Intelligent Design can’t be Taught in Science Classes

Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University:
By Ann Landers.
He had only one major publication.
It was in Hebrew.
It had no references.
It wasn’t published in a reference journal.
Some doubt He wrote it Himself.
He may have created the world, but what has he done since?
The scientific community can’t replicate his results.
He never got permission to use human subjects.
When one experiment went awry, He tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.
He rarely came to class and just told students to “Read the Book.”
He had his son teach the class.
He expelled his first two students.
His office hours were irregular and sometimes held on a mountain top.
Although there were only 10 requirements, most students failed.

On Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005, President George W. Bush declared that Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes as a competing theory to evolution.

There is little problem with teaching the theory of Intelligent Design in a Humanities or Philosophy course. But any person arguing that intelligent design (or creationism for that matter) should be taught in a science class has a gross misunderstanding of what science is, how it functions, and the difference between science and religion.

The basic definition of science is quite simple: it is the systematic acquiring of knowledge using the “Scientific Method” – a framework governing what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is acquired. The Scientific Method was first practiced by Galileo, who, coincidentally, was also the first to discover that religion did not always appreciate new discoveries.

Far from perfect, Science cannot prove anything. It can only determine facts to varying degrees of certainty, but not beyond all doubt (which is one reason why a court of law requires only proof beyond a “reasonable” doubt).

Science is also amoral. While there are standards of ethics within the scientific community, the process of science is independent of ethics. It is no harder or easier to make life saving insulin than it is to make deadly VX nerve gas. The ethical ramifications of a given scientific theory have no impact on its validity or accuracy. When Einstein objected to his work being used to create nuclear weapons, his objections weren’t on scientific grounds, but ethical ones.

Ethics (i.e. what constitutes good and moral behavior) is the primary purview of religion. Society, by definition, cannot exist without some system of ethics. For this reason, religion has played a large, if not integral, part in the shaping of nearly every society since the dawn of civilization, from the Greeks and Romans, to the United States (which, despite an “official” separation of church and state, is still greatly influenced by religion).

Religious knowledge is based, not on the Scientific Method, but on faith. Knowledge is gained by reviewing and re-interpreting existing religious texts. The validity of these texts is a matter of faith, as is the existence of, and connection of the ordained to, God.

Faith can only exist in the absence of proof. If there were proof, you wouldn’t need or have faith. Were God to announce his existence to the world on CNN, faith in his existence would be non-sequiter.

Both systems, religion and Science, serve critically important functions to both the society and the individual. Neither system plays or works well with the other.

Intelligent Design cannot be taught in science class is because, even if it’s true (and it may well be), the truth of it can not be determined by applying the Scientific Method. This makes the theory unscientific by definition.

Because science cannot prove anything, being able to disprove becomes extremely important. One of the requirements of the Scientific Method is that one can imagine the conditions under which a theory would be disproved. A scientific theory becomes scientific law only after all reasonable efforts to disprove the theory have failed.

But what, exactly, are the conditions required to disprove Intelligent Design? Or to disprove God, for that matter? The theory that “God exists” can only be scientific if one attaches to it conditions under which it could be disproved. About the only way to disprove the existence of God would be if God came down here Himself and claimed that He does not exist… and that would pose its own set of logical conundrums.

It isn’t fair to exclude a theory because it’s different. But Science has no part in fairness or ethics. Science does not include or exclude by preference or morality, but by the application of the Scientific Method, nothing more or less. That framework is as incompatible with faith, as faith is with proof. Period.

Given both that Intelligent Design may be true, and that it can not fit within the framework of Science, we have a problem. This means that Science, which, at it’s core, is the search for knowledge, can not cope with a theory which may be true. Does this mean that the Scientific Method is imperfect?

Absolutely! That is one of the reasons why every few years, new knowledge comes up which requires us to reconsider old Scientific knowledge.

However, all disciplines are imperfect- Science, Mathematics, Art, Grammar, and History. All have exceptions which can not be applied to the discipline within its framework. If we decided to invalidate a discipline based on these imperfections, no disciplines would exist. We as humans use a limited perspective and a limited mind to try to understand an infinitely large universe. No framework we invent can possibly work perfectly under all conditions.

Religion too, is imperfect. It was religious knowledge that claimed the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around us. Religious knowledge justified King Richard the Lionhearted’s slaughter of Arabs and sanctioned the work of Torquemada and the Inquisition. It was religious knowledge that allowed nineteen men to crash planes into the world trade center. Had those men not firmly believed that dying while killing infidels would grant them passage to Heaven, flying into a building might have struck them as a bad idea.

Despite its imperfections (and there are many) the Scientific Method has met with phenomenal success. It discovered antibiotics, pasteurization, and sterilization (which helped reduce the infant mortality rate from 30% in the 19th century, to 0.7% in 2002). It discovered insulin, a substance which saves 18 Million lives in the US alone. It made products like steel and electricity, products which make our homes safer, keep us cool in summer and warm in winter, and helps us wash our cloths. Practical application of the Scientific Method is why the average life expectancy is 81 years, more than twice what it has been at any time in history. The Scientific Method put a man on the moon.

But Science can no more teach outside the tenets of the Scientific Method than religion can teach outside the tenets of faith. Asking Science to teach a theory which is unscientific is exactly like asking religion to stop teaching an ethic because it can not be proven. You are asking, not for a compromise, but for that discipline to contradict its most basic tenets , the tenets which define it.

It is for that reason alone that scientific theories, no matter how controversial, belong in science class, and unscientific theories, no matter how popular, do not.

173
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
17 Comment threads
156 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
The Atheist CodexKlaus KnauerJames GardnerMichal DutkiewiczRebecca Culling Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Has Saint Dawkins been consulted on this

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Just another pathetic religion of weak minds

Michal Dutkiewicz
Commenter

Christianity is indeed for weak minds, Klaus – We agree on something.

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

All religion, and we can put atheism into that category, is for weak minds.

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Atheism is not a religion, only an incredibly stupid person could make such a statement.

I dont believe in the democrats doesn’t make me a republican. “I don’t believe in god” or “I’m an atheist” makes no faith statement aboit what I do believe in or what guides my actions.

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

David Stuart Hillman, atheism is an ideology that has dogmas, and cannons, making a religion. Just the simple fact that your belief system dictates that there is no God, makes it an ideology. There for you have a faith………..

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Lol you dont even realize that you are part of a religion

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Also the fact that you use a religious glygh to identify yourself by, speaks volumes

Michal Dutkiewicz
Commenter

What dogmas and canons, Klauless?

Michal Dutkiewicz
Commenter

I have heard these accusations before from staunchly religious types.

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

set believes cause laziness so how do you atheist differ. Your just the other side of the god question. Just more mindless nonsense

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Pathetic

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

Ya lets teach a theory

Michal Dutkiewicz
Commenter

You misunderstand the word “theory”.

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

Oh ok,like misunderstanding the word,fact?

Jay Lindsey
Commenter

Religion sounds confusing till we see God is a vain and jealous woman and Jesus is a rich Jew! Everybody knows men could not run the world and if Jesus was poor it is a lousy religion!

Robert Martinson
Commenter

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
― David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Jason Church
Commenter

You can’t explain x therefore God? Could you tell me where what is good and right and moral comes from. I’m tempted to assume u mean the God of the Bible but let’s see

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Of course nobody has provided proof of non-existance – for anything including god. Proof of non-existance is an impossibility.

Good and right and moral we do have some idea…

Characteristics seen as good in individuals and characteristics seen as bad in individuals was assumed to have an underlaying universal cause and hence the concept of good and evil was invented.

Human characteristics of empathy and self-preservation naturally produce morality because we feel each others pain and know that by infringing on others we risk our lives and liberty. To think this divine seems awefully silly when its so obvious it doesn’t require a diety.

Even if you prove a deity ethe Eurthyphro dilema pretty solidily indicates god would be independant of morality.

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Fine tuned… this is amazing! 99.9999% of the known universe inhospitable to life and one small example known and the environment is “fine tuned” I’d hate to see what a hostile environment looked like.

Jim Roberts
Commenter

Trying to reason with creationists is like trying to talk reason to a dog, worm, slug or anything with less than normal human intelligence.

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

Trying to talk to someone who believes in evolution is like talking to a rock. They throw a theory at ya and say its fact.

Jim Roberts
Commenter

Sort of like someone who actually believes shit like talking snakes, virgin birth and other really retarded garbage?

Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter

evolution is a fact! you have no clue what scientific theory is, to you theory is just and idea to science its fact,how about the theory of gravity,would you please prove that theory wrong, like jumping off a 10 story building and then coming back and tell us all how its just a theory,and if you can prove your god exists where is your Nobel prize

Nick
Admin

Joslyn Mayer Podolski lol… who is this directed at?

Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter

henry and his idea on scientific theory

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

Its not fact Joslyn Mayer Podolski.its a theory.it would be called the fact of evolution but it is not.

Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter

you know what would be great if just maybe you jesus freaks would actually do some real research before opening your mouth, because apparently you still don’t understand what scientific theory is until you get that FACT,this conversation is pointless.just because you don’t understand something that is not a reason for a god,the answer to questions has never been magic,grow up!

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

If it is not a fact then throw yourself out of a window because the theory of gravity is just an opinion. Also good to hear nobody died at Horishima because the theory of relativity and good that I don’t have to worry abput getting ill because germ theory is only a theory.

Scientific theory = proven fact.

Laymans use of “theory” = hypothesis.

Scientists would say hypothesis if thats what they meant.

John Beacham
Commenter

Of course intelligent design can not be taught in a science class but that does not prove it does not exist. The theoery of relativity could not be taught in class once, not until Albert Einstien proved it. The history of Science is full of discoveries and theories some proven and some discarded. The theory of evolution was not regarded as science once. To me Evolution and Intelligent Design are compatable evolution means that life adapts slowly to change so that the quality to recognise that change must be programmed in which means some one must have designed the program. It is the same with computer programs and robots the orinal creators are human even if these devices will eventually program themselves.

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Bbbbooooorrrriiiiinnnnggggg

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Yes it does, I have been listening to same argument for the last 50 years. PLZ COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

I don’t care if God is real or not, I am sick of you atheists not admitting your no as bad as your counter parts. Atheists are as pathetic as the rest

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Your just another religion

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

I dont care about what some story from 3000 years ago

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

Your religion is based on proving there is “no” god, I could care less either way. I think tour religion is as pathetic as the rest, nothing real to offer.

Klaus Knauer
Commenter

As long s you keep directing me to some sort of documentation indicates that there is so sort cannon, belief system, shows that you are just another religion

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

So is macro evolution one thing changing into another?

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

There isn’t really a distinction between micro evolution and macro but some imagine one is little changes and the other is big changes. In truth the big changes are just an accumulation of small changes.

Guy Plowman
Commenter

Micro evolution is variation of manifestation within an existing gene pool. Macro evolution is mutations creating new gene pools.

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

What consitutes a new gene pool? Simply a big enough accumulation of variations surely?

We like to catagorise and make distinctions but I maintain the difference is one of interpretation rather than hard and fast difference.

Stephen Leeder
Commenter

It is best if each of science and religion keep to their own place. Science has essentially nothing to say about how people try to interpret their inner world and make sense of existence. Neither shoul religion have anything to say about the scientific method – we have 2 quite different things. Philip Gosse tried to refute the new Darwinian thought and failed. Likewise many others of which intelligent design will go the way of all the rest. True religion/spirituality is not affected by science. Let them coexist instead of trying to keep hold of a fundamentalist/literalist view based on ancient writings.

Jason Church
Commenter

I don’t think one should try to limit science that way. It may be that some questions can’t easily be answered by science, maybe even impossible, but then it seems to me any other answers are suspect except possibly for the answer ‘I don’t know’.

Jim Roberts
Commenter

Creationism is the antithesis of reason and science. Keep that silliness in your churches, madrassas or wherever you gather to pray to the made up gODD that simple people are fond of pawning off on the rest of us that have grown up.

Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter
Daron McClain
Commenter
Henry Schmidt
Commenter

Well Warren Kincaid science and God go together like peanut butter and jam but they don’t see that.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

They actually mix better than that. But insisting that peanut butter and jam is just inedible never gets a person closer to understanding how good they taste. They have to be consumed in order to know.

Michal Dutkiewicz
Commenter

Science and God are not like to Peanuts and fruit conserves.

Warren Kincaid
Commenter

We work within the total reality God has provided. You. me, science, everybody. The only reason we can relate, function, and have something to function with is because He has made it so. If there is evidence of anything at all, He is at the root of it.

Ken Gill
Commenter

If God created everything, why would he create smart people that can easily disprove his existence. I was only 12 when I started asking questions about the Bible stories that made no sense. And the question I asked stumped my Sunday school teachers, which spurred more independent thinking.

Rodger Null
Commenter

You are starting with an assumption, and then go on to your argument. I do not accept that assumption. So unless you can give valid reasons for that assumption your argument is meaningless. You should probably check this out before answering: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

Alan Busnelli
Commenter

Let’s not assume it’s true,since it isn’t.

Calvin Church
Commenter

Along with evolution? Since that is even farther from true

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

We will all find out in the end.i will stick with God rather than believe we just happened.Now that takes faith.

Al Dunbar
Commenter

We will only find out in the end if you are right. If there is no afterlife to arrive in to find out there is one, we will simply go from a state of the existence of consciousness to a state in which there is no living body to support any conscious thought.

Jeff Harris
Commenter

Which of the thousands of gods?

Henry Schmidt
Commenter

Well i have 1

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

All very well, but don’t forget it was atheism which was responsible for the slaughter of ‘degenerative’ races in the concentration camps and gulags during WW2. An absence of religion does not always mean an absence of atrocities such as them.

Jean-Louis Troch
Commenter

Wong statuent Hitler was a Christian

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

So everyone likes to say. But the fact is, he believed Jews are a generative race and it was therefore only natural to eliminate them, as well as other ‘undesirables’.

John Termaten
Commenter

Rebecca Culling You should really learn some history and find out the rise of Nazism. You also will learn that Catholic priest were blessing all the soldiers and weapons. You learn also that there has been no killing done in the name of atheism but many killing throughout history in the name of a god. Calling Jews a generative race has nothing to do with atheism but all to do with racism. Your claim reeks of ignorance.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Wrong. I have read a lot about by this kind of thing from both atheist and Christian viewpoints. There is no doubt modern genocides are based very much on atheistic ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas. I am not denying that many past atrocities have been committed in the name of religion but one has to look at it in the context of the time, when life was often ‘nasty, brutish and short’ anyway. The concentration camps and gulags happened in a much more modern and logical era. The fact is, you can never have ‘paradise on earth’ however much one wants it.

Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter
Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter
Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter
Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Yes yes, I’ve seen all this before. That is how he managed to take in so many people, including every national newspaper in Britain apart from the Daily Mirror. (Including even yourself!) No-one knew until the very end how wicked he really was. Do not forget, many Christians did all they could to help and shelter Jews during the War. Hitler’s spurious claims to be a Christian are completely against what the Bible actually says: “in Christ all are equal. There is no Jew, Gentile male, female,etc”. The fact that he also advocated killing disabled children is surely proof that he followed ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas far more than any Christian, or any religious, ones.

Andrew Henderson
Commenter

The fact that Hitler and stalin held atheist views is as important as there love of tea or blue pullovers. Atheism is not a belief system …my morals come from my biology and dont require a book …

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

The trouble with atheism is that it can be very difficult to have an absolute standard of right and wrong. Which is how those two evil men and all they stood for, flourished for all those years.

Jason Church
Commenter

The trouble with Christianity is it can be very difficult to decide if one should stone one’s child for various crimes….

Jason Church
Commenter

Atheism is primarily a view of not being convinced, it doesn’t have a system beyond that. Other ideologies are involved in how we get along

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Well, I’ve never felt the need to stone either of mine! Jesus himself saved a woman who was going to be stoned for adultery.

Joslyn Mayer Podolski
Commenter

this is what most atheists are concerned about,this is why we speak out when its comes to fairy tales, and the ridiculous people who try to run others life from an archaic book that has no place in society today

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Well, that’s your privilege.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

And opinion.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

But after reading it properly, this is not my reality regarding my own faith. Maybe you should read more literature from a Christian perspective. After all, I have read plenty myself from an atheist one, including God Is Not Great and The God Delusion.

Jason Church
Commenter

Rebecca Culling my stoning comment was a snarky reaction to the trouble with atheist comment. I’m glad to hear you don’t take the old testament too seriously.

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Atheism was not responsible for the Gulags. Socialism was.

How predictable that someone always has to suggest the athiest atrocity fallacy…

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

No different from anyone doing the same regarding religions, including Christianity.

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Can you not distinguish that an atheist can do something terrible independent from that fact he is an atheist? A Christian can perform a bad act independent of him being Christian (I would not claim that the catholic priests who abused children did that because they were catholic) but a non-belief offers no motivation to act in any particular way, whereas a belief or ideology can motivate an act. Here’s a Solzhenitsyn quote “The imaginations and the spiritual strength of Shakespeares evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no Ideology. Ideology – That’s what gives evildoing its long sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which makes his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and other’s eyes…” We can apply that to the Christians burned in London for owning copies of the bible in English… we can apply it to Muslims performing Jihad, genital mutilations, honour killings… we can apply it to wars declared “in the name of god” seldom is a life taken “because there is no god!” I won’t say impossible that a deranged mind could not do it but it is not a logical behaviour, and an atheist must justify action with logic because it is all he has absent any religious ideology. (It could perhaps be filled with a political ideology… Read more »

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

There is no doubt that atheism is responsible for the majority of modern genocides like the Great Terror during the French Revolution, the gulags, and, of course, Hitler’s concentration camps. And also his slaughter of disabled children. It IS a motivation to do evil: survival of the fittest, degenerative races, etc. If that is not an ideology, then what is it?

Andrew Henderson
Commenter

Yeah that could have been there love of knitted sweaters…i know where i get my morals from and its not from a book…

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Rebecca, we already covered that. Socialism was tesponsible for the Gulags and the French revolution and absolutely zero to do with racist politics in Germany. You can read can’t you?

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Survival of the fittest is an effect of competition to survive in nature amongst animals. It is not an athiest ideal but an observation that under environmental pressure the best suited are more likely to pass on their genes. Not a motivation to act at all but simply an understanding of the animal kingdom.

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Eloquantly put, though they did hijack some athiestic text like Nietzsche and Darwin – it has to be understood that they recruited every arguement they could find. It wasn’t motivation for them but seeking justification through twisting secular reasoning.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Has it ever occurred to atheists that religions might have actually stopped, not started, an awful lot of murderers and crimes? Yes, David, I can read. But I stand by my original observation that both socialism and facism are a hell of a lot to do with atheism as well.

Andrew Henderson
Commenter

Darwinism was still just strong theory then… he also believed in king Arthur and Nordic gods…Hitler that is… atheism is not a belief or group ..we simply dont believe in gods or the supernatural or whatever we choose to question…

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

But sadly, it did not bring Paradise on earth. However much it wanted to.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Then in that case, why was there eve any need for any kind of religions in the first place?

Andrew Henderson
Commenter

We wouldn’t have developed to our present state if we didn’t have a sense of empathy we probably wouldn’t have even stood up…

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

You’ve lost me. Or are you now saying religions were a good thing after all?

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Religions absorbed the ethics of the time. They exist simply because people in the darkness of ignorance are comforted by having an answer…even if it is the wrong answer.

Empathy is human, as is tribal culture and shared systems like religions. There was surely an evolutionary advantage going into battle believing god would look after you regardless if such a thing exists.

Religion prevented no deaths…goid people are good regardless of religion, and bad people are bad…. it takes religion to convince good people to do bad things (or some similarly hiddeous ideology)
Socialism and fascism have to do with politics not athiesm. Bolshevism was invented by jews and Naziism by Catholics so better not to try and lay that shit at my door.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

I m not laying anything at anyone’s door, just stating facts, horrible though they obviously are for a lot of people to accept. Just as so many atheists are forever saying “religions cause nothing but wars.” And it really is funny that modern genocides based on atheism (as they ultimately all were, not only my own ideas), happened in such modern, logical and egalitarian times.

Tony Mansfield
Commenter

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Better quickly get off before it sinks, then!

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Sounds lively and oh so right. But do not forget that the majority of secular societies are based on Christian principles which still hold some sway now. And I stand by my original assertion that modern genocides are all based on atheist ideas, however you do not want to believe it. You can never get paradise on earth.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

I mean lovely! Predictive text.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

However you look at it, there does seem to be a connection between, crime, drugs, vandalism and other antisocial behaviours, and the lack of religion in many western societies nowadays. A price well worth paying? Not for every one, sadly.

Michal Dutkiewicz
Commenter

I don’t see that, Rebecca – There doesn’t “seem” to be – You keep making straw man attacks on atheism.

Andy Campbell
Commenter

Sorry the problem, is ALWAYS absurd beliefs being taken as truth and acted upon. The person who said socialism was responsible for deaths of itself, as an ideology is wrong. Civilisation is socialism, family is socialism. Civilisation and family probably saved more lives than they ever took. (note: probably) Communist dictatorship, is NOT socialism. Dictatorships are built on the religious model. The unchallengeable, unchangeable, leader is the problem there. Doesn’t matter whether it is book, alleged god or human. If you are going to lay blame at an ideology.. Then capitalism, the pursuit of profit, competition in areas where it does harm and regardless of consequence, kills more than any other. Still does, wars make money for somebody… As to religion. That is still killing every day, for blatantly absurd beliefs. That is all, really to do with power, control and greed. Reason and understanding, are the only things, that give us a chance of improving the world. Superstition and faith, will cause us to destroy it through stupidity and ignorance. Even if nobody disputed the existence of gods, as nobody disputes the existence of oceans, mountains or air. Even if they turned up once a week and made worldwide announcements to the whole of humanity… One thing would still be clear and indisputably true.. No human ever wrote any book about gods, that ever contained ANY accurate information about… Read more »

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Rebecca, the one good thing about religion is community. We seem to be losing community (certainly my city london has had the natives pushed out and been fractured by ‘diversity’ but regardless whether this is a sideproduct of religion doesn’t make religion true… and religion strengthens tribilist tendencies too in societies which don’t integrate

Andy Campbell
Commenter

Rebecca Culling check the figures on religious people in prison against atheists.
You will find MORE criminals among the religious.
Sort of ruins your theory…
Evidence doesn’t require belief. It speaks for itself.. Faith only exists, in the absence of proof..

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Regarding book, the same can be said for those written from an atheist perspective. And I have read such ones. Regarding prison, yes, there are certainly many ‘religious’ terrorists in them. But many prisoners ‘find’ religion once inside, usually for the special privileges or a hope it’ll reduce their sentences. Regarding ANY kind of absolute proof to prove ANYTHING, one can only see/feel/hear/experience such a thing him or herself, ultimately. Therefore, any history any kind can never be completely ‘proved’ if you get my meaning. Whether it is the Resurrection or famous historical figures like Henry V111, Julius Caeser or even Hitler. Funny how people always believe their existences and deeds but not Jesus or His Resurrection! And the way it changed the whole world, far more than any other historical figure who had ever been born.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

As for making ‘straw’ attacks on atheism, isn’t that exactly what atheists are always doing to religions?

David Stuart Hillman
Commenter

Not that I have ever seen. Maybe you are unaware of what a strawman attack is. Its where you misrepresent your opponents idea and then argue against this view which is not something they believe in.

Examples are arguing that flies can’t turn into elephants (nobody is saying they did) or that we couldn’t have appeared randomly (evolution is in no way random) or that atheists havent got morality (their sense of morality is often more developed than any religious persons can possibly be)

These arguments are along the lines of atheists saying that religious people believe in sacrificing children and stuff… arguments nobody is making.

I guess its possible for an atheist to strawman religious by assuming that you might believe something silly like young earth creationism but given athiests tend towards empirisism and evidence based reasoning we aren’t big on making assumptions. Also since we aren’t the one asserting a position (we are rejecting your position on religion) we don’t need to twist your position through ignorance or dishonesty.

Also I am not really attached to my position, I am happy to modify it if verifiable evidence is presented. As such language is a tool to move towards truth rather than a win at all costs make disengenuous argument situation.

Rebecca Culling
Commenter

Well you credit me with a lot more intelligence than I believed I actually had! Anyway, for reasons I do not want to say publicly, I am no longer making any more comments on these posts. But if anyone wants to pm me to carry on with this conversation, I am more than happy for them to do so. God bless!