What if Religion had admitted it was wrong? (Part 2)

Published on May 7, 2008 By Scotteh In Religion

In the first part of this article i discussed how people consider religion as a means of teaching us how to act responsibly.

I received some interesting comments, mostly about how how people felt they obtained their morality from sources other than religion. Perhaps the most interesting comment, and entirely unrelated was a comment from senior stubbyfinger, who informed us he had a large sexual organ. Congratulations stubby...

Right so Religion, morality, back on track. Lets look at the title of this article, "What if religion had admitted it was wrong?". Firstly i'd imagine we'll have some people asking how religion is wrong exactly. Which you know, if you've been sleeping under a rock since Darwin was around, is a highly appropriate question.

1)God made the world in 7 days Genisis etc.

The earth roughly 6,000 years old? I believe that's the figure provided by most creationists i speak with. Well we now know as a FACT (fact as in 1 + 1 = 2. You get me. FACT? Just like the fact you are going to die, just like the fact i'm mashing my keyboard with my fingers as a write this a not my toes - FACT), the earth is much older. The earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. It's difficult to compute exactly as due to the nature of how it was formed. The oldest rocks found to date are 3.9 Billion years old.

The obvious question to follow is 'How exactly did we get here?'. A puzzling question indeed answered by Darwin in his famous book 'Of the Origins of the Spieces'. I won't go into detail for fear of sending you to sleep and wanting to get to my point, but he believed small genetic mutations which happen every generation of a specicies led to how we developed from small microbes in to full fledged humans. Far fetched? What's even more far fetched is the serious amount of evidence that backs this up (galapagos!).

2)Christianity also said that the Earth was the center of the universe.

That the sun revolved around the earth. So when some bloke from tuscani said otherwise, they were quite unpleased! Even after proving that the observation of the planets and the sun suggested that Galleo (yes i'm talking about Galileo here, re the guy from tuscani not Pope Leo I) was right, they had the audacity to turn around and go 'No no no wait you misunderstand us! It may _LOOK_ like the earth orbits the sun, and maths may dictate it, but it infact doesn't! They just appear that way!'. Yes because that's a helpful approach in a reasonable discussion.

We now know of course that earth isn't the center of the universe and that we do revolve around the sun.

So there's two examples for people to consider why i personally think religion has been wrong in the past. On two MASSIVE issues.

Now if i may move on. What i'd like to consider is what if religion had turned around and said:

'You know what, were based on texts wrote thousand of years ago, when our understanding of the world was very different and people needed a different kind of reassurance. I think it's time we adapt a little more to society'.

I'd guess the next obvious question is what would you change? I'm not sure, i'm no council of nicaea. I dare say the word religion itself would need a reclassifcation. What is it? If it's not just a story about god and his son, is religion morality? Is it just faith in something?

I've always admired some of the charitable teachings in Islam and Christianity. Yet i also detest how they've been the cause of so many wars and suffering in the past. Do we need religion to do amazing things for one another?

One thing is for sure though while we are unable to prove that God isn't going to smite us all for not wearing condoms, someone should not have the power to continue the spread of aids in one of the most desperate continents in the world by saying using them is indeed sinful.

Nor should preachers be able to convince people to attach bombs on to themselves in the hope of a paradise waiting for them on the other side.

I hope i've not genuinley offended someone with this, well so long as your not offended by just the notion of someone questioning your religion, in which case your ignorant and i'm glad i've offended you.

Comments (Page 2)

SanChonino

on May 07, 2008

Stanley Jaki said, "science was still-born in every major culture Greek, Hindu, Chinese, --except the Christian west."

Apparently he was unaware of where our current number system originated?

Yeah, and the fact that most scientific advancements made in Europe during the Middle Ages were by the Muslims and Jews, NOT the Christians . . .

Artysim

on May 07, 2008

Imaginary quote from The Waterboy-

"DNA is the invention of the devil!!!"

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

Yeah, and the fact that most scientific advancements made in Europe during the Middle Ages were by the Muslims and Jews, NOT the Christians . . .

Oh yeah, the "magical" telescopes.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

So there's two examples for people to consider why i personally think religion has been wrong in the past. On two MASSIVE issues.

Well, by these 2 examples, all you've accomplished is to show that there are two different belief systems which offer vastly conflicting explanations of the orgin of the universe and of life itself and which BOTH require faith from the believer. A person can either believe that all matter was created by God and that He revealed some of that in Sacred Scripture or that matter somehow came about by random chance and that life somehow came from non-life. Again, both systems of belief require faith from the respective believer.

So far, no one from the atheistic evolution side of the debate has provided any empirical evidence to base its claims. Rather than show the arguments for the validity of apes to man Macro-Evolution, you all through out some unproven assertions, argue against a Creator God as though that is enough to make your case. Knock, knock, trying to make the Macro evolution case on the disbelief in a Creaotr God isn't proof of MacroEvolution.

Even by your title of this discussion, you are attempting to use this question as an argument by supposedly proving macro Evolution while questioning religion and a Creator God.

We can just as easily chargbe the double standard...turn the question around, "What if Evolutionists had admitted Evolution theory is a big fat lie from the getgo?"

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

Yeah, and the fact that most scientific advancements made in Europe during the Middle Ages were by the Muslims and Jews, NOT the Christians . .

Scientific advancements from the Muslims and Jews during the Middle Ages? Like what for instance?

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

[Science and religion] offer vastly conflicting explanations of the orgin of the universe and of life itself and which BOTH require faith from the believer.

Is it just me, or does reading this make anyone else tired.
(It could just be that my upstairs neighbors were arguing from 2:30-3:30 this morning, but I doubt it.)

Zoologist03

on May 07, 2008

Scientific advancements from the Muslims and Jews during the Middle Ages? Like what for instance?

"Arab science flourished during this time devising the now-common Arab numerals, increasingly accurate time-keeping devices and astronomical instruments, and providing corrections to Ptolemy's observations. Later, through the close contacts generated by the Crusades, Arab knowledge was carried to Europe."
WWW Link

Time, astronomy, numbers...pretty good developments, I think.

~Zoo

erathoniel

on May 07, 2008

Wait, was religion wrong? The big bang would state that Earth was made in much less time than even 6 days of 24 hours.

Also, the Bible never stated that the Earth was the center of the universe.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

Artysim posts:

God made the world in 7 days Genisis etc. The earth roughly 6,000 years old?
Here's what I absolutely love about this one. God creates the world (or entire universe, depending on one's interpretation) in 7 days....... but at that point a "day" didn't exist yet as a measurement of time because the earth didn't exist yet. So God, the creator of the entire universe, decided to build our planet based on an as yet nonexistent unit of measurement.

Christians believe that there is only one God, the Divine Trinity, the Infinite First Cause who created all that exists, including space, time and matter.

First of all, Genesis 1 is obviously not a detailed scientific textbook and the sacred writers (guided by God the Principal Author) did not intend to teach us about the essential scientific nature of things in the visible universe. However, Genesis, at face value, does though tell us something about the historical sense of mankind and our Origin.

The question of whether the word "yom" for "day" could be interpreted as a 24 hour day or a longer period of time is still left open. As for me, I'm content with the literal understanding on the interpretation of Genesis which I believe is the Word of God Himself through the Holy Spirit. I say this becasue if the days of Creation are really "geologic ages" of millions of years then the Gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, work and suffering, before the Fall of Adam and Eve.

Genesis seems to say that God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, and stars, plants, and animals, and the first two people within 6 ordinary 24 hour days. The word for day in Genesis 1 which is qualified by a number, the phrase, "evening and morning", and for day one the words, "light and darkness", obvioously means an ordinary 24 hour day. I just can't see how anyone who is honest can get the idea of millions of years from that.

Now, let's discuss time....

the very manner and order in which the sacred writer of Genesis 1 relates the Creation serves to bring out the order and mutual relation of things created. God has already created light on the first day, but this light was not the light of the sun. It was on the fourth day that God made the sun, to be the giver of light to the earth. God made light first, becasue without light and without warmth, which is connected with it, there could be no growth, no life, no order in nature.

God made the atmosphere on the 2nd day which divided the waters, becasue neither plants nor animals, nor mankind can live without air. Sound also is impossible without air, so that without it there could have been neither speech or hearing.

On the third day, God made the earth to be dry, and plants to grow on it. But plants to live and thrive require something besides light and air. therefore God had already on the second day caused part of the water to remain in the air to supply the plants with moisture from above most probably by dew.

the fourth day the bodies of light were created and the 5th, the inhabitants of the air and water, the birds and fishes. The sixth day, the inhabitants of dry land, the animals and the first two humans, Adam and Eve.

So time began with the Creation. ONce nothing existed but the Eternal God alone. God is not subject to the changes of time, for with God who is outside of time, always existed of and by Himself.

The sacred writer divides the whole work of Creation as we now see it before our eyes, into 6 days followed by the Sabbath or day of rest in order to impress upon us that man should follow the example of God and work 6 days and rest in God on the 7th. He consequently apportions a work to each day, and by "day", he means what we mean, namely a space of time consisting of 12 hours of work and twelve hours of rest. God Himself doesn't work in time, but He can be llkened to a man who works six days and finishes all his work in one week. Again, as to the real space of time which the formation of the world required, and about which geologists inquire, the sacred writer's narrative says nothing at all.

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

Arab science flourished during this time devising the now-common Arab numerals, increasingly accurate time-keeping devices

I think we found out who made all those watches people are talking about.

The big bang would state that Earth was made in much less time than even 6 days of 24 hours.

Wow, just wow. You really don't understand the big bang theory in the least do you?

Bible never stated that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The bible never states a lot of things explicitly that people take as indisputable truth.

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

The word for day in Genesis 1 which is qualified by a number, the phrase, "evening and morning", and for day one the words, "light and darkness", obviously means an ordinary 24 hour day. I just can't see how anyone who is honest can get the idea of millions of years from that.
...
It was on the fourth day that God made the sun, to be the giver of light to the earth.

Umm, how can you have "evening and morning" without the sun?

Again, as to the real space of time which the formation of the world required, and about which geologists inquire, the sacred writer's narrative says nothing at all.

So are you saying it is a literal account of creation or a symbolic one?

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

Wait, was religion wrong? The big bang would state that Earth was made in much less time than even 6 days of 24 hours.
Also, the Bible never stated that the Earth was the center of the universe.

No, Christianity and Catholicism in particular was/is not wrong.

Remember, just like macro-evolution theory today, Galileo could not PROVE the theory by the Aristotleian standards of science of his day.

His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and proclaimed it as truth although there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. If Galileo had stayed within the realm of science and mathematics and out of the realm of theology, he would have been all right. But he insisted on moving the debate into theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this new science was contrary to certain Scriptural passages, namely Joshua 10:13, And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed..." Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiates 1:5 also speak of celestial motiion and terrestial stability. Galileo wanted to change the reading of these passages and insisted on moving the debate into the theological realm. Galileo's talent as an astronomer and mathematician was not ever questioned. His leap from observing the heavenly b odies to divining the intent of the Creator of the heavens was foolish presumption.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

So are you saying it is a literal account of creation or a symbolic one?

It's definitely a literal account of creation; it's just that there is still some differences as to the interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom" or day, the 24 hour period of time.

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

It's definitely a literal account of creation; it's just that there is still some differences as to the interpretation of the Hebrew word "Yom" or day, the 24 hour period of time.

So until those interpretation issues are resolved, isn't it effectively symbolic anyway.

Zoologist03

on May 07, 2008

The big bang would state that Earth was made in much less time than even 6 days of 24 hours.

Woah...fundamental lack of knowledge about a subject you criticize! Not uncommon for Christian fundamentalists, though.

How about you go read up on it...then see if what you said makes any sense whatsoever.

(Hint: I bet it won't.

)

~Zoo

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!