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 6)

SanChonino

on May 12, 2008

I shall not respond to any more of your "off the wall" comments such as these latest ones.

Only because you're afraid of the truth I speak.

I've put doubts in your mind.

Yay. That's what I wanted.

SetarcosNous

on May 12, 2008

I've put doubts in your mind.

Most likely yeah. People like lulu seem to have this built in "defence" mechanism. Whenever someone actually starts cracking shell of circular logic hidden beneath their beliefs they leave the discussion while they go find some spackle(they call it "faith") to seal themselves back in.

For the record, I don't mind people believing in stuff with no logical basis for doing so, as long as they are honest with themselves and others about that fact...and don't try forcing those beliefs to be treated as equal to objectively verifiable facts and/or reasonable inductions.

erathoniel

on May 12, 2008

That's the exact reason I don't believe in Macro-Evolution, Setarcos.

The beliefs being used as objective evidence.

SetarcosNous

on May 12, 2008

That's the exact reason I don't believe in Macro-Evolution, Setarcos.
The beliefs being used as objective evidence.

*sigh*

Scotteh

on May 13, 2008

erathoniel

comment 78

That's the exact reason I don't believe in Macro-Evolution, Setarcos.The beliefs being used as objective evidence.

Your note required to _believe_ in Macro-Evolution. It's a proven scientific theory.

Before you go on to say otherwise, let me ask you whether or not you 'believe' (heh) in Micro-Evolution? If the answer to that is yes, then you must, as a consquence of time and micro-evolution, 'believe' in Macro-Evolution.

If you refute Micro-Evolution (which is observed very easily, in the space of a few days in the cases of some species as thats how long it takes for a generations to come and go), then we have entered the realm of you ignoring scientific facts and as such any reasonable debate stops here.

lulapilgrim

on May 13, 2008

Micro evolution and macro evolution are completely two different things

Micro E. is change or variation within "kind" or species...Micro E. is a fact of science and is not what is in question in the Origins debate.

Macro Evolution is the unproven idea that one kind or species evolved into a completly different one..as in reptile into a bird...or ape into a human.

Scotteh

on May 14, 2008

lulapilgrim wrote:

Let's use the example of the fruit fly experiemnt that you've mentioned yourself in other topics (i think it was you, i've debated this with several people over the past few days so forgive me if it wasn't). Information of which you can find out about Here.

Thomas Hunt Morgan (who carried out the experiment) was a revolutionary and I admire his work fully, he observed mutations (the most obvious being the flies getting different coloured eyes). This concludes that micro evolution is a fact.

This is usually happens in nature after micro evolution has reached the scale where the species in question has now split to the point were the number of copies of chromosomes is different and as such they are unable to mate. At this point the two branches of species only mate with themselves and the genetic differences of the two become more and more observable over time until we (eventually) have a new type of species.

That’s my understanding of it. We could find out that Darwin was wrong and I’d be just as excited about the prospect as anyone. I’m no Darwinionite, the very notion of standing behind a cause so staunchly and refuting others straight off sort of reminds me too much of religion and as such I try to distance myself from it.

I do believe however that it is the most plausible answer so far (and as such should be teached in schools), just like our current understanding of gravity is plausible (but we know for sure it isn’t 100% correct!), yet should we not teach it in schools?

Leauki

on May 14, 2008

Truth is the proof that evolutionists need is REAL evidence of species change not similiarity of chromosomal structure or function.

Goodness, haven't we passed this stage already a few times?

As was mentioned many times before, the evolution of one species into two can be observed in the lab. I believe they usually use fruitflies.

The theory of evolution says that what works in the lab explains what happened in the real world as well. There is no reason to assume that fruitflies (or any animal) stop reproducing just before two populations stop being compatible enough to interbreed (definition of species).

There can never be "proof" for a theory because that's not how the real world works. Empirically, every single change we observe could be explained by evolution, but perhaps there was one event where a new speciec was created in a different way. We cannot disprove that. And doing so is not what science is about.

Now, Creationism and ID claim that some creator created all the species. That claim may or may not be as valid as the claim of evolution.

But there is no evidence for a creator in the real world and there have been no lab experiments that demonstrate how "creation" or "intelligent design" work.

So until ID proponents can create two different species in a lab, it's not a scientific theory to state that ID explains how it happened in the real world.

Let's use a different example, with a real world and a lab. We are trying to find an explanation (a "theory", if you will) for the facts we observe.

Our fact: In our real world in this thought experiment we observe that the smurfs are born in the basement of the house (there is only this one house in our thought experiment real world) but that some of them live in the first and second floors of the building.

Two explanations for how they get from the basement to floors 1 and 2 come to mind:

1. They use the stairs.

2. They are moved from the basement to the first and second floors by a creator or some such person.

Our lab: We have a much smaller building with mini-smurfs (mini-smurfs are very very small smurfs) that we observe. It has a basement and an upper floor and stairs.

What we observe in the lab: Mini-smurfs use the stairs to get from the basement to the first floor without our doing.

What we don't observe: A creator takes mini-smurfs and moves them around without our doing.

Our theory: In the real world smurfs ALSO use the stairs to get from the basement to other floors.

We cannot prove it. Perhaps they do. It seems likely that they do. Perhaps they use the stairs so rarely that we cannot observe it in our short lifetimes.

The point is that the _theory_ explains HOW it might work and we have evidence (the stairs) and can demonstrate in the lab that the method DOES work.

That's the difference between a scientific theory and a fairy tale.

Plus we don't have to have an explanation for why the creator exists or moves smurfs around.

Leauki

on May 14, 2008

I have said it before, and I'll say it again.

There is NO evidence at all that G-d is running around the world stopping fruitflies from reproducing just before two fruitfly populations become two species of fruitflies.

SetarcosNous

on May 14, 2008

Let's use a different example, with a real world and a lab. We are trying to find an explanation (a "theory", if you will) for the facts we observe.

Our fact: In our real world in this thought experiment we observe that the smurfs are born in the basement of the house (there is only this one house in our thought experiment real world) but that some of them live in the first and second floors of the building.

Two explanations for how they get from the basement to floors 1 and 2 come to mind:

1. They use the stairs.

2. They are moved from the basement to the first and second floors by a creator or some such person.

Our lab: We have a much smaller building with mini-smurfs (mini-smurfs are very very small smurfs) that we observe. It has a basement and an upper floor and stairs.

What we observe in the lab: Mini-smurfs use the stairs to get from the basement to the first floor without our doing.

What we don't observe: A creator takes mini-smurfs and moves them around without our doing.

Our theory: In the real world smurfs ALSO use the stairs to get from the basement to other floors.

We cannot prove it. Perhaps they do. It seems likely that they do. Perhaps they use the stairs so rarely that we cannot observe it in our short lifetimes.

The point is that the _theory_ explains HOW it might work and we have evidence (the stairs) and can demonstrate in the lab that the method DOES work.

That's the difference between a scientific theory and a fairy tale.

Plus we don't have to have an explanation for why the creator exists or moves smurfs around.

I'm almost tempted to save this in a text file.

Leauki

on May 14, 2008

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.

That paragraph, and that paragraph alone in the whole comment, I totally and absolutely agree with.

Leauki

on May 14, 2008

I'm almost tempted to save this in a text file.

I often find myself writing things that people then tell me are worth quoting or saving. It's a good feeling.

lulapilgrim

on May 14, 2008

One of the major contributing factors of natural selection being sexual selection. You take one of your laboratory flies and see if it mates with a normal fruit fly. It can’t, it won’t, their incompatible like me and a pink pokadotted elephant, despite me wanting to mate with it, at the genetic level it just isn't going to work!
This is usually happens in nature after micro evolution has reached the scale where the species in question has now split to the point were the number of copies of chromosomes is different and as such they are unable to mate. At this point the two branches of species only mate with themselves and the genetic differences of the two become more and more observable over time until we (eventually) have a new type of species.

Micro evolution is small change within species..these experiments with fruit flies didn't produce a different species...in the end the basic kind remained....it was still a fruit fly.

lulapilgrim

on May 14, 2008

There is NO evidence at all that G-d is running around the world stopping fruitflies from reproducing just before two fruitfly populations become two species of fruitflies.

The evidence is the DNA itself (which imo only God could design)..which has its own inherent speificiations that ensures that the basic kind of fruit fly remains unique. It prevents new, higher species from arising because its DNA resists extreme changes with a tendency to revert back toward the basic type. In short harmful mutations are overcome by healthy ones.

This fact puts Evolution Theory up against immense odds and vast periods of time are of no help. For starters mutations occur rarely in nature and in order to be inheritable must occur in the genes of the germ cells which are very well protected. The mathematical problem arises for a series of related mutations to occur. The odds of getting 2 mutations is the product of separate probablilities of something like 10 to the 14th power. If that happened it would still be just another fruit fly with some variation...which is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organisim.

Leauki

on May 15, 2008

The evidence is the DNA itself (which imo only God could design)..which has its own inherent specificiations that ensures that the basic kind of fruit fly remains unique. It prevents new, higher species from arising because its DNA resists extreme changes with a tendency to revert back toward the basic type.

And you have observed that where exactly?

The fact is that fruitfly populations indeed grow into different species.

If that happened it would still be just another fruit fly with some variation...which is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organisim.

It is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. But it is a different species of fruitfly.

I don't know your definition of "some new kind of organism", but give the fruitflies time.

A frog changes from one organism into a completely new kind of organism within his lifetime. How can you claim that something like that cannot happen over an even longer period of time?

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!