"Why Do So Many Dullards Hang Around Religion?"

That's a little comment from an atheist in response to an article suggesting that Science and Religion can be made to agree. The entire paragraph was:

 

Why do so many dullards hang around religion? Why cannot you see how flimsy and ridiculously stupid your response is?

 

And that was followed up with one more salvo:

"intelligent" and "god" in the same sentence. Well I never.

 

If there is one aspect of modern atheism I extremely dislike it is this one, this idea that only fools can entertain notions of a Higher Power.

 

Every time I hear an atheist worry out loud about the dangers of Theocracy I can't help but think of the kind of atheism that is being expressed here and wonder what would happen if the day came that the majority of folks came to believe in an alleged inferiority of "dullards."

Our God-Breathed Constitution

When I raised in Christian Fundamentalism I was taught that the Bible IS the very Word of God. That is, that the Scriptures were God-breathed, based on 2 Timothy 3:16,17:

 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (New International Version)

 

The most theologically conservative Christians still believe this.

 

This past week former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay brought pandering to this segment of the American people to new heights when he said:

 

I think we got off that track when we allowed our government to become a secular government, when we stopped realizing that God created this nation, that He wrote the constitution, that's based on biblical principles....

 

That was a snippet from his interview with Matthew Hagee, son of controversial clergyman John Hagee, and is my reason for suggesting he was pandering or "tickling" people's ears.

 

At first I thought DeLay perhaps had not exactly said that and was misquoted. That isn't the case. I've kept watching the news to see if DeLay would clarify himself by perhaps declaring that he simply misspoke. If he has I haven't found such an explanation. Neither have I noted a rush of conservative politicians attempting to distance themselves from this.

 

The claim that God wrote the US Constitution is shocking. And the implications of such a claim would be even more shocking. In that connection I am going to quote another politician, President Harry S. Truman:

 

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.

In fact, I think such a position is intellectual suicide.

If Religious Believers Shouldn't Be Anti-science...

I passed on blogging about the recent Science Guy versus Bible Guy debate. I'm so beyond all that now in my personal journey of discovery. I like science and I like the study of the human religious impulse. However, I don't like being a participant in some "religion versus science war."

 

In other words, I opt out. My personal opinion is that either study might inform the other, but I don't think one should be used to attempt to nullify the other.

 

Extremism. That's what really bores me. I don't prefer religious "revelations" beyond what I (or anyone) am able to discover using normal means. At the same time, I sure don't enjoy listening to science geeks pontificate on things that seems to me beyond the proper realm of their study. (I'm not here defending NOMA, but IF there is a supernatural realm, surely that isn't something science can tell us much about.)

 

Bram Stoker, noted for his horror classic Dracula, wrote "Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.”

 

There is a God of the gaps - where the unknown is categorically chalked up to "God did it" - to be sure; but as has been noted, there is also a science-of-the-gaps that feels certain knowledge gaps eventually will be fully explained by naturalism. 

 

The ultimate why question still resonates with me: Why is there a Cosmos instead of a chaos, or nothing at all?

 

That seems to be a real toughie.

 

If religious believers shouldn't be anti-science (and I firmly believe they shouldn't and folks like Ken Ham are way out there in the Twilight Zone), should scientists be anti-religion (not a-religious, but vehemently against), and use their scientific disciplines to argue against the possibility of there be something beyond the natural?

Deadly "Faith"

The snakebite death of reality television personality and pastor Jamie Coots as he practiced his religion was front-page news here in my neck of the woods.

 

It is thought rude to speak ill of the dead, and certainly my heart bleeds for Rev. Coots' family. (I read also that Coots had no life insurance and his family is accepting donations.) But I feel nauseous that so much of the news coverage I'm seeing seems mainly to applaud Jamie Coots' sincerity and willingness to "die for his faith."

 

Personally, I have great sympathy for religious faith, little sympathy for unreasonable religious faith, and zero sympathy for idiotic religious faith. I can feel nothing but disapproval for anyone like Coots who puts himself and others, especially his loved ones, at great risk this way in the name of religion.

 

It is noticeable that most educated Christians find less sensational ways of interpreting the two biblical passages which speak of "snake-handling." This sensationalistic aspect of Pentecostalism seems only to be popular in backwoods areas.

 

Is the taking up of poisonous serpents faith or ignorance? Is refusal to use common sense in religious matters faith or stubbornness?

 

Coots' son is vowing to carry on his father's legacy. In the meantime the snakes will continue to ignore the memo on how this is to be properly done.