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 3)

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

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

Not for those who believe the biblical testimony of Creation in Genesis 1 or in the historical geology sense. The reason for this is Christians know that since Almighty God is the Principal Author of both Sacred Scripture and the Creator of the Universe and all that's in it, including space, time and matter, they can't contradict one another. It concerns faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. With that I can easily begin a particular hypothesis about our Origin with something more than a hunch.

Zoologist03

on May 07, 2008

in the historical geology sense.

If only you understood basic historical geology...then you wouldn't be arguing.

Our history is right there in the earth for all to see. Pick up a textbook some time...you'd be surprised at how much we do know. Being willfully ignorant of geology and biology and then criticizing them is laughable. You're supposed to learn about your subject before you pick it apart...this isn't amateur Bible discussion or philosophy or literature class- it's hard science and factual data. You must KNOW things...not think you know things in order to discuss or criticize them.

A work of fiction can be interpreted many different ways, religious texts can be interpreted in many different ways, abstract ideas can be interpreted many different ways...science and math are interpreted in only one way. If I say 2+2=5 I'd damn well better have evidence to back it up...I can't just "believe" it to be true.

~Zoo

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

It requires belief in a book before belief in a creator though.

Artysim

on May 07, 2008

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.

Fair enough. But if that is true then that must be how God created all planets....we have been able to verify that there are hundreds of extra-solar planets jupiter sized or bigger... earth sized planets in other solar systems are still too small and far away with present methods to accurately locate, but with more telescope arrays in space that may be overcome soon.

Anywho. If we have been able to prove that there are hundreds of big planets in our area of the galactic neighbourhood (this just in the last fifteen years or so, as time goes on we're going to find a LOT more), then it's a pretty safe bet that there are plenty of smaller, earth sized planets we just can't detect yet out there too. I have no problem or issue with the existence of God or a universal creator.... I take issue with the idea that he would essentially break the laws of physics to create a planet from scratch with functioning ecosystem in 6 days. That's like saying that God got bored so he decided to flip the gravity switch to "off" one day to see what would happen.

I do agree with you that Genesis isn't meant to be a technical manual. But if that's the case, then it also can't be taken literally, because when taken literally it means that God broke his own rules to create our solar system. That would then mean that he would have to break his rules to create other sentient species too?

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

What if Religion had admitted it was wrong?

Hmm, actually, would it still be religion? I mean most religions center around supposedly eternal, absolute, "objective", "perfect" truths. Admitting they were wrong would run counter to this.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

Our history is right there in the earth for all to see. ... Being willfully ignorant of geology and biology and then criticizing them is laughable. You're supposed to learn about your subject before you pick it apart...this isn't amateur Bible discussion or philosophy or literature class- it's hard science and factual data. You must KNOW things...not think you know things in order to discuss or criticize them.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

Our history is right there in the earth for all to see. ... Being willfully ignorant of geology and biology and then criticizing them is laughable. You're supposed to learn about your subject before you pick it apart...this isn't amateur Bible discussion or philosophy or literature class- it's hard science and factual data. You must KNOW things...not think you know things in order to discuss or criticize them.

lET'S BE HONEST, To date, NO MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED AS FACTUAL.

Here, if it's as you say and our history is right out there for all to see, please give the hard science and factual data the explains what we've been talking about ---namely, the origin of the world, the generation of living cells from non-living cells and in particular how man came to be. What was the species man was before he was a man for example and where is the fossil evidence of such a creature?

Give the hard science and factual data that validates one species changing into a completely different one.

I have shown our origins on a theological historical premise that involve creative actions only possible to the Creator.

How do Evolutionists factually show how the laws of nature come into operation?

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

It requires belief in a book before belief in a creator though.

Not really. Belief in the Creator God came by way of oral traditions passed down by Jewish people that would date back to Abraham and Moses. I think starting around 900 BC. and extending over a long period of time these traditions were put into writings which would form the first five books of the Old Testament. The Church which was formed in 33AD and belief in the Creator God came by way of oral teaching up until the time of the printing press by Gutenberg, a Catholic I might add.

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

What was the species man was before he was a man for example and where is the fossil evidence of such a creature?

And if the fossil was found, would you accept it as such or claim it "was not human" or just a "short hunched over human"? What kind of fossil would be evidence to you?

the origin of the world, the generation of living cells from non-living cells

You do realize these have little to nothing to do with evolutionary theory, don't you? I am sure it has been pointed out more than once to you by now.

How do Evolutionists factually show how the laws of nature come into operation?

They don't, physicists might hypothesize but AFAIK the origins of the "laws of nature" are not clear at this time and no one is saying they are, at best they are stating likely hypothesis. Biologists and geologists don't generally occupy their time and resources on advanced theoretical physics topics.

SetarcosNous

on May 07, 2008

It requires belief in a book before belief in a creator though.
Not really. Belief in the Creator God came by way of oral traditions passed down by Jewish people that would date back to Abraham and Moses. I think starting around 900 BC. and extending over a long period of time these traditions were put into writings which would form the first five books of the Old Testament. The Church which was formed in 33AD and belief in the Creator God came by way of oral teaching up until the time of the printing press by Gutenberg, a Catholic I might add.

Fair enough, but it still requires belief in, not objectively verifiable, information one was told. I myself don't base my life on "word of mouth".

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

And if the fossil was found, would you accept it as such or claim it "was not human" or just a "short hunched over human"? What kind of fossil would be evidence to you?

It happens that all the fossils that have been found so far are either 100% human DNA or 100% ape DNA. there are no in-betweens progressive forms that have been found...which is kinda strange as it has taken millions of years and you'd think the earth would be littered with in-between forms say from fishes to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. So, if macro-evolution occurred then a fossil that confirms postulated evolutionary sequences would have molecular genetics from both forms...say part human and part ape DNA.

the closer one looks at the evidence of macro=Evolution the less one finds of substance. Evolution theory just keeps postulating evidence and failing to find it, and moves on to other postulates....such as fossil missing links, natural selection of improved new forms, postiive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences are not true science but pseudo science that's getting bandied about particularly in school textbooks as true science.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

the origin of the world, the generation of living cells from non-living cells

You do realize these have little to nothing to do with evolutionary theory, don't you? I am sure it has been pointed out more than once to you by now.

What do you mean these have nothing to do with evolutionary theory? Of course ET has given us their version of the origin of the universe, the world, and how living cells came about.

Evolution theory essentially is a set of ideas promoting the Godless view that all present species upon earth have emerged from a very simple common ancestor. There are many conflicting stories of ET out there. As older theories run into conceptual problems, newer versions emerge their proponents hoping to find the elusive mechanism for macro-evolution. It started with spontaneous generation that life arose from non-life and went on for a couple hundred years until Pasteur showed beyond a doubt that only life begets life.

The universe is thought to have begun by some big explosion somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years ago and according to this theory, some molecular soup chemicals somehow came together by chance and the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Evolutionists somehow believe living cells began to emerge and then life began slowly to diversify.

According to Time-Life textbooks, with this one has to believe not only did chemical evolution give rise to biological evolution, but also random disorder gave rise to order of higher complexity.

lulapilgrim

on May 07, 2008

I myself don't base my life on "word of mouth".

Really? So, if your neighbor's house down the street was burning and someone came to your door for help and told you of the incident, you wouldn't believe it on "word of mouth"?

that's what oral tradition is you know, word of mouth...

or how about your great grandparents telling a tale that has come down through the family...is that not word of mouth?

Zoologist03

on May 07, 2008

You do realize these have little to nothing to do with evolutionary theory, don't you? I am sure it has been pointed out more than once to you by now.

*sigh* It has by me. I wrote an article on it, actually.

As for the hard science behind evolutionary theory? I've given you tons over the last few months...even several examples of transitional organisms and yet you still profess that there are none. I don't know exactly what I have to produce that I haven't already.

As for DNA evidence between ape and man...there's an extra chromosome in apes, we have one less. If you take a look at one of our chromosomes (the second, I believe) you'll see that it's actually 2 fused together(there's an end piece code in the middle). Logic would dictate that somewhere along the line a pair of chromosomes joined and we sprung forth from that.

But you go ahead and shoot down science which you don't understand in favor of a book that cannot be tested...that's a rational decision. Belief in God is one thing, but willful ignorance and rejection of the way the world works is quite another. I'd be ashamed to meet God and have to tell Him I doubted His power. You think evolution is too complicated for God to set up? That He didn't hang out in the universe for awhile before whipping up earth? He is eternal, I don't see why an old earth is such a stretch...but whatever.

I'm going to go back to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage. That and He's a pretty reasonable god.

~Zoo

lulapilgrim

on May 08, 2008

ZOO POSTS:

Our history is right there in the earth for all to see. ... Being willfully ignorant of geology and biology and then criticizing them is laughable. You're supposed to learn about your subject before you pick it apart...this isn't amateur Bible discussion or philosophy or literature class- it's hard science and factual data. You must KNOW things...not think you know things in order to discuss or criticize them.

[quote]As for DNA evidence between ape and man...there's an extra chromosome in apes, we have one less. If you take a look at one of our chromosomes (the second, I believe) you'll see that it's actually 2 fused together(there's an end piece code in the middle). Logic would dictate that somewhere along the line a pair of chromosomes joined and we sprung forth from that.[/quote]

First of all, Zoo, have you noticed that you have gone from saying evolution history is right there in the earth for all to see and it's hard science and factual data and here you saying that "logic would dictate" that similiarities in chromosomes shows we evolved from apes? What can I say? If you think this proves you evolved from apes, then have at it. I know differently.

Truth is the proof that evolutionists need is REAL evidence of species change not similiarity of chromosomal structure or function. Lacking that evidence the attempt to prove the point is shallow at best. the problem is that macro evolution is not occurring now and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.

In spite of efforts to see similiarities in structures of various animals, the DNA problem continues to defy the evolutionists. It's important to understand that the genes themselves are very different in mankind from those found in apes. While the genetic instructions can be almost identical, it's the order in which they are expressed that makes all the difference in the world.

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!