Not surprisingly I'm at odds with the ethos of this article which makes bad observations as follows:
"How does believing a 300 million year-old rock is only 6,000 years old become dangerous? It is a reflection of where and how we find answers. A 300 million year-old rock is the answer resulting from decades of observation, research, field study, laboratory testing, comparative studies and critical thinking. A 6,000 year old rock is the answer because God said so."
No not quite, God never said that, the bible doesn't say that and many if not most christians do not think that. The point here that IS dangerous is that some people can persuade some other people that they have the right to interpret the bible and ignore other sources of knowledge. Its no more dangerous than anyone else misinterpreting any source data and being persuasive enough to get agreement.
"Is the accurate age of a rock really important? Interesting, yes, but important? Maybe not. But what if the question is about Polio? Should we seek an answer from decades of observation, research and field study, discover a vaccine and destroy a worldwide plague or does the answer lie in God's plan?"
What?? Irrelevant comparison. Christians use medical science as much as anyone else. Extreme sects may not. Some scientists cause scares about eggs, vaccinations or tuna fish. See point above RE misinterpreting source data.
"What if the question is about food? Decades of observation, research and field study have shown us there is only so much arable land that can produce only so many calories of food energy. Currently, we burn 10 calories of oil energy to make 1 calorie of food energy. Our world population of 6 billion people is barely sustainable, let alone the 12 billion projected in another 40 years. Should we answer with conservation or with prayer?"
Again cr*p comparison, christianity doesn't suggest you sit on your butt praying alone or do we forget the puritan work ethic that has permeated the US and catipulted it into world number one spot. Malthus was wrong and so are the ideas of "barely sustainable" population. What's barely sustainable is the rate of consumption (especially western consumption.) Christian teaching is as environmentally friendly as you can get (give, share, work hard, let the land rest, don't be greedy and over consume etc..) Capitalism on the other hand is a big danger to world resources. Population rates while influenced by religion are more influenced by economic and mortality rates as secular europe knows too well.
"What about your right to vote or just your rights in general? Eons of history, research, comparative studies and critical thinking have brought us to the
That answer is the Scientific Method. "
Absolutely - a method signed up to and used by countless christians.
"This honest portrayal of reality is at the heart of the conflict between science and religion. "
No - not at all one deals with how to worship God and the other about the laws that underpin the universe. They are not mutually exclusive viewpoints on the laws of science though just as in the scientific community you may well find individual christians disagreeing with a currently accepted theory. Its constant arguing over fringe points that is the heart of the conflict.
"But here's the cool thing: at least you are a dot. I am a dot, too. This means that, though we are insignificant to the cosmos, we are incredibly significant to each other. "
The central message of christianity. Well done - the best and most redeeming statement made.
"To deny that a rock is 300 million years old is to deny the process that got us to that understanding. Since this process of inquiry is our best tool for succeeding in the world, its denial is a grave threat to our future prosperity. Far from making us stronger, faith cripples us because it takes away our greatest advantage: our ability to question, to learn, to adapt and, therefore, to live."
Clearly not the brightest tool, christianity isn't about ceasing to think, learn, adapt and to live. If this person had actually read the bible they may have realised there are some very good rules regarding behaviour one to another that would indeed make us stronger - love for a start.
300 million year old rock
by startingover 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Qcmbr
-
Satanus
I think that we tend to extrapolate from present trends all the time. Maybe the current right wing fundamentalist trend is a swing of the monkey pendulum because of the present administration. Remember, monkey see, monkey do. If a moderate, more human pres gets in, perhaps the rightist christian fundie crest will subside, and be replaced by more ballanced thinking among the population. The diehards will quiet down and the vacillators who just follow along will just follow along w the new flow of the tide. And so, the pendulum may swing back the other way. Who knows?
S
-
Qcmbr
I agree that some of the right wing political sentiment in the US seems extreme (especially with regard to war and foreign policy) but that's the impression I get from places like this or on the web - I'm not certain whether grass roots politics is so extreme.
-
BluesBrother
Nothing is sacred
Unless it is the conclusion that God does not exist and religion is bunk. That view is defended by atheists with the same fervour that fundamental Christians have when defending their views.
The reasoning that a Christian would discount medical research because he disputes geological dating, is a "straw man " argument and not founded on truth
Lets be open minded. As somebody said , the Bible does not say that the rocks are 6000 years old. The geologist could change his mind tomorrow and change the date. So can we be really certain?