Thursday,
August 28, 2008 at 5:46am
What
do people mean when they say “religion?” It could be a body of
people all meeting up for the sole purpose of indiscriminate worship.
It could mean an organization motivated by faith. It could be ta body
that studies its origins, authors, and history. Just in this one word
alone, it can have an elusive meaning depending on the person using
it and the person hearing it. Now take that and add the word faith.
Faith can be blind, ignorant, just a happy feeling, a hugely
motivating force, a unifying center, or any number of personalized
definitions. The last word I'll go with is science. Science, in
particular the evidence supporting science, is understood differently
in light of whatever is being studied. The same kind of evidence for
the historicity of a historical figure, is obviously not the
mathematical proof needed to identify dark matter. When you take
vague definitions of religion, faith, and science and metaphorically
throw them to dogs of our modern discourse, the complications become
overwhelming. I try to stay as clear as possible when addressing
either or all three, but I'm going to try and depict how complicated
a seemingly simple discussion about one of them can get.
If I say something along the lines of “faith is one of the most destructive forces we've ever concocted” immediately you start thinking about church organizations, volunteers, the smiles on the old womens faces on Sunday, and the many people you may have met and become friends with for the sole reason of going to church. Immediately there is a problem. Your thoughts do not address what I said. Not only do they not address what I said, the reason you began to think those thoughts rests in other complicated areas of understanding. If we break it down word by word, my favorite way, when you take church festivals and volunteers, your talking about acts that people do for purely social reasons and not necessarily, if even frequently, because of faith. If you regale at the thought of smiling old ladies and friendships you've made, again, if the only reason you call someone a friend is that they nod in a booth next to you, your simply lying to yourself. To add even more icing on the cake, people frequently rebut a statement like “faith is one of the most destructive....” with something like, “How can you not see all the good religion or God is doing?” So not only would the conversation start off wrong from how the sentence is received, but it would take a left turn, and then would maliciously beat itself to death trying to squeeze in the various meanings of the words religion and God. This is my immediate frustration.
Let's say we're on the the lucky side of conversations where all the terms are wholly defined. What is the next problem? Context. The main charge many religious people will levy against me is that I'm not understanding their context, be it “religious, faithful, God's will,” and I retort that they do not understand a specific scientific context. I try to quell this by explaining my past with Christianity, and even have old embarrassing blogs if they want further reinforcement that I fully appreciate where they are coming from. That, and the context hasn't changed for thousands of years, it isn't exactly a secret from where and why your saying things. When it comes to science, it obviously goes towards evolution, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. To put it simply, to say there is much to be said on any one of those topics is an understatement. Despite this, I get retorts and questions that mash all three together, and then sprinkle on biblical confusion and Godly speculation as well. It is impossible to carry on a discussion like this if you don't keep it specific.
I just watched a lecture from Bart Ehrman about how the bible explains suffering, and in the question and answer period Ehrman states that he doesn't like how the “neo-atheist” literature seems to know nothing about religion, and in particular, Sam Harris makes sophomoric assertions about how religion has been the cause of all the evil. It's statements like these the illustrate to me just how big the conversation, and confusion, gets. Neither Sam nor Bart are ignorant of the topics they write about. And yes, I've read books from both of them. Sam talks explicitly about faith, not religion, and I personally feel he conveys his worries and deductions clearer than any of the so-called new atheists. You'd have to watch some of his debates to get a real sense of how articulate and to the point he is. Ehrman is a biblical scholar and has written at least 5 or 6 books about textual criticism, Judas, Mary Magdalen, and early Christianity. So essentially, you have two very well educated men who specialize in one aspect of the “religion debate,” and at least one can hint at his personal confusion with the context and specific issue the other is contending. Basically, if it can happen to them, it will happen to us.
With all of that in mind, sentences like, “the fossil record isn't reliable and disproves evolution which obviously doesn't happen given this condition during the big bang” should disappear. The Youtube links I provide give you someone specializing in biology, another in paleontology, another in astronomy, another in chemistry, so on and so forth. When I suggest a book long answer to “what came before the big bang” it is because it requires a book long answer. If someone tells me how some bible passage predicted such and such, it requires not only an appreciation for the significance and relevance of any piece of historical evidence, but also a grasp on the context the author was writing in and the history he was drawing from. After all that, you can begin to speculate on the little nuances or reasons behind the person in question giving you the answer. It is completely backwards to think that “just because he's an atheist” or “just because this is coming from someone labeled scientist” that something is credible or not. The whole point of evidence and rational discourse is to give you an ability to understand and judge the facts for what they are, not come in with prima facie conjectures about someone's motivation.
Say I make a stab at the corruption in religion by pointing to someone like Benny Hinn. An example of a pointless and empty response would be, “You know Nick, not all religious people are like that.” If I discuss the historical context and origin of a specific passage that say Joel Osteen recites, the useless response, “Don't you see that it's just making them happy and isn't harming anyone,” is not only wrong, but would completely miss the point. If you want to discuss fossils, we'll discuss fossils. If you think you have the one-two punch prophecy, we'll tackle prophecy. I'll even struggle through my meager understanding of space science if that's where your questions lie. Or, call me a dreamer, say you read and retain anything from a book I suggest, we can focus on one or more of the themes of that book. Not only will keeping things clear keep me sane, but it will aide you in your understanding. I'm quick to point to videos and books because I don't want to risk me confusing things, when I know the better source who laid it out in clearer terms I could grasp. It can, and does, get overwhelming if your not prepared.
If I say something along the lines of “faith is one of the most destructive forces we've ever concocted” immediately you start thinking about church organizations, volunteers, the smiles on the old womens faces on Sunday, and the many people you may have met and become friends with for the sole reason of going to church. Immediately there is a problem. Your thoughts do not address what I said. Not only do they not address what I said, the reason you began to think those thoughts rests in other complicated areas of understanding. If we break it down word by word, my favorite way, when you take church festivals and volunteers, your talking about acts that people do for purely social reasons and not necessarily, if even frequently, because of faith. If you regale at the thought of smiling old ladies and friendships you've made, again, if the only reason you call someone a friend is that they nod in a booth next to you, your simply lying to yourself. To add even more icing on the cake, people frequently rebut a statement like “faith is one of the most destructive....” with something like, “How can you not see all the good religion or God is doing?” So not only would the conversation start off wrong from how the sentence is received, but it would take a left turn, and then would maliciously beat itself to death trying to squeeze in the various meanings of the words religion and God. This is my immediate frustration.
Let's say we're on the the lucky side of conversations where all the terms are wholly defined. What is the next problem? Context. The main charge many religious people will levy against me is that I'm not understanding their context, be it “religious, faithful, God's will,” and I retort that they do not understand a specific scientific context. I try to quell this by explaining my past with Christianity, and even have old embarrassing blogs if they want further reinforcement that I fully appreciate where they are coming from. That, and the context hasn't changed for thousands of years, it isn't exactly a secret from where and why your saying things. When it comes to science, it obviously goes towards evolution, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe. To put it simply, to say there is much to be said on any one of those topics is an understatement. Despite this, I get retorts and questions that mash all three together, and then sprinkle on biblical confusion and Godly speculation as well. It is impossible to carry on a discussion like this if you don't keep it specific.
I just watched a lecture from Bart Ehrman about how the bible explains suffering, and in the question and answer period Ehrman states that he doesn't like how the “neo-atheist” literature seems to know nothing about religion, and in particular, Sam Harris makes sophomoric assertions about how religion has been the cause of all the evil. It's statements like these the illustrate to me just how big the conversation, and confusion, gets. Neither Sam nor Bart are ignorant of the topics they write about. And yes, I've read books from both of them. Sam talks explicitly about faith, not religion, and I personally feel he conveys his worries and deductions clearer than any of the so-called new atheists. You'd have to watch some of his debates to get a real sense of how articulate and to the point he is. Ehrman is a biblical scholar and has written at least 5 or 6 books about textual criticism, Judas, Mary Magdalen, and early Christianity. So essentially, you have two very well educated men who specialize in one aspect of the “religion debate,” and at least one can hint at his personal confusion with the context and specific issue the other is contending. Basically, if it can happen to them, it will happen to us.
With all of that in mind, sentences like, “the fossil record isn't reliable and disproves evolution which obviously doesn't happen given this condition during the big bang” should disappear. The Youtube links I provide give you someone specializing in biology, another in paleontology, another in astronomy, another in chemistry, so on and so forth. When I suggest a book long answer to “what came before the big bang” it is because it requires a book long answer. If someone tells me how some bible passage predicted such and such, it requires not only an appreciation for the significance and relevance of any piece of historical evidence, but also a grasp on the context the author was writing in and the history he was drawing from. After all that, you can begin to speculate on the little nuances or reasons behind the person in question giving you the answer. It is completely backwards to think that “just because he's an atheist” or “just because this is coming from someone labeled scientist” that something is credible or not. The whole point of evidence and rational discourse is to give you an ability to understand and judge the facts for what they are, not come in with prima facie conjectures about someone's motivation.
Say I make a stab at the corruption in religion by pointing to someone like Benny Hinn. An example of a pointless and empty response would be, “You know Nick, not all religious people are like that.” If I discuss the historical context and origin of a specific passage that say Joel Osteen recites, the useless response, “Don't you see that it's just making them happy and isn't harming anyone,” is not only wrong, but would completely miss the point. If you want to discuss fossils, we'll discuss fossils. If you think you have the one-two punch prophecy, we'll tackle prophecy. I'll even struggle through my meager understanding of space science if that's where your questions lie. Or, call me a dreamer, say you read and retain anything from a book I suggest, we can focus on one or more of the themes of that book. Not only will keeping things clear keep me sane, but it will aide you in your understanding. I'm quick to point to videos and books because I don't want to risk me confusing things, when I know the better source who laid it out in clearer terms I could grasp. It can, and does, get overwhelming if your not prepared.
Updated
about 2 months ago
|
|
|
|
