Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?
What is one to make of the onslaught of atheist tracts over the past year or two – Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, all raking the countryside with their discontent with religion?
Did all those Silent Nights and Merry Christmases and Happy Hanukkahs finally get to them? Has peace on earth good will toward men driven them to madness? Does the Nativity cut to the heart of their pain?
They are an interesting lot, these men, who find faith an absurd – even abominable — idea and will not rest until they make cry uncle all of us who insist on believing. And convert us to what? One might lament the evangelical who is so persistent that he alienates people and threatens them with visions of fire, but at least such a person is trying to save a soul. What are the evangelical atheists trying to save? What are they trying to sell – other than a rationalism taken to such extremes that is ceases to be rational?
Let us concede that faith is a mystery beyond reason. Like love, hope, and charity, it has reasons that reason does not know. It can no more be understood by reason than Mozart or Shakespeare. Yet here is the irony. Though western religious tolerance, rooted in enlightenment, is upon us, the apostles of atheism are not content.
People, in this nation at least, are free to worship the sun, Satan or nothing at all. Atheists espouse their views routinely on national television, make money pedaling their books, and are, for the most part, greeted by indifference. Not good enough for people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They want us to submit to their demand that the public square be stripped of every vestige of faith. This is not only unacceptable, it betrays the tradition of American history and a spiritual instinct as old as humanity itself.
Neverthless, evidence of this crusade can be seen across this land. In our courts, our malls and in the halls of government, the atheists (or their surrogates) aggressively seek to impose their objections to faith on the vast majority of faithful Americans. It is not enough that they are not forced to pray, they now find offensive any public display of prayer. Having been given the tolerance they claimed as their right, they are intolerant of any public affection for faith. They will not rest, so it seems, until every religious symbol is removed from any spot on which they might tread.
Hitchens is the most determined advocate of this position, his occasional blandishments about tolerance aside. Not with a scalpel but a Gatling gun does he seek to sweep away the crimes cloaked by the mask of religion. Whether it is the abuse of women, children or medical science, he is quite right to be outraged by pain inflicted on the world by moral bullies and extremists who have concluded that their dogmas justify acting as God’s judges and executioners on earth. One only has to consider the daily toll of killings each day in the name of religious faith to appreciate Hitchens’ point.
But Hitchens misfires, not because he is wrong but because he is right. Dogmatic believers – atheist or otherwise – often assume a knowledge that invites abuse. He calls his book, god is not great. It could just as easily have been named man is not great. Or nationalism is not great. Or extremism is not great.
The inquisition was insane. So was the Holocaust. Flying planes into buildings in the name of faith is every bit as pernicious and murderous as crucifying Christians in the name of Caesar. Drinking Kool Aid laced with poison makes about as much sense as dispatching millions of people to the Gulag. G. K. Chesterton observed that human beings are not rational and Hitchens acknowledges this but then fails to digest the relevant lessons.
For every case of religious-inspired violence there is an equally horrific example of violence rooted in atheistic or pagan political culture. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are relevant not because they deal with rare abnormalities in human behavior, but because they speak to failings that afflict the vast majority of flawed human beings.
Early on Hitchens writes: “The true believer cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee.” Yet, Hitchens knows that the true believer is as likely to be a Marxist as a Muslim, a Nazi as a Catholic, a nationalist as a Morman, a secular humanist as a Buddhist. And so Hitchens tries a bit of polemical gymnastics, and seeks to lump every sort of dogma, from materialism to paganism, under the heading of "religion." In doing so, he has rendered his book meaningless. If he cannot distinguish between the worship of God and the worship of man, how does one take him seriously as a critic? If the impulse to believe in dogmas is at issue, isn’t Hitchens’ belief in unbelief just another dogma?
As a faithful person, I am prepared to defend my faith, but I am not prepared to let Hitchens define what that faith is. I will defend a belief in God, but not a belief in Hitchens as the arbiter of what God is. I am prepared to defend the notion that Jesus stood in unique relationship to creation, but I am not prepared to let Hitchens equate Roman paganism with the Beatitudes. We need not submit to their circular logic, which goes something like this: religion is bad, bad things happen, thus religion is the mother of all bad things.
Hitchens’ history is sorely lacking. There is no compelling proof that Jesus existed, he claims at one point. I doubt Mr. Hitchens would deny the existence of Shakespeare, and we certainly have as much evidence to support that Jesus lived as we do that Shakespeare did. He claims that the moral instruction of the Bible and the New Testament are nothing new, but clearly he has chosen to ignore the brutalities of the pagan world.
Mr. Hitchens is not content to argue that religion, taken to radical extremes, does much harm. No, he argues that religion “poisons everything” and he does not exempt Judaism or Christianity or any other of the great world religions. Such a comprehensive claim discredits itself at the outset, for religion no more poisoned the world than the world poisoned the world.
Life is a vale of tears, an imperfect journey, however lifted it might be by the tender mercies or moments of beauty we experience. Yet religion has enriched that experience and offered glimpes of the eternal by inspiring art, literature, music, architecture, and philosophy. It has compelled men to look beyond themselves, just as it has commanded them to bend their knees. It has comforted millions in time of need, and led to shattering moral insights.
We also know, as Mr. Hitchens dutifully reminds us, that religion has been used to break men’s minds and spirits, to force men to deny their own sacred beliefs, to rip them apart from the very creation for which we give thanks to God. Yet, I am amazed at how unpersuasive the religious critics are.
Dawkins relates a claim made by some that the universe could no more come into existence by chance than a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a windstorm blowing through a salvage lot. What about the obvious question: is the universe anything like a Boeing 747? Is the universe a machine, or a mysterious blend of poetry, drama and science? We can only assume a creator, an intelligent design, if what we are today is what the creator intended us to be, right? If the wind shapes a cloud in the image of an elephant, do we assume that the wind consciously created the shape? Our existence could be an accident of moving parts, not always effectively assembled to judge by all the discarded pieces of creation.
But then maybe God isn't an engineer or an architect, but a dramatist or a comedian. Nature is sublime and brutal, efficient and wasteful, miraculous and horrifying, comical and tragic. Those who claim to have faith must concede that if God exists, all of this is part of the creation God made possible, and that we have a limited capacity to make sense of it – the child with cancer or a fissionable atom that unleashes hell. As C.S. Lewis reminded us, waste, inefficiency, loss, suffering are all part of God’s plan. It would be hard to argue otherwise.
The unbeliever likewise must answer difficult questions. Believing in a God that unleashed creation may be farfetched, but is it more farfetched than believing that our universe came from nothing? And if the object lesson of evolution is that the best is what emerges from the primordial morass of human existence, are we not forced to concede, at this juncture at least, that religious belief is the superior idea, given its dominance of virtually every culture and society known to man?
It is my own view that the journey to understanding will not be marked by arrogant preaching, but by tentative steps in the direction of self-discovery. It will not be found by a thousand theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but by a childlike wonder that finds all things possible –- snowflakes that dance in the air like fairies, a sun that melts away each evening, stars that twinkle like icicles on a winter’s day. Small mysteries that add up to universal wonder are the stuff of faith.
No, it is not the humble Christian who poses the problem, but the arrogant atheist. It is not the uncertain agnostic who threatens God’s children, but the religious who mistakes himself for God. I, for one, share Hitchens’ concerns about true believers if he means those who are incapable of entertaining doubt. I would go further. I would argue that doubt is essential to a healthy faith. And I would go even further by arguing that God would consider doubt essential to true faith.
Doubt is integral to faith precisely because faith is the triumph of hope over reason. Where there is no doubt, there can be no struggle, no search, no journey toward understanding, and no reconciliation between the material and the spiritual. Those who never question can be easily tempted to tyranny. When Jesus said that the heart of the law is mercy, when he forgave sinners as a matter of routine practice, he was speaking to the heart of the Christian mystery — those who condemn risk condemnation. The paradox is instructive. It is the possibility of error that binds our common humanity; it is the capacity to admit we might be wrong that leads us to truth. Thus are religious faith and science joined.
Where might faith be found? It can be found in countless places. In prayerful moments inside an empty church, in the joyous Masses at Christmas season, in the gestures of peace transmitted through an embrace or a handshake, in the traditions of charity and gift-giving, in the recognition of shared, irredeemable losses, in questioning moments of despair when all seems futile, in the little things that annoy us, in the still small voice that pierces the thundering winds. That these dramas are beyond the calculus of today’s zealots, faithful or not, is the root of much tragedy. It is those who demand merciless perfection who are most dangerous to imperfect humans.
No one will deny the intelligence of men such as Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens. They are provocative, but are they wise? Who sounds more dogmatic — the man who writes that “religion poisons everything,” or a believer like “silly” Malcolm Muggeridge who called his autobiography The Chronicles of Wasted Time. For all their stated objections to the abuse of religion, these atheists seem more interested in destroying any faith that violates their own sacramental unbelief. They are quick to indict the religious for every heinous crime committed in the name of faith, but in doing so they embrace the same absolutism they condemn in the religious zealot. They ask the faithful to own every sin committed in the name of God, but they will not shoulder a solitary sin committed in the name of science or atheism.
They remind me of a journalist I knew years ago, while working at the Virginian Pilot & Ledger-Star. Alan was a provocative thinker and he found me a curious character. On several occasions over drinks or dinner he would inquire about my politics and my Catholic faith. At one point, he suggested that if I truly believed, I should exert every effort to convert him. After all, he winked, his very soul was in jeopardy. I would answer today the same way I answered him then. I don’t know with certainty God’s will or even if God exists, I can only suggest that my own life has been deeply enriched by the tradition of faith into which I was born; that Jesus, more than any other thinker, teacher or prophet, has brought me face to face with shattering glimpses of truth.
Of course, I am not alone. Reynolds Price, a Duke University novelist, poet and essayist, remarks that he is overwhelmed by “the always startling degree of tolerance and compassion shown and commended by Jesus. I say startling because I’m always caught off guard by that characteristic whenever I read about him.”
Phillip Simmons, in his beautiful book, Learning to Fall: The Blessings of an Imperfect Life, explores the gospel story of Jesus entering Jerusalem. The Pharisees warned him to quiet the crowd, but Jesus answered that even if the crowd were silent, the stones would shout out. Simmons continued: “True religion is an activity of the imagination . . . and Jesus felt himself so aligned with the natural and cosmic order that the very stones would cry out his arrival. Jesus at this moment is in the state of true wildness, when we express our divine natures as naturally as animals do, when our every word and deed flows directly from our highest purposes.”
Chesterton observed: “If it were true that by leaving the temple we walked out into a world of truths, the question would be answered, but it is not true. By leaving the temple, we walk into a world of idols; and the idols of the marketplace are more perishable and passing than the gods of the temple we have left. If we wished to test rationally the case of rationalism, we should follow the career of the skeptic and ask how far he remained skeptical about the idols or the ideals of the world into which he went . . ..”
Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?
Christians could avoid all the coundrums in their lives if they simply stopped believing.
I see no reason to postulate the existence of any powers in the universe-beyond those revealed by science and rational thinking.
I have no intentions of wasting any part of my life in daydreams.
owlafaye,
Yes, yes, hit them again with that piercing intellect. I bow in the presence of greatness.
Yes, we are living in the last days…of my sale…I have 8″ X 10″ photos of Jesus Christ for just $19.99 plus S & H…
Our very special color 8″ X 10″ photos are reduced drastically…just $79.99 plus S & H
These last days have induced me to offer my popular, spectacular 8″ X 10″ AUTOGRAPHED color photos of Jesus! for just $345.94 ! ! (S & H included) (Limit 3 to a customer) (genuine faux gold frame included)
These are the last days folks…
Hurry Hurry Hurry
Just WHEN is a little foolishness not in keeping with George’s articles?
Mr. Adams – I note that you claim that with a nativity scene put up by the government, “there is no endorsement”… but I’ve not seen your reply to my question in comment 133: “Imagine if your local city council put up a Nazi flag in front of city hall on Hitler’s birthday. Would you find that an appropriate act or use of public funds?”
The President of Paraguay visits the White House.
The White Houses raises the flag of Paraguay and the United States…
They are endorsing and acknowledging the visit.
It is typical with people such as nickadams to attempt to alter the definitions or re-interpet the definitions of words…eg; the word “NO”
This is also common amongst date rapists, however it is a step up from Christians in complete denial.
A nativity scene erected in the public square is an endorsement of Christianity and in conflict with the founding fathers intent and that of the Constitution.
Declaring a holiday on Christmas Day is an acknowledgment by the government not of the Christian Faith but of the general desire of the people.
I assure you, people would not show up for work in either case so the government simply acknowledges this fact.
Mr. Ingles
As I stated in my last post, “reasonable” and “tasteful” displays are appropriate.
Of course you never quite get to making reasonable and tasteful decisions about how to mark an event if the thing or event being marked is not reasonable and tasteful to start.
What is reasonable or desireable is the fully baked result of various ingredients: popular opinion/will, tradition, law, western morals and common sense. Answering the question about the Nazi flag is thus difficult, as I would have to assume that Nazism in your scenario is as pouplar and accepted as Christmas.
If it was your intent to poll me on how I might read a city that errected the Nazi flag, I suppose I would have to wonder about the circumstances that led to such popular support and whether it was a rogue act. I don’t know, really, as I am still not certain how I should read the actions of a city in vermont that recently passed a resolution to arrest and prosecute President Bush and Vice President Cheney for war crimes.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that I could understand your position better if you were against official recognition of Christmas. If you were to ask me what business the state has in giving credence (and our cash) to the Christ myth, there wouldn’t be any question about why you object to some of that cash being used on reasonable Christmas symbols. But as it is, it is utter sillyness to mistake a simple display for more than a sign of respect and recognition for a tradition, religious or otherwise.
The founding fathers put restrictions on the government to ensure it could not establish a state religion nor interfer with the exercise of religion. That was to protect us from the tyranny of a state religion as was the case in England.
As has oft been said, the document gives us freedom of relgion, not freedom from it. That is why I would have no problem with a predominantly Muslim city recognizing the importance of Ramadan by providing its people with some official recognition (recognition, mind you, not a law establishing a religion) in the form of a display or sign.
An equivalent to a “Happy birthday, Jesus” message, if you will.
Now if the city violates the Constitution by passing a law establishing Islam as the official city religion …
Brattlesboro Vermont, as comment columns, polls and generally recognized feelings of Americans indicate…is “spot on” in their seeking an indictment against Bush and Cheney for murder and war crimes.
Radical change in the direction of American foreign policy might, I say again MIGHT avert a future few Americans will be able to stomach.
We are in a nose dive here if no one has noticed?
This stupid policy of a religious war against the Middle East with the barely concealed oil agenda…is CRIMINAL.
Mr. Adams – if we imagine some small town where Nazism is, in fact, quite popular, then it would be ‘reasonable’ for them to put up the flag? I think governments shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing such things – though they certainly shouldn’t prohibit them.
I am, in fact, not exactly thrilled with official federal and state recognition of Christmas. It’s not my highest priority in life – as I indicated it was ‘no big deal’ – but I’d rather not have it. It’d be fine with me if people had banks of general vacation days that they could apply whenever. A whole heap of people would apply them to Christmas, and that’s entirely cool. Giving everyone time off is better than only giving the religious time off, of course, and it was to that extent that I ‘endorsed’ it. Indeed, the other link I pointed out was a federal benefit available only to the religious, which I really don’t like. Priorities and all.
The other problem is the one I’ve mentioned a couple times – the unequal access to such ‘recognition’ that’s inevitable – as you admit, but which doesn’t seem to bother you. The fact that there is active opposition to alternate displays it what makes it clear that they are, in fact, an ‘endorsement’.
owlafaye, you are truly a wonder — I have kindly resisted responding to you that you might lasso yourself with your own very nasty invective. You have done it masterfully by proving the point of my article, not that faith is right, but that extreme atheism is terribly boring.
I am a Catholic, my nose runs on cold days, and for all I know you are totally right that we are carbon creatures condemned to misery, death and finally extinction. My choice of faith is an act of hope over reason. So why are you trying to reason with me? Declare victory and go home for I am obviously no match for your wit and sarcasm.
Mr. Ingles, I am with you 100 percent with regard to endorsing religions, but unlike you, I can imagine that a city may extend courteousy and recognition to its contstituants without it being an “endorsement.” I can’t believe you do not have the capacity to make the distinction, so I will assume you have made a concious decision not to allow such a distinction for reasons yet unexplained.
To paint the picture, imagine it’s Christmas and the townspeople ask if the city would be good enough to pull the Nativity scene the city purchased back in ’47 out of storage to put up on the courthouse lawn for a few days.
“We can’t endorse a religion,” the council cries in unison.
“We didn’t ask you to endorse anything, we asked you if you would set up the old Nativity.”
“But townsman Ingles says it would be an endorsement,” the council moans.
“Check your copy of the Constituion. All it says is you are not allowed to pass any laws establishing/endorsing a religion. As long as you don’t do that, you are right by the founding fathers. Just read the damn thing once in awhile. It’s right there at the top.”
“But townsman Ingles says its a slippery slope and that appearance is everything and no one will be sure if it is an endorsement.”
“Now we’re starting to wonder why we elected you lunkheads.” “Look, if despite the fact that you passed no law, resolution or even a symbolic proclomation that would indicate this is an official endorsment of a religion, and it makes you feel better, please just pass a resolution stating clearly that it isn’t an endorsement. Heck, we’ll even post your ‘NO ENDORSEMENT’ sign right next to the baby Jesus.”
Also, to correct your mistake, I never “admitted” that unequal access would be inevitable. I pointed out that in a town with no Jews, the reality could be that there is no Jewish display. In my scenario, there is no lack of access, just lack of Jews.
There you go again nick…after being told NO you say, awwwww lets just set it up anyway, wouldn’t hurt.
George S. says: (Hitchens) “he is quite right to be outraged by pain inflicted on the world by moral bullies and extremists who have concluded that their dogmas justify acting as God’s judges and executioners on earth. One only has to consider the daily toll of killings each day in the name of religious faith to appreciate Hitchens’”
and your articles support those people Hitchens and myself are concerned about.
You are a party to the crimes George.
If you would join the effort of others attempting to get the abusive priests and brothers out of the Catholic ministry, and in the process getting the Catholic Church to admit their culpability, then you might be doing something atheists support.
Instead you are encouraging unsavory elements in the Christian movement by attempting to tear down dedicted, honest, decent moral people that have had enough of the very problem you outline above.
You are an “enabler” George.
owlafaye, stop with the sanctimonious act.
Do you seriously think that the religious are the only ones with blood on their hands? In the name of a science-loving, egalitarian and atheist utopia, Stalin murdered millions of religious people, because of their religiousness. Pol Pot did the same, and Mao takes the cake for killing the most religious in the name of truth and atheism.
The common mistake is to believe that atheism itself is to blame. Or that religion itself is to blame for the crimes of the religious. It isn’t either. Religious people can be religious without killing those that disagree with them. Likewise atheists can be atheist without killing those that disagree with them.
The element that elevates atheism to murderous atheism and religion to murderous religion is intolerance. When Stalin knew for a fact that religion was wrong and that society would be better off without it, he was still within his rights. When he enforced a policy of murdering and imprisoning those people, he had crossed the line to intolerance.
In the early US, when the Christians knew that adultery was wrong, they were within their rights. When they flogged adulterous people, they had left those rights and embarked upon intolerance.
At the moment, Christians are opposing gay marriage. Yes, that is intolerance. But intolerance is also widely supported amongst atheists. Noteworthy is the proposed legislation supported by Dawkins to criminalize sharing of faith with one’s own children, and the proposed abolition of faith schools.
http://www.individualsovereigntist.com/2007/12/19/the-totalitarianism-of-atheists/
Yes, you can get off your high horse now.
Sharing of faith with a child is child abuse. The age of reason and free choice is denied them…programming is programming and it is highly repugnant.
You folks just love to bring up Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot as if their murdering was comparable to the murders of Christianity…hardly.
The educated among you think maybe they can slip that one by and the rest of the ignoramuses nod their heads like a bobble doll and say “Yes, take that you filthy atheist”
Contrary to your opinion, I opine that religious people cannot be religious without killing…it is the blood oath of Catholicism and by default, all other Christianity.
And thats the abolition of faith schools-supported by the government…typical debate tactics.
You apologists are nervous as a cat in a room full of rockers because you know the atheists have your number and are declaiming it out loud.
You sure as hell do need a soul because you lack a spine.
“I opine that religious people cannot be religious without killing”
The fact that many modern Christians have lived their lives without killing soundly defeats that hypothesis.
I see that the next three posts after 173 have been deleted…typical
Get these scum running and they have you banned.
You have banned me and That indicates I have WON!
Thanks for your acclimation
Who banned you?
I see, you now come back after deleting two of my posts and say; “Who banned you?”
Laughter…maybe it is because after a long and succinct comment on your shenanigans, you turned turtle?
banned/deleted/censorship
The last recourse of message board cowards.
owlafaye, are you saying that I banned or otherwise censored you? How so? I have no authority to ban you or censor you. Just like you, I can only post comments. I’m not an admin here.
Two posts just flew into the ether?
They were wonderful, absolutely brilliant…I was almost certain that after reading them you and George would have gone out into the backyard and shot yourselves.
Ahhhh well.
we can’t shoot ourselves. our faith forbids it and other things.
all the best.
Owlafaye,
Patch up the rip in your tinfoil suit and get a grip. If users on this forum could delete your posts, don’t you think they would all be gone by now?
I don’t condone censoring intellectual debate… but then again, doing so would mean that only a couple of your posts would remain.
You remind me of a boxer who flails his arms for 12 rounds and then raises them in victory, never grasping that you have to actually hit your target to earn points. Despite being thrilled with yourself, you should understand that in a ring like this, an intellectual debate, insults, crude remarks and personal attacks amount to blows below the belt and rightly result in points being taken away from you.
Over the course, you’ve done little more than tell us how you “feel” about people who believe differently than yourself.
When you do get to making points worth considering or answering, you ruin the song by throwing in off-pitch invectives. It’s all beginning to make me wonder.
You may want to consider (or perhaps you have, clever boy/gril) that someone who wanted to reinforce the poor image many have of Atheists would create posts like yours as propaganda.
If you are for real, you might want to consider that you likely inspire people to hang onto their faith with greater vigor.
For your edification, many religious people worry about what type of people they may become if they were to lose their faith.
You may not realize it (or maybe you do) but anyone with even a little awareness can see you are doing the Lord’s work by becoming the ideal poster boy for Atheisim.
You also may want to consider that your posts have served to establish the only real unity between the two sides in this debate. Indeed, about the only thing mutually agreed upon by the two sides here has been that the value of your offerings is nil.
I applogize to everyone for taking up space and time with this post, but as it may seem unlikely, the latest twist in owlafaye’s character development (paranoia) appears a bit ham-handed to me.
I would hope those who agree with owlafaye’s basic argument at least consider the possibility you are being had by a clever person with an agenda.
To owlafaye, if you are legitimate, my apologies to you. But I hope you understand that your validation of negative stereotypes of Atheists is starting to appear a little suspect.
I am glad to see that both sides of the debate are in awe and this indicates that both sides are essentially pizzing on each other.
I have made some very good points and speaking of points, my humor comes at the cost of a sharp pointed stick and it appears that you folks and your opinions can’t stand the “gaff”…you know what I mean?
Yes, you know what I mean and you all squirm admirably.
You want an example of the inane and humorless?
George S. says: “we can’t shoot ourselves. our faith forbids it and other things.”
George is a 3rd rate wordsmith driven by the promise of indulgences.
You are essentially a bunch of clowns at a convention for “Clown of the year”. (non-denominational)
(statistics verified by links in previous posts)
Soft pedal this George:
41,000 Catholic priests
3000 sexually abusive priests of children
This is 7%+ of all clergy
Yet the Vatican repeatedly claims “Less than 1%”
Give us your spin on this one George…
(This post was deleted, this is an approximation of the deleted post)
I see that George continues to delete my posts…what does this say gentlemen????
HAM HANDED nick?
I love it, you haven’t even begun to learn have you boy?
I have submitted 6 or 7 really HARD HITTING posts of TRUTH and DEMANDS that George reply…he deleted every one of them.
What does that say folks?
WE will try again:
My posts regard the percentage of Catholic priests engaged in sexually abusing children as opposed to the Vatican’s claims.
I have offered links to credible sources.
George S. keeps deleting these posts.
Raymond Ingles:
Relative to your Hoyle comments, this response is directed at your statement that abiogenesis is defined as: “potential initial origin of life from non-living materials”. Not sure what you mean by “potential”, unless you’re referring to doubts that life originated on this planet and possibly involved “spores from space” theories. Abiotic chemistry is the starting point historically for abiogenesis and only in recent years have “non-living materials” replaced chemicals. Specifically, Graham Cairns-Smith’s idea that life began as a mineral based entity (clay-crystal life) or Gunther Wachterhauser’s idea that iron pyrite (fool’s gold) provided the breeding ground for prebiotic life.
Going back to Stanley Miller’s time of 1952, the initial starting point for abiogenesis in the lab, the early theories and resulting experiments attempted to identify the exact steps that chemicals took from inorganic to organic molecules to self-replicating life. Various scientists and science writers refer to abiogenesis as “chemical evolution” and there are good reasons for linking the word chemical to evolution.
Within abiotic chemistry and its related theories, a step-wise progression of chemical development toward self-replicating life is thought to involve some form of evolution – opportunistic chemical forms that must have been subjected to natural selection in order to preserve the favorable structures needed to continue with the progression to the “progenote” stage – the progrenote stage is more primitive than ancient bacteria and considered the “official” baton passing point from abiogenesis to orthodox evolution.
One could argue that before the baton passing point is reached an “evolution of the gaps – presto-chango” type argument is being used to explain how inorganic chemicals mysteriously progressed up an evolutionary ladder, first achieving and then retaining levels of progress we can’t duplicate today within the lab.
But before we invoke science’s multi-syllable words of power and complex speculations disguised as knowledge, it may be worthwhile to discuss abiogenesis from a common sense viewpoint. For example, and courtesy of taxpayer funding, assume science produced a self-replicating life form in today’s lab from inorganic chemicals – how would this amazing achievement confirm how life originated unassisted over 3.5 billion years ago? There is no still consensus on what physical conditions were like on a primitive earth or how these conditions promoted chemical evolution, so what exactly would it prove? At first glance, it certainly wouldn’t confirm randomly occurring abiogenesis. Rather, it would seem to confirm intelligent design – sort of “Look Ma, I made life today in the lab with my chemistry set – isn’t it cool”.
And, scientists busy with finding an acceptable story to explain how the progenote developed seem to have forgotten to explain exactly why the process isn’t continuing to this very day. What stops life from continuously developing from inorganic chemicals – changes in physical conditions, evolution and competition from existing life, high federal income tax rates – what? Evolution and competition from existing life is the orthodox scientific answer – but exactly how does evolution work to stop new life in its tracks? In Darwin’s “warm little ponds” filled with pregnant inorganic chemicals somewhere deep in the Amazon basin is “life” still struggling to form and then being eaten by really mean bacteria, the predatory product of billions of years of evolution?
Interesting speculations, but it’s necessary to hurry back to “real” science. To set the stage, Stanley Miller continued his experiments and ruminations on abiogenesis for 40 years after his initial fame. He never did create life in the lab and no one else has either, but we should sincerely respect his dedication and limited achievements. Perhaps somewhat bitter after 40 years of failure, Miller expressed his contempt for recent “paper chemistry” computer models and whiteboard speculations on abiogenesis rather than basing the theory on experimental chemistry to “prove” chemical evolution (see “The End of Science” J. Horgan, 1996).
And since you like quotes, Stanley Miller finally admitted that “making compounds and making life are two different things” – at the University of California San Diego in an Origins of Life seminar January 19th, 1999. Another party pooper, scientist Robert Shapiro (accredited member – Church of Darwin) said: “an explanation for the first self-replicating molecule has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated but rather taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism” (see: “Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth” – Shapiro, 1986). So what are the scientific reasons for the long faces?
To start, during any discussion of abiogenesis, some lab coat with a negative attitude is sure to bring up the famous “chicken vs. egg” problem – in short, which came first, the protein or the DNA? The protein came first theory immediately ran into problems. Producing amino acids with a Frankenstein’s laboratory apparatus created equal amounts of both right and left amino acids, or what’s called a racemic mixture. But, proteins actually use only the left handed type (laevoratory or “L amino acids”), not the right handed or dextoratory (“D amino acids”). Using an “evolution of the gaps” explanation, perhaps the L and D types did originally combine and then later became solely L type through some unexplained natural selection process.
Other problems also surfaced such as how to prevent “interfering cross reactions” when forming short polypeptide chains. How did the prebiotic soup sort out the amino acids and prevent the normal cross-reactions that occur in any uncontrolled physical environment? And, what about the energy needed to drive the reactions? For the gullible, lightning strikes are certainly impressive but energy absorbed and given up during reactions is much more subtle and follows a specific sequential pattern within a temporal matrix – blasting chemicals with electricity won’t do it no matter how impressive it looks in the movies.
There are numerous other problems in postulating the “chicken first”, such as how to prevent the side chains in the polymers from combining with other chemicals into a useless mess instead of a polymer with a specific function or how the short polypeptide structures gradually grew into longer and more useful lengths and then made the longer lengths into stable re-occurrences – could it have been evolution to the rescue once again? But, eventually frustration won out and scientists turned hopefully to the egg side of the problem. But where did the blueprints come from initially which defined the structures? DNA needs protein to support it, so how could DNA occur before protein? And if it didn’t occur first then what determined the protein structure?
The obvious solution was to postulate a magical “chicken/egg” scenario occurring simultaneously. So, the RNA first theory was born – primitive RNA that could maintain a blueprint but could also create its own reactive enzymes. Great solution – except there is no physical evidence of that and no explanation as to how RNA would have formed on its own.
The problem with the “primitive RNA is like a virus” explanation is that a virus like Qbeta requires a pre-existing host cell to replicate itself. Where was the host the primitive RNA used to evolve itself? Another problem is that RNA doesn’t employ base pairing and is consequently less accurate than DNA in coding – what happens is a degrading structure rather than a progressive structure in successive Qbeta replication experiments – each generation becomes less successful at copying rather than more.
This is getting quite long so let me finish by pointing back to your original criticism – abiogenesis and evolution are two separate, independent and non-related theories, at least according to the National Academy of Sciences. But after years of failure to create life in the lab, I think science deliberately separated the Siamese twins – abiogenesis and evolution couldn’t be family anymore. Evolution was the golden child science was proud of and it kept the grant money rolling in. Abiogenesis was becoming more and more like your cousin Bob who tends to drool at the table, belches and farts in public and someone you hope strangers don’t connect with either you or your family. I’ve shown examples above of where evolution type arguments were employed to explain mysteries in abiogenesis – I conclude the separation of the two theories is more political than real.
If time permits, my next and last response addresses “Hoyle’s fallacy”. Biologists struck back at Hoyle with a critique of his reasoning, but their critique requires a critique in turn. And, a few quotes should demonstrate that Hoyle wasn’t alone in his skepticism, other scientists have also calculated astronomical odds against the random formation of life. And, finally a search for odds and probabilities that biologists will support comes up empty – why aren’t evolutionists advancing odds of their own if they won’t accept Hoyle’s numbers?
Mr. Skurka – You raise quite a few disparate points in your essay so I’m going to have to break up my response somewhat. First off, let me address one of the key misunderstandings that many people bring up with abiogenesis – “why isn’t it happening now”? First off, while there is indeed no consensus on exactly what the Earth’s early chemistry was like, there’re quite a few things we know about the way it wasn’t. For one thing, there was essentially no free oxygen in the atmosphere – look up the “oxygen catastrophe”, where living things started to dramatically alter the composition of the atmosphere. For another, free organic molecules today are, indeed, scavenged quite efficiently by microorganisms; look how quickly living things decay now. These are more than “interesting speculations”, these are demonstrable facts.
As to Miller’s disdain for “paper chemistry” – your missive comes at a fortuitous time, as just this morning I was made aware of this remarkable article in Discover magazine – http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= – where Miller himself had completed some 25-year experiments with ice. The problem of getting RNA to form chains of significant length “on its own” may be much easier to solve in frozen environments than warm ones. (Wouldn’t be the first time Darwin was wrong.)
And, indeed, the “RNA world” model is very definitely not adequately summed up by your phrase, “primitive RNA is like a virus”. RNA can act as an enzyme, and this has been demonstrated in the lab. The hypothetical RNA-based life would not be parasitic on cells, it would carry out its own autocatalytic reactions.
I’m really not clear what the quotes you cited are intended to prove. Don’t they demonstrate that abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate topics? What do you believe they establish?
As to why evolutionists “aren’t… advancing odds of their own”, it’s not a conspiracy or a mystery. It’s that there are a great number of unknowns at this point, and specific calculations are rather premature. We can be sure that the naive calculations of the odds regarding, say, cytochrome C are erroneous – I’ve not seen one that’s taken into account the actually rather broad variety of forms it can take and still function. (Indeed, many variants in different species are over 60% different between their sequences.) Not to mention the unknown quantity of other molecules that might be suitable for the same operations that aren’t taken into account in naive probability calculations. We’re not sure what the probabilities are, but we can be sure that they are higher than the ones opponents of abiogenesis like to cite.
But these are side issues. I don’t see, anywhere in your essay, an actual justification for what you “think”, that the topics of abiogenesis and evolution were “deliberately separated”. It’s not surprising that evolutionary models would be used to understand how chemical systems could increase in complexity in gradual fashion – variation plus selection has been show to produce increasing complexity in many other contexts, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. Scientists frequently look for analogs to well-understood phenomena when analyzing new phenomena. That doesn’t mean that there’s a necessary theoretical link between, say, convection in Earth’s atmosphere and convection of ultrahot, ultradense plasma in the Sun, though both are analyzed with similar theoretical tools.
Even more, I don’t see a justification for supposing that – regardless of the separation being “deliberate” or not – the separation is invalid. And still further, if “evolution type arguments” were used, I also don’t see a discussion of why those “type” arguments would be wrong…
In post #69, Mountain Man asked fvthinker, “In your view, how did the universe come into being?” Thinker’s answer was, “I don’t know.”
MY answer is, “It didn’t. It always was and always will be.”
The idea that the Universe “came into being” requires that something be created out of literally nothing. I reject that view, no matter whether it is a Big Bang or a Big Boob or whatever.
Since I hold reason as superior to faith, I will tell you how I reason that the Universe is truly eternal. Matter (and energy) change forms, but do not cease to be. Just because a planet, a sun, a galaxy have a beginning, middle and end does not mean that Everything That Is also requires a beginning, middle and end. What makes sense to me is that matter and energy are endlessly recycled.
A big bang can and does produce new entities, made up of the dust and energy of long dead other entities.
There’s no need for a single scientific event to explain it just as there is no need for a god.
It is funny to me that many religions incorporate the ideas of everlasting hell & eternal damnation; yet they evade the idea that eternity works both ways.
signed,
AMAI the Happy Atheist
AMAI,
I am familiar with the matter/energy duality and certainly feel it is a far more reasonable explanation of things than the supernatural. I simply say “I don’t know” (re: the origins of the universe) because, though the theory is well founded, we don’t actually know what ‘existed’ moments before the Big Bang. Additionally, the cognitive limitations of the human species, in my opinion, will keep the vast majority of us from being able to contemplate such ethereal concepts such as the energy/matter duality and curved space.
I confess that the cognitive limitations of my evolved mind wants to put our universe “some place”. I have yet to wrap my head around circular/warped space (a universe without edges) in any satisfying way. What is important about my position, though, is that I recognize the limitations our my (and our species) cognitive abilities and don’t feel compelled to make things up to explain the unknown.
Making things up can be fun. The danger lies in buying into your own (or other people’s) b.s.to the point where you are prepared to be blinded to truth when it does appear.
True, we don’t know the EXACT configuration in our quadrant/sextant/whatever of the Universe just before the Big Bang that brought our portion into being.
I fully accept that it was much like it is today – lots of suns, planets, moons, galaxies, dust, blobs, bits & pieces – the full array that we have so far identified ourselves.
I hold this view as knowledge – I’ve satisfied myself that the nature of matter and energy on Earth and as observed in space supports the recyclical nature of existence. There was no one single big bang; rather, big bangs happen at intervals whenever there’s enough stuff to “pop.” There is certainly no actual god, being, entity or thing responsible for designing our planet with the kind of specificity that religion says there is.
I do think that life happens because all the essential elements for it are present: heat source, broad spectrum of elements, correct distance from heat source, perhaps even the moon is necessary for there to be life (theory, obviously, just made it up now.)
The idea of infinity being the correct answer scares, worries, discombobulates – generally puts people on edge, for some reason. I really don’t know why. I find it rather comforting, myself.
I too feel that the yo-yo universe (untold previous big bangs) is probably the most logical…though impertinent. I fully expect that we will be extinct before we make any substantive insights into the matter. Unfortunately, there are some very religious people trying to hasten that extinction.
Why impertinent, fvthinker? Interesting choice of adjective. Are all galaxies the result of a big bang, perhaps? Or only some? I think as a species our cognitive abilities are quite capable of posing intelligent questions, and finding rational answers, despite the desire of some members to resort to insta-answers, whether via “God” or a single big bang. Thank you for the discussion.
I use the term too easily and probably wrongly diminishes the value of searching for an answer. Sometimes I think trying to figure it out is a waste of time because I am confident that we will be extinct before we could possibly make inroads. Still…I very much enjoy pondering the question. I suppose I fall into the trap that some theists are in when they say addressing global warming is a waste of time because the rapture is a week from Tuesday. :-)
LOL. I don’t think it’s a waste of time at all. Once I put my mind to the issue, I came up with an answer that satisfied me. I also do not accept that the “end is nigh,” so it’s quite worthwhile to work these things out.
There’s another trap that could happen for the global warmists (and coldists), and that is that the true effects won’t be felt for thousands of years, so why worry now? My view on that is we need more energy now, so why not set things up to help ourselves in the short term AND provide the means for our descendants to help themselves as well?
I am baffled by the moronic views of the Atheists who deny the existance of God. If God does not exist in the minds of you Atheists…why are you arguing?
I believe what I writ below, the Bible, God and that God is our Creator and the Saviour of mankind. I do not argue about this.
“Whatever evolves was first, created” – Jason Leverette, Patriot
Hmmmmm…. FromTheTop writes “I am baffled by the moronic views of the Atheists…”
Thanks for demonstrating such tolerance. We discuss these things because the belief in [what we consider] a non-existent deity creates problems in this world. It is very religious people that fly planes into buildings. It is very religious people that conduct wars thinking they are being guided by God.
In broad terms, it matters not to me that you “believe” that the god of Abraham is our creator and judge. It is what you do with that beleif that concerns us. Our founding fathers saw the horribly failed attempts of the colonies with specifically religious governing bodies (some protestant, some catholic, some others) and brilliantly separated church from state.
We now have bald attempts and injecting specifically religious legislation and modifying the Constitution with religiously-motivated amendments. If you don’t want to hear these arguments, then provide a little compelling evidence of a supernatural actor. That would shut a lot of people up.
So to answer your question, we argue because it is important.
“We discuss these things because the belief in [what we consider] a non-existent deity creates problems in this world.”
Well said, fvthinker.
To say “God” created the world is as silly as saying the Tooth Fairy did. And FromTheTop calls Atheists moronic.
Fvthinker, there will never be evidence. They cannot and will not provide evidence, compelling or otherwise. The very position of those with “Faith” is that there is no proof. You do, however, have to suspend your rational faculty, the tool our species has for dealing with the world, and be willing to take that leap into the nonsensical and non-provable realm of fantasy.
To FromThe Top: Define “God.”
Christians believe everything you say is true for you and all Atheists. This is precisely why I inquired, “Why do you argue?” I will attempt to address your concern of a non-existent deity.
Christians do not fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people and behead and slaughter innocent people to become martyrs in the name of their Allah as directed by their Quar`an. Jesus, Son of God, teaches us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Christians pray for peace, guidance and protection from all harm and danger to God everyday and during war. Allah teaches death and destruction of all infidels in order to bring about their caliphate for world dominion ruled by their Imam and governed by Sharia` law.
Christians believe in the sanctity of life, freedom and all other inalienable rights writ in our U.S. Constitution. Christians have and always will engage in war with the enemies of our Republic who attempt to rule Americans with a Marxist ideology.
Christians believe in separation of state and church, fvthinker! This is explicitly why the Pilgrims departed England to be free of the Crown as Head of state forever with only one religion. Perhaps you should direct your inquiries toward the Islam religion that wants to kill you instead of at Christians who want to protect you.
Christians believe amendments are required to protect our Republic, our culture, our English language, our children’s education and our inalienable rights to be a free people from the creeping Marxism, Atheism and Islam bent on abolishing our U.S. Constitution and our freedom of religion.
Christians need not provide compelling evidence of a super natural actor, au contraire, you, fxthinker and your fellow Atheists must cast your eyes toward heaven and observe your immediate surroundings and prove God is not.
I am neither a Marxist nor a follower of Islam. I am an Individualist.
To simply believe is not good enough. If there is ever to be proper respect for Individual Rights (including your right to believe in a god), the idea must be held as knowledge. So far there is not a country on Earth that fully respects the rights of Individuals to their lives (women and men), to their proper freedom and to their property.
AMAI, I said, “I am baffled by the moronic views of the Atheists who deny the existance of God. If God does not exist in the minds of you Atheists…why are you arguing”?
Your simple minded comment of comparing the “Tooth Fairy” to God and your request for me to “define God” proves you are in doubt of your beliefs.
Why do you Atheists continue to argue that God is not? Christians believe you believe God is not. Christians need not argue with Atheists. We believe God is. Period.
I am not in doubt. I know I do not believe in a god, a higher power or anything that is responsible for the creation of the Universe. There is no such entity. Eternity is real. Existence exists, always has and always will. There is no “thing” that brought it into being.
I know that god is a creation of men, not the other way round. I do not hold that idea as a belief.
You’re right – there’s no point in discussing it. I was actually discussing the idea with fvthinker that there isn’t any entity responsible for “creating” the Universe. Why did you jump into our conversation, FromTheTop?
AMAI, excuse me. Considered me out of this discussion. Period.
FromTheTop noted: “Christians do not fly planes into buildings and kill innocent people…”
American Christians dropped two nuclear weapons on two non-Christian cities in Japan in August, 1945, killing more than 100,000 innocent civilians.
FromTheTop continued: “Christians have and always will engage in war with the enemies of our Republic who attempt to rule Americans with a Marxist ideology.”
Are you seriously proposing that Islam is a Marxist ideology?
FromTheTop continued: “Christians believe in separation of state and church…”
Riiight. That’s why they keep trying to teach creationism, “creation science” and intelligent design creationism in public school biology classes – in spite of losing court case after court case.
FromTheTop continued: “Christians believe amendments are required to protect our Republic…”
Will these amendments protect the rights of other religions, or only Christians? Today there are more Buddhist Americans than there are Episcopalian Americans; there are more Islamic Americans than there are Presbyterian Americans. There are more Jews living in the United States than in Israel (about 5.5 million).
What do you propose doing with all these non-Christian Americans if your Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist friends “take back America for Christ”? Will you respect and maintain the constitutional protection of their religious rights as American citizens? Or will you start building gas ovens?
“American Christians dropped two nuclear weapons on two non-Christian cities in Japan in August, 1945, killing more than 100,000 innocent civilians.”
What a sick, sick thing to say. What a despicable piece of human trash you must be, and an embarrassment to the intellectually aware nonbelivers.
American Christians did that? No. Democrat Harry Truman did that. It was done in the spirit of collectivism. Japanese warmongers should have been held responsible for the atrocities of WW2, like the rape of Nanking, but instead Democrat Harry Truman dropped two atomic bombs on civilian populations.
Christian? That’s a sick thing to say. Something Stalin or Pol Pot probably said as justification for the atheist atrocities they committed. And it serves to shift blame. It was democratic collectivism that created a mentality that allowed people to be brutally punished for the crimes of their leaders.