior, again because some ancient book told you so, is absolutely ignorant in this day and age. And the harm it has done so many....how can you possibly justify that?
He probably won't even read your cogent argument.
If he does, the virus will prevent his brain from functioning except to reject everything you say. He can't help it. That's the sad part.
So, if we could write down an equation for evolution, might it look like this?
Time(Lots) + Matter(Energy) + Selection + Increase in Information = Evolution
Where does the increase in information come from Sheryl? If, as evolutionists postulate, we see an increase in complexity as we move up the ladder through time - where are the instructions coming from that makes organisms more complex than their ancestors? Natural selection surely can not provide this information. NS only selects those existing characteristics which enhance an organisms chance to survive and prosper.
-Mark
Huh? Please explain how you get from point A to point B in this flight of the albatross. . .
-Mark
Zoooom!
Is that why Rex has been staying out all night? He has a boy friend?
-Mark
There is SO MUCH EVIDENCE of the process of natural selection.
You can't just block it out and pretend it didn't and isn't happening.
I can give a dozen references to detailed scientific treatises on the subject.
Show me a SINGLE DOCUMENT that refutes any of it.
No...the Bible doesn't refute it...
...it IGNORES THE TRUTH.
Even that is not quite right.
It was written before the truth was known.
And people have been deceived ever since.
Including you, sadly.
Ernie here. . .
I have just cited natural selection in my equation. Who's blocking it out? I asked for someone to show me how NS provides the necessary information to increase the complexity required by the theory tale of evolution. . .
-Mark
The increase in complexity did not happen systematically. That is not how the process of Natural Selection works. It is a random process of changes that occur naturally, and then the ones that are best suited to the current conditions are the ones that survive.
As Prothero says, "...the more one looks at nature, the more one finds examples of clumsy or jury-rigged design because, unlike a Divine Designer, evolution does not require perfection. Any solution that ensures the survival of an organism long enough to breed is sufficient. We humans are classic examples of an organism tnot optimally designed to our current lifestyles. Our backs and our feet are not well adapted to walking upright, as those of us who suffer with back and foot pain know. Our knees are poorly constructed..."
I can go on and on with this, Mark. I'll give you a little more:
"(Intelligent Design) creationists may want to think twice before pointing to God's handiwork as evidence of a benevolent God, because it is full of examples of not only poor or incompetent design but also outright cruelty."
He goes on to describe the parasitic wasps who lay their eggs inside a paralyzed prey. After the eggs hatch, the larvae slowly eat the living prey animal from the inside very slowly. Such a benevolent God!
But I will not hold my breath waiting for you to do that.
It would open your mind up, my friend.
I have read parts of the Bible, and it hasn't infected me.
Would it threaten you to read what the "other side" is saying?
Well that tells me how the increase in complexity did not happen. Where do we see random processes producing exquisitely designed products. You mean to tell me if I were to lay out all the lumber and the wire and the piping on a lot that the house would build itself?
That seems to me an absurdity and at the very least a tremendous leap of faith. . .
-Mark
Would my brain fall out?
I have taken your advice, Bert. After reading the experts, I've decided to turn my blue plastic tarp into a persian rug. I've laid it out over the back fence and am checking it twice a day. It's incredible! Already, the design is starting to produce itself; there are random, little white marks appearing in various places on the rug's surface. I'm so excited; I have the perfect spot for it once totally evolved. . .
Thanks for randomly changing my life, Bert!
Naturally yours, -Mark
Mark,
You are either deliberately misunderstandng what I said or you simply haven't thought about it enough. Let me try again. The changes...mutations...occur randomly. Most of them result in no advantage to the organism, or even a significant survival disadvantage. Those organisms die at the same or greater rate than the unchanged population. A few...probably a VERY few...change in one or more ways that give them an advantage in their environment...so they live longer, produce more offspring, etc.
It's a pretty simple idea, Mark. Think about it. I think you can get it.