I had the misfortune to hear a radio interview a couple of weeks back that was both hilarious and terrifying at the same time. On this little isle of ours, up north in Belfast to be exact, the Minister for Arts and Culture has recommended that the Ulster Museum include 'alternative views' on the creation of the universe.
Well, you ask, exactly which models does he mean? Newtonian? Lorenzian? Machian? All of these might deserve some mention as they each compete with the prevailing cosmological theory, famously known as the Big Bang.
But noooo.
He means the theory that 'God Did It.' Don't understand something? Who cares–God Did It. Not bright enough to challenge a mathematical genius like Lemaître (a Jesuit priest, no less) and formulate your own theory of the primaeval atom? No worries–God Did It!
While being interviewed on the Nolan Show (BBC Radio Ulster) Nelson McCausland, the aforementioned minister, bolstered his flimsy argument with suggestions that scientists/atheists were arrogant and disrespectful. This from a man who apparently claims to categorically 'know' beyond a doubt the eternal origins of the universe. A little hypocritical maybe?
The traditional mantra of 'let's teach the debate' was clumsily wheeled out and sounded just as flat as ever. There is no debate, not in the scientific community (even Richard Dawkins phoned in to clear that up). The only debate seems to be whether there is a debate or not (and there isn't!).
The real question is exactly where to allow a mention of Creationism. We have to be careful. While being a scientific museum for the most part, the Ulster Museum, in addition to its zoological, botanical, and other scientific exhibits, also provides some historical and cultural displays.
So, if it also houses some kind of interpretive cultural centre where the quirky folk tales and superstitions of unlettered yokels are recorded for posterity, then fine. Let them have their mention, no use in pretending Creationism doesn't exist.
But not in the Minerals, Rocks and Fossils area. Not in the Archaeology department. Not in the New Discovery Centres for children. Religious views are not scientific, how difficult is that to understand?
Those people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and that dinosaur fossils are just God's little prank, are not scientists. They look uncomprehendingly at the big, bad world and make up silly little stories about how things got here. That's fine for six-year olds but it's simply not science.
In a letter to the Belfast Telegraph, the Rev Philip Campbell weighed in on the Creationist side, claiming that it's a view
thoughtfully held by thousands of Christians.
Thoughtful? Did they really put much thought into it? Honestly. Thousands of people believe Elvis is alive too–and there's a lot more evidence for that. He would also like us to
consider the strong scientific evidence for the Christian position according to the Bible.
Seriously? Strong scientific evidence? I must somehow have missed that particular paper when it was published in Unscientific American.
You may think that this is just a storm in a teacup. You may say it's all a little silly but what harm can it do? But visiting a museum is a special activity, especially for the young. It's a place of heightened awareness, that oozes with the authority of a thousand of years of scientific progress.
Do we really want to add elements that are simply untrue? Should we give credence and a veneer of respectability to this dangerous hokum? Do we want our children to learn that facts can change simply because wishing makes it so? Do we want them to grow up without even the slightest curiosity about the world, since all the answers are already known–God Did It?
Well, I can certainly agree with the Reverend Campbell on one point, he demands that the
creation model of human origins be treated with appropriate respect.
Yep. I'm going to give it exactly the amount it deserves.
::
16 Comments
By the way, I think I'll be using this post's title as the title for my upcoming book. So don't steal it.
::
As the years pass, I find that my position has changed from a condescending tolerance of sky-wizadry to a complete lack of fundamental respect for anyone who practices deism.
I just see them as unthinking and intellectually flawed.
For anyone who disagrees, here's a short tutorial on respect by Pat Condell.
::
Darwin, obviously faith is hard for you so it's all subjective.
I'll say this prayer for you so that you may receive the grace of faith.
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
@FME
I'm curious. Can you tell me a little about what you consider 'faith' to be?
(And you needn't post any more prayers or scripture, I am more than conversant with the major 'holy' works. Since they do not contain any information, merely quoting them is beyond pointless. Maybe you can just use your own words instead.)
::
Re; Above.
Faith Is Easy; Thinking Is Hard.
Just kidding with the prayer Darwin. It is a bit of rubbish all right isn't?
Hope that wasn't too much of a ramble. 
What I consider faith hmm.I suppose basically I believe I'm in good hands. I have doubts at times like a lot of people in the existence of a creator but I do believe there's something. An intelligence behind creation. I don't really care if that's faulty logic. I think there are some things that can't be proven scientifically or by thinking about something enough.
I think religious as well as scientific dogmas arise out of beliefs that thought can encapsulate reality or the truth. Our brains are just too small for that. I suppose dogmas give people a sense of knowing but they're just conceptual prisons to me.
I think most people are lost in thought. So I don't think thinking is hard for most people. They think too much, projecting into the future, thinking about the past etc. Reducing everything to mental concepts so they have a sense of knowing or identity.
I don't place my faith in the thinking process myself and don't believe all things can be known conceptually. My spiritual practice is to not take my thoughts too seriously.
As one of the few species capable of higher thought, and probably the only species (that we know of) that can communicate and widely disseminate those thoughts, I find the concept of "not taking my thoughts too seriously" completely bizarre.
In a sense, all religions and quackery work to exploit this lack of understanding and insert a god where there is no explanation (as detailed in the main text of this post)
Thankfully there are people who take their thoughts seriously enough to come up with reliable medicine, debunk deism, perform marvellous feats of civil engineering, transport etc etc. instead of waiting for, you know "miracles" to come along and fill the gap.
@FME
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm all for creative pondering, entertaining absurd notions, and conducting thought experiments. But are your actual beliefs not worthy of a bit more rigorous examination than flights of fancy?
If your beliefs are important to you, then wouldn't you want to make sure that they are true, to the best of your knowledge? Of course, if your beliefs are not important enough to do that, then I guess Robert had it right when he simply quoted the post title as a response.
I'm trying to encourage critical thinking, or at least encourage the notion that it is an important activity for society. Too much has gone horribly wrong in the past when people have avoided 'thinking too hard.'
::
My beliefs aren't really important to me Darwin, that's kind of my point. I don't place my faith in beliefs and dogmas or thinking about them critically enough to prove them to be true or otherwise. All I can point to is what I don't have faith in.
I hear you on too much has gone horribly wrong in the past. Religion has a lot to answer for.
If you're interested here's an audio on this guys perspective on human suffering. Eckhart Tolle is his name. He was a Cambridge University research scholar at one point. He has some interesting views on the acquiring of knowledge too. He's my guru.
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/212-living-dialogues/episodes/3622-eckhart-tolle-part-1-evolutionary/play
(the intro part from the host is a bit goofy and he sounds a bit monotone but he starts the chat with Eckhart after a minute )
@FME
I appreciate your contributions here, but if you don't particularly care what your mind is up to, you're probably in the wrong place.
I'm aware of The Power of Now, although personally I think it's a vague wishy-washy Oprah-friendly repackaging of some old ideas, it has definitely tapped into the modern search for meaning and enlightenment.
Prominent atheist Sam Harris has written extensively on 'spirituality,' acknowledging the human potential for 'transformative' experiences. I'm in agreement with him on this.
However! There also exists a day-to-day world, with its practical problems and ethical/moral dilemmas, that must each be faced with a mixture cold reason and passionate debate.
I'm sure you yourself have some fairly solid beliefs when it comes to child molestation, burglary, racism, etc. At least, I hope you do 'think critically enough about them.'
All I'm suggesting is that we try to do the right things for the right reasons. And remember, as Socrates would say, the unexamined life is not worth living.
::
You think Eckhart's perspectives are vague huh.
Was it Freud that said the definition of neurosis in the inability to tolerate ambiguity.
It's not that I don't care what my mind is up to and it's not that I don't think thought is very useful when needed. I just think the majority of it is repetitive and focused on future outcomes and a lot of times people are not aware of their thoughts and can't turn them off. I believe people need beliefs to give them a sense of identity and need opposing beliefs to strengthen that identity even more. Who would they be without the enemy? It enables the putting of beliefs above people and killing in the name of beliefs.
I'm just rephrasing a lot of ideas from Eckhart, but those are my beliefs on belief in a nutshell.
I understand we have day to day practical problems. There's a lot of corruption, violence etc in the world.. the outcome of the madness that is the human mind.
The audio piece is interesting. I'm suprised you were that kind about it actually.. 'wishy washy'..:)
I think I'm disabling emoticons.
::
Ah Darwin emotions are good for you.(insert smiley face here) ..:)
What I have taken from this, and I do so in a preacherish "What God Meant to say" way so beloved of believers and particularly preachers, is that FME is slightly embarrassed by clinging to the notion of a creator and will downplay the silliness of of it by inserting smiley faces and not only being vague but by quoting other similarly vague notions.
If FME just said "I am afraid and therefore I believe there is something because I hope there is something" as dumb as that is, it would be preferable to any attempts to legitimise it through the thoughts / faith of others.
If you can't explain why you have faith, you can't explain it, and no use of someone else's reasons, taken wholesale will do.
I can tell you why I don't believe, from my own thoughts, not a book claiming talking snakes and a tardis like ark. I demand the same for those who seem to be convinced there is something despite nothing being apparent or logical or provable
Robert, I'm a bit of a smiley abuser. (temptation to insert smiley there, but I won't) Are you too tough for some smileys huh?
I'm not really embarassed in believing in the existence of a creator. Why should I be embarassed? It's a personal experience. If it's silly to you, that's fine.
Also what would I be afraid of? The way I see it, if you die and that's it, you're gone, finito forever then you don't know any different so what's to be afraid of?
Regarding, "If you can't explain why you have faith, you can't explain it, and no use of someone else's reasons, taken wholesale will do and it would be preferable to any attempts to legitimise it through the thoughts / faith of others."
I'm not using else's thoughts to legitimise anything. I believe Darwin quoted Socrates. Believe it or not there are people who are cleverer than us out there in the world and can help you understand things you want to know about or experience.
I agree with Darwin religion has no place in a scientific museum.
Post a Comment