Golden Compass Review
As promised, here is my review after seeing the film.
The Golden Compass is a dark fantasy revealing a world of personal animal spirits, talking armor clad polar bears, amazing flying machines, witches, and as always good guys and bad guys. It is often stunningly beautiful in it’s visual representations of this other-dimensional world. I am always amazed at what CGI can do. The film is well cast, and Dakota Blue Richards performance is a stand out as the 12 year old protagonist Lyra who must rescue children from their kidnappers. As a children’s film I would not recommend that children under 12 see it. It is very dark and at times violent and frightening. An example of this is a machine that separates children from their souls (you’ll understand this if you see it). I think it would be very disturbing to young children.
As for me, I only somewhat enjoyed it. Not because it wasn’t good… it was very good…but as usual, a movie cannot be compared to the book, and I had recently read the trilogy. There is so much missing and changed that I found it distracting. It made the film feel to me as if it were chopped up. This feeling was not true for the 3 others I went with who had not read the books. They enjoyed it thoroughly.
Now about the controversy, The Golden Compass is a movie based on the first book of Phillip Pullman’s trilogy ‘His Dark Materials’. (Check out my Nov 13th post on the books) The books can be called an atheists response to C. S. Lewis’ ‘Chronicles of Narnia’. There is clear anti-God, anti-religion and anti-Catholic overtones to them. New Line cinema has sought to soften the message of the books by creating a generic religious organization. I am of the opinion that without the protests and media coverage, no one would have thought from the seeing of the film that it was blasting Christianity. Unlike the books, there is no mention or clear allusion to Christians or the Church.
Personally, I have no problem with people seeing it. In fact, I think soap operas are more problematic than this kind of fantasy. No one is going to think The Golden Compass is reality, but many think ‘Grey’s Anatomy’, ‘Desperate Housewives’ and ‘Days of our Lives’ are. Now that’s dangerous. My suggestion is that you see it with others and discuss it afterwards, especially with the teens.
December 10, 2007 at 11:18 am
I’m one of those militant atheist people and even I agree with you when you say that the soaps are dangerous.
Still, there’s not much we can do about it. Religion isn’t the solution. I’m hopeful that it’s just a generational thing and people will grow out of it when they see that the morals they learn from these shows don’t work over the long term.
December 10, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Thanks for your input Elver. And God ble… Whoops. Can’t help myself.
December 10, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I want to ask the “resident athiest” Elver what religion he has honestly tried (other than Atheism) to come to the conclusion that religion is not the solution.
Then to ask him what specific religion he is referring to.
That aside, good review Fr Dave. Personally I would not want to see the movie simply because of the knowledge of the author and books that undergird the movie and the fact that the author recieves his royalty payment from the movie for using his books as the basis for the movie.
You do have a strong point regarding TV shows which occupy vast amounts of people’s time now, much moreso than movies.
December 10, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Alright, I’ll bite.
First of all, atheism is not a religion. If atheism was a religion, then “not collecting stamps” would have to be a hobby.
Religion is not the solution, because it does not seek to solve problems by reason and inquiry. Instead its solutions are dogmatic, unchanging over time. Which system of laws and values you start out with (Christianity, Islam) is irrelevant, because a dogmatic system does not allow for change.
I’ll give you an example. Contraceptives. It is now possible to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. It is also possible to have sex without the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. The ban on pre-marital sex made sense 2000 years ago, even 50 years ago, but today it doesn’t.
A human being is a human being with all his or her natural urges. A human wants to have sex. If you ban pre-marital sex for him/her in a society where the act doesn’t have any real risks, you’re putting arbitrary limits on a person. Humans hate arbitrary limits. They rebel against such things. As can be seen from Abstinence Only sexual education programs — they have the opposite effect and are, in fact, boosting teen pregnancy numbers.
The ban on pre-marital sex was the most optimal solution back during when Christianity was founded and it was very wise of whoever wrote the Bible to put that in. But today the most optimal solution would be the responsible practice of safe sex between consenting adults who have developed a strong bond. This is also what I myself practice.
What the soaps and pop culture are promoting is a promiscuous lifestyle. It’s fun in the short term, sure, but the long term effects can be damaging to one’s ability to form lasting relationships.
Point is, the world is changing. Whether we want it or not. Religion is a static solution to a dynamic, ever-changing problem.
Religion could be the solution, but only if a single religion conquers the whole planet and stops all progress once and for all. But then we’ll just be wiped out by the next large asteroid that happens to be in the neighborhood.
December 12, 2007 at 1:52 am
<blockquote.”In fact, I think soap operas are more problematic than this kind of fantasy.”
I think this statement is right on the money. I don’t really understand the Christian communities need to yell so loudly at a movie like this and then turn it’s back on pregnant teenagers and broken homes. It confuses me…
December 12, 2007 at 2:06 am
Right on brother.
December 13, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Elver Says:
Alright, I’ll bite.
First of all, atheism is not a religion. If atheism was a religion, then “not collecting stamps” would have to be a hobby.
DcnC says:
Wrong. You had better re-research your definition of a religion. You definitely have a “cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” as evidenced by your opening statement, “I’m one of those militant atheist people…” unless you perhaps mean the archaic definition of “wickedness or ungodliness.”
Elver Says:
Religion is not the solution, because it does not seek to solve problems by reason and inquiry.
DcnC says:
I would have to agree with you that religion, pure and simple is not the solution. Christianity, however, IS the solution on many levels. But to find that answer would require a serious effort using the “inquiry” portion of your statement.
Elver Says:
Instead its solutions are dogmatic, unchanging over time.
The solutions offered by Christ have not changed because they are timeless solutions.
Which system of laws and values you start out with (Christianity, Islam) is irrelevant, because a dogmatic system does not allow for change.
DcnC says:
Oh but it does allow for change. At least Christianity does and has proven so over the last two thousand years.
As for laws and values that are set, it does matter which you start with. Islam provides for many variables in its laws whereby even lying and murder and other atrocities are acceptable (since its founding) in attaining its goals. A means-justifies-the-end menatality where conversion of “the infidel” to Islam is concerned. You may say that the Church has doen the same thing, but it was only for a limited time and was not the entire church (only a small local area) and it is not in the Church’s teachings or writings as it is in the Koran.
If it were not for Christianity the Magna Carta and many other documents and ideas of man’s basic value and freedoms would not exist. You will not find such value of human beings in Islam. Most (if not all) of the other religions are simply for the benefit of the individual only and not for the benefit of community.
Elver Says:
I’ll give you an example. Contraceptives. It is now possible to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. It is also possible to have sex without the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. The ban on pre-marital sex made sense 2000 years ago, even 50 years ago, but today it doesn’t.
DcnC says:
Again, I disagree. Were it not for the hospitals – founded by the Christian Church – the medical profession would be in the dark ages. In fact, were it not for the church protecting books, documents and learning in general during the dark ages, we may still be using leeches to treat everything and then locking away the unhealed or undesirable. The inherent value and dignity of each person is only reinforced through Christianity. If not for the church protecting and encouraging the doctors there would be no ability to create contraceptives today.
Elver Says:
A human being is a human being with all his or her natural urges. A human wants to have sex. If you ban pre-marital sex for him/her in a society where the act doesn’t have any real risks, you’re putting arbitrary limits on a person. Humans hate arbitrary limits. They rebel against such things. As can be seen from Abstinence Only sexual education programs — they have the opposite effect and are, in fact, boosting teen pregnancy numbers.
The ban on pre-marital sex was the most optimal solution back during when Christianity was founded and it was very wise of whoever wrote the Bible to put that in. But today the most optimal solution would be the responsible practice of safe sex between consenting adults who have developed a strong bond. This is also what I myself practice.
DcnC says:
The “ban on premarital sex” (as you call it) has many other values than those you note. It is a proven fact that relationships are harmed greatly by premarital sex. The ability to be completely given to your spouse is also damaged and that has repercussions throughout the family structure. You have taken a pedantic view regarding the value of not having pre-marital sex probably because of your youth and seeing your own urges as the typical and right ones, and believing you have reached the answer already based on your limited observation..
Elver Says:
What the soaps and pop culture are promoting is a promiscuous lifestyle. It’s fun in the short term, sure, but the long term effects can be damaging to one’s ability to form lasting relationships.
DcnC says:
Now you have me a bit confused as to your point here. In the previous paragraphs, you attempted to lay out an argument FOR pre-marital sex and how the church is so wrong about it. And now you take the position that it – through the soaps - promotes a promiscuous lifestyle that damages relationships in the long run. You make my point that I argued in the previous response paragraph.
Elver Says:
Point is, the world is changing. Whether we want it or not. Religion is a static solution to a dynamic, ever-changing problem.
DcnC says:
Religion is not in any way static. There are many religions popping up all over the place all the time. All of the old heresies are constantly coming back with different names, but the same philosophical points.
The static religions you allude to are those that have no living God – no incarnate savior. Christ is the only answer and He is not static, but living. The Church has survived by the blood of her martyrs. Not as the Muslims who kill many others as they go, but by her people dying in place of others who might be condemned (Bonhoffer) or by themselves for the sake of Christ (many thousands refusing to denounce their faith in front of intense torture and mortal threat.)
Elver Says:
Religion could be the solution, but only if a single religion conquers the whole planet and stops all progress once and for all. But then we’ll just be wiped out by the next large asteroid that happens to be in the neighborhood.
DcnC says:
In conclusion, your answer is neither reasonable or based on inquiry as you stated was necessary to provide solutions to (I am supposing your intent here) the worlds ills of poverty, killing, hunger, etc. and to which you claim the church has no answer.
I can only conclude that you have had very limited exposure to life (probably due to being very young still) and that you have limited knowledge of history, more specifically what the Christian Church has contributed down through the ages to the betterment of mankind. Something which Atheism can do nothing for. It only provides a breeding ground for conspiracy theory, cynicism and fear at the final outcome.
You see, if you had not claimed to be a “militant” atheist, you might have been able to get away with your comment without challenge since religion should mean nothing to you. But you have shown yourself to be a false atheist in that you claim to not believe in “religion”, and yet you will not use your reason and inquiry to investigate truth. By your militancy you are actually saying you are not sure of your position. A true atheist would not care one way or the other. Further, relativism would be more in line with the true Atheist as there would be no absolute truth or morality as Christianity provides based on God’s revelation.
But I did find it curious that you did not answer my initial inquiry and instead sidetracked immediately to sexual issues. At least there is SOMETHING you believe in.
December 14, 2007 at 8:40 am
Excellent post DcnC! We can use more open discussion like this. I hope Elver responds.
Elver: If we believe that there is no God and only the material and biological, then why even consider morality as you do in your original post. The survival of the fittest would more suit the atheistic model. If biological and psychological urges are meant to determine our actions, then why restrain from anything. Killing is natural, just look at the animal kingdom. Isn’t your position that we are no different than any other animal? If you think that we have evolved to a higher level, then you are saying that there is one. Where does that determination come from?
The fact that you consider a promiscuous lifestyle wrong is a judgment on those who live that way. You have now joined us in standing against a form of immorality. Welcome to the world of the intolerant.
December 14, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Atheism is not a “cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. It is the lack of a “cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
I would agree that some of the values that Christianity preaches are the solution, but Christianity is like an old Estonian proverb about the Devil: you give him a finger, he takes the whole arm.
Christianity is responsible for almost 2000 years of almost no development in our understanding of the world. Almost 2000 years of no change. This dark age was defeated by growing secularism and rediscovery of Ancient Greek ideas — renaissance and the enlightenment in Europe.
The current state of Christianity is not proof of its ability to change. The reason for its current state of being is simple: because the secular world does not let it rise to power.
Also, yes, I agree with you that Islam is pretty damn evil. More so than Christianity. I have a post about Islam on my blog.
Healers existed before Christianity and the idea of hospitals and doctors comes from Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome. Hippocrates of Hippocratic Oath fame was not a Christian.
The church, especially in the first 1000 years, managed to destroy huge volumes of books from Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome. For example, only recently were the writings of Ancient Greek mathematicians found underneath a religious text. Some monk had taken a piece of animal skin with writings on it, bleached it, and written prayer on it. Turns out the animal skin held the first steps in the development of modern day calculus. As you know, calculus was not rediscovered until the 17th century. Yet evidence shows that important parts of this knowledge were used back in 1800 BC.
So, no, the Church did not exactly protect documents unrelated to Christian faith.
The first giant breakthrough in medicine was when Leonardo da Vinci started dissecting dead people and drawing their insides. He did it in secrecy, because the Church would not allow dead bodies to be cut open.
Medicine development into modern medicine through the application of the scientific method, which is directly based on Ancient Greek philosophy rediscovered during the renaissance.
No, I agree with these ideals just fine. Each person does have value and dignity, but historically they were against the development of modern medicine.
I would agree, to an extent. For some people this is certainly true. For others, not so much. I would agree that sex without feelings is harmful given the social background that exists in most countries. However you gotta admit there are people for whom love and caring is very deep and personal while sex is anything but. Kids who grow up devaluing sex and doing anything with anyone can still feel love.
My values and ideas regarding sexuality would take far too long to explain, so I won’t. Let’s just say: to each his own.
Ah, but you misunderstood. I’m against a promiscuous lifestyle. I define that as one night stands. Having sex with people you just met and have no relationship with.
I am, however, not against sex as part of a meaningful relationship. If, for example, two people get together, fall in love, like spending time together, then I don’t see anything wrong in them having sex. That’s how I prefer to do things.
If love exists between two people, I don’t see a problem with them having sex. A lifelong commitment is surely not necessary.
There’s a Book. It’s the Word of God. The Book has existed, unchanging, for almost 2000 years. The values and ideas of Christianity come from this Book. How is that not static?
I’ll give you a reply here that I found on someone’s blog. The Church does have answers. Unfortunately they are the wrong ones.
Let’s take Africa.
Problem 1. AIDS.
Church’s solution? Abstinence-only education. Ban on condoms. Both ideas have been implemented widely, yet they have had zero impact on the spread of AIDS.
Solution based on scientific inquiry? An economist noted that levels of AIDS deaths in Uganda correlate with the price of coffee on the world market. Africa is a fairly localized place. Turns out that it’s the long-distance truck drivers that spread AIDS. Coffee is Uganda’s primary export article. No market for coffee, no long-distance truck drivers, largest dent in African AIDS deaths levels in recorded history. Oh and let’s not forget the distribution of condoms. That has had measurable effects as well. Having a theory, testing it, and measuring the outcome is the scientific method. Condoms work.
Problem 2. Poverty.
Christians have sent huge amounts of food and other essentials to Africa. Result of these shipments? The amount of people living off handouts has risen dozens of times. Sending food aid makes the problem unimaginably worse.
Christian businessmen did some more thinking and started sending money to help build the local economy. Problem. This money goes through the local governments, creating some of the biggest governments in the world and the biggest corruption problems in the world. Every family member of everyone working in government wanted to get a government job when money started pouring in, and they did get one.
Solution? Economists did some thinking and created a simple two-part solution. Fertilizer subsidies by African governments to local farmers and no tariffs on export to the European Union. Together these two things have helped boost the African economy more than any other solution. Without the scientific method, this would never have happened. It was an idea based purely on scientific analysis of existing models used elsewhere and the problem at hand.
Using scientific research Norman Borlaug created new crops that saved millions of people from hunger and starvation. He got the Nobel peace prize for his work.
Science has done more to fight these problems than Christianity ever could nowadays. In fact, with its abstinence-only and no-condoms policies, the Church has probably managed to kill more innocent people than they’ve saved in the last 50 years.
Atheism does not promise to contribute anything. It is not a religion. However, atheism and science go hand in hand and science has done more to help mankind than all religions put together. The progress of the last 150 years is solely thanks to science.
I care about my fellow man and based on mountains of evidence, I see that atheism and science care more and do it in a better way than religion ever could.
Relativism is an idea of post-modernism, not of atheism. Please do not confuse the two.
I bet this is going to be hard to understand, so please make an effort. I’m not saying that to insult you, but only to direct your attention. Atheism makes no claims for or against any absolute truth. In other words, atheism can exist just fine alongside the idea of absolute truth. Commonly these truths come from something called “secularism” or “secular humanism” or just “humanism.” One of the basic ideas of humanism is that human life is of the highest value.
I didn’t see that as relevant, but alright, I’ll do that now.
I’ve been agnostic most of my life. I come from a family where religion was a personal, internal thing. My grandfather was a churchgoer, but he kept quiet about it. The existence of God, of the Christian God, was largely seen as something self-evident. It wasn’t talked about and when the issue did come up, the reply was something like “well, of course I believe.”
In my teens I flirted with Christianity. I’ve read the Bible. I spent about two years talking to a very religious Christian about his faith, trying to see if there was any truth to it. (He had actually had one of those seeing-God experiences.) I found the Bible way too violent, underwhelming, and badly written. I found the guy’s beliefs lacking evidence and reason. (Though, back then I didn’t really know what the scientific method was. His beliefs simply lacked logic.)
Islam has no real foothold in Estonia, so I never considered it seriously, though I have read books about it and have a firm understanding. Haven’t read the Koran itself. Not planning to.
I didn’t make the decision to declare myself an atheist lightly. It took about two years of painful soul-searching, but at the end of it my mind was made up. Atheism combined with science and humanism simply provide the most adaptive and logical system of values.
Though I must say I don’t agree 100% with everything you might read in books about atheism, science, or humanism.
Science has some purely metaphysical problems as well as some bias problems, but it’s still the best system of ideas for studying objective reality. Humanism is a bit of a mess of different ideas, metaphysical theories, and whatnot. And atheism thinks it does more than it does — the only real thing uniting atheists these days is the realization that religion is doing so much harm in the world.
Earlier I used the analogy that atheism is not religion in the same way as “not collecting stamps” is not a hobby. You could think of atheism in the same way you could think of people who don’t drink. There are clubs which unite people who don’t drink. They see the effect that alcohol has on people and choose to fight against it with rallies and campaigns. Not drinking vs drinking is a lot like atheism vs religion.
You’d have to break out personal insults for me to leave
Because morality is a social framework and not a unique property of religion. If you live in Japan, you take the shoes off when entering someone’s home. If you live in the USA, you don’t. That’s a social framework as well: something that a lot of people agree on.
I hate it when people do what I’m about to do, but I’ll do it anyway. I think it’s intellectually dishonest, but, heh…
Why do you want to control people with religion?
Okay, now for a serious answer. Atheism makes no claim about animal instincts determining our actions. Following the local social framework — be it Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Humanist, whatever — is a requirement for participating in society.
Historically it’s interesting to note that secular governments gradually took over power from a purely Church-based society. The laws of God were gradually replaced with the laws of Man. Sure, at least in Europe the laws of Man were inspired by the laws of God, but elsewhere, not so much.
As secular governments grew more powerful, the influence of the Church waned. Man does need a system of laws to live in — what you are describing is anarchy and chaos — but this system of laws does not have to be from the Bible.
What sets us apart from the animal kingdom is our ability for higher reasoning. Have we evolved to a “higher level”? That’s a valid way of describing it, yes. Though, I’d rather prefer the explanation that we have evolved some attributes and abilities that other animals do not have. That is what sets us apart. We can analyze and reason about our own behavior and come up with better ideas, then implement them.
It’s a “judgment” in the sense that I won’t bother with a promiscuous woman, because my system of values is too different from her system of values for anything to work out. In the same way that I won’t propose marriage to a lesbian.
Promiscuity is a personal choice that, unfortunately, has too big an influence on those who do not wish to be promiscuous, but have to give in to peer pressure to be accepted.
Its huge influence on modern culture is what I view as a problem.
December 15, 2007 at 1:21 am
Wow. I just wanted to say thanks for the great review on a much-discussed and much-debated movie. This comment section has taken on a life of its own. What a great dialogue!
December 15, 2007 at 4:20 am
erzsi1113: Glad your enjoying it
Elver: I wonder where you are getting your information on how the Churches interact with third world countries. It is a fact that when the UN and other governments give it does go through corrupt governments and never reach the people. However, giving to the Christian and other independent non-profits has always been the preferred route for bypassing the corruption. I know this firsthand.
Many churches today are involved in giving micro loans to individuals and communities in third world countries. This pulls people out of poverty by giving them an income and creating community responsibility. It is beginning to have an effect in Africa. My family and church have many times bought animals to provide an occupation for a family living in poverty.
I think that it is foolish to try to make this argument about who is more beneficial to society. Both the educated and compassionate religious and non-religious have done wonderful things for humankind. Believing scientists and economists work along side those who are atheist in solving the problems we are discussing. We have also done horrible things. For you not to acknowledge the good works of the Christian community throughout history is as ignorant as our not acknowledging secular contributions.
I dislike biased dogmatism wherever I find it. And by the way, not all Christians want to see government controlled by religion. I fear Christians taking over almost as much as I do Muslims. I also fear secular humanists who are intolerant and dismissive of those with beliefs. Take a look at the history of godless societies and see how that’s worked out. Not so well I’m afraid.
While science continues to provide answers for the material, Christianity provides answers for the soul. As a pastor I have seen too many healings of body, mind and soul (including my own) to dismiss the spiritual reality.
I have more to say but no time to say it. I am going out of town tomorrow. Looking forward to your response.
December 15, 2007 at 11:35 am
Yes, that’s one way of getting around corruption.
From what I’ve seen and heard, microloans do work very effectively. I remember seeing some local organizations that give microloans — but these are secular banking organizations — and I’ve seen some Web 2.0 services that work with local organizations so that Joe Random in New York can give a $200 loan to Mr. Mugumbu in Nigeria. But I’m not familiar with the role of churches in all this. Could you tell me more about their role?
From my own perspective it seems to me that Christians have done more harm than good, but then again, I have a different system of values.
I sometimes imagine what would have happened had Christianity not taken over the Roman Empire. Could we have avoided the dark medieval age? Would research into mathematics and physics have continued instead of being put on hold for almost 2000 years? Would we already be on Mars and other planets and moons?
Or would scientific progress have been impossible without the strong hierarchical society and relative peace that Christianity built during that era.
The technological progress in the past 150 years that has given us things like the automobile, mobile phone, internet, nanotechnology (if you’re wearing a high quality jacket made in the past 5 years, you’re probably benefiting from nanotechnology), vaccines, satellites, space exploration, airplanes, better crops, refrigeration, etc. is a direct result of the scientific method. It is true that a lot of scientists, even today, are religious, but it is also true that during the early days of science the Catholic Church did pretty much everything in their power to stop scientists.
The primary historical contribution of Christianity, in my view, is a rather good system of laws that’s been implemented in all 1st world countries, and a common historical background.
What Christianity does very effectively and which atheism and related ideas cannot yet match is the formation of communities. A strong church can easily build a strong community by bringing people together and getting them to help each other out. It would be interesting to see if humanism can rise to the challenge and provide a secular alternative based on mutual respect for life and individuality.
I ought to try that here in Estonia. I’m the co-founder of the Estonian Skeptics Society. Could build from there.
From what I’ve seen, secular humanists are much more tolerant of different religions than religious people. I’ll explain.
Should Christianity take over a country and make it a Christian nation, God and the Bible will be in public schools all over the country. Suppose that you’re an atheist whose kids are atheists. You cannot put your kids in public school, because the values of the school are different from your own values. Public schools would end up either excluding non-Christians or forcing their beliefs on non-Christians.
Should the same thing happen with secular humanism, then schools would only teach those things that we all can agree on as being parts of the objective reality. Schools will teach reading, writing, mathematics, biology, physics, etc. If Christians or Muslims want to teach their kids in their own faith, they can do that at home or at churches and mosques, but the kids would also get education about the objectively observable world for free.
Here’s an analogy. Suppose that a school cafeteria serves beef, potatoes, and pickles every day, but some kids don’t like pickles and the parents of some kids don’t like it if their kids eat pickles. But there’s a really strict teacher who makes every student finish everything on their plate, because she thinks it’s good for them. What if the school cafeteria served only beef and potatoes? That’s something everyone likes and those who like them with pickles could eat the pickles at home or bring their own jar, even share it with the other kids.
The realization to take away from this is that while secular humanists and atheists do not like religion, they would not force their lack of religion on others. Because what they have in that department is nothing instead of something. You cannot force that which does not exist on someone. It is possible to hold the ideas “oysters are horrible” and “some people like oysters” in your head at the same time.
I’m hungry.
Pretty much all 1st and 2nd world countries nowadays are “godless” in the sense that there is no official state religion.
If you are referring to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, then the realization there was that religion is a form of control. The state, in both cases, seeked to use common ideas from religion to subjugate the masses to the control of the government. Instead of Pope, God, and Jesus they had Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and the rest of the bunch. Instead of phrases like “one nation under God”, they had “one nation under Lenin”. Instead of big religious events they had big rallies with banners claiming that Lenin is all-powerful, all-knowing. I’ve seen children’s books from Soviet times, they’re full of the kind of stories about Lenin you would find in children’s books about Jesus.
But, of course, to pull this off the governments of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had to fight against religion, because they were directly competing with it. The idea was that if people go to church, they’ll get the same thing that we are giving them, except we are not in control of it. That’s why they fought against religion.
I have a problem with this. Namely that a good psychologist can have the same effect without the side effects. I’ll explain.
A good psychologist will take a troubled person and through talking (or in rare cases pills) help him regain his mental balance and then set him on his way. The troubled person rejoins the world, healed.
However when a troubled person meets a priest, then sometimes his healing can happen faster than with a good psychologist, but the healing has a side effect: the troubled person becomes a churchgoer. He has developed a psychological addiction to religion.
Instead of fixing the unbalanced center of a troubled person, religion replaces it with God. If I were a troubled person and found God this way, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. As an outside observer I don’t have a problem with it either. But I do question the ethics of doing something like this.
There is a drug which does not create a physical addiction. If you stop doing it, you won’t feel any effects of withdrawal. Despite decades of study, no ill effects have been found. It creates a more lightened mood for half an hour or more. It doesn’t make people aggressive, it makes them calm and peaceful. It’s a perfectly harmless drug. It’s called marijuana. If I were a troubled person and found that smoking marijuana helps with my troubles, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. (No, I don’t smoke it.) If I was an outside observer, I wouldn’t really care if someone smoked it or not, because it’s quite harmless. But if I were a drug dealer who said to a guy: “Here. Smoke some pot. It will make your troubles easier.” If I did that, then I’d consider myself unethical.
December 15, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I wanted to jump in here make an observation. When I hear people that say their perception doesn’t see Christianity as one that is good or has helped in anyway, I have to scratch my head. Then I hear a statement like this and I realize that perception and truth are often way off base.
Christianity didn’t take over the Roman Empire…Catholicism did. I know many wonderful Christian brothers and sisters in the catholic denomination(If I can use that word for this discussion). But I also, know that what many denominations do is not Christian. Many rules are made and many things are done in the name of Jesus and I can clearly say they have not been Christian.
Perspective is HUGE. Because someone says they are something does not mean they are.
Elver, I would recommend you befriend someone like Fr Dave that can teach you what Christianity really is. So that you can see the fakes and then have a better perspective on whether Christianity or Man alone are causing these issues you have problems with.
December 15, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I don’t want this discussion to turn into a quest for the true Scotsman.
Obviously the ideas you are subscribing to are those of Protestantism. If you want to make a distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism, then you cannot claim to be a Christian, because both are forms of Christianity. In the same way I cannot make the distinction between Germany and France and say that the French are not Europeans, but Germans are.
You can, however, claim to be a Protestant. In that case, yes, I accept your argument — the Roman Empire was taken over by Catholicism, not Protestantism.
And let’s set up a House Rule. You cannot sit idly by while a lot of people do a lot of things explicitly in the name of Christianity and then later cherry-pick the parts you like and say that only those come from true Christianity.
If a Muslim suicide bomber blows up 50 people explicitly in the name of Allah, the Islamic God, and the majority of Muslims do not rise up and issue statements saying “This goes against Islam!” then the only logical conclusion is that suicide bombing and the killing of infidels is part of Islam.
If George W. Bush says that he hears the voice of the Christian God and God told him to invade Iraq (Bush actually claimed this) and the majority of Christians do not rise up and issue statements saying that it’s a perversion of religion, then the invasion of Iraq becomes something that Christianity as a whole is responsible for.
When a lone church got a gay priest, the whole of Christianity was abuzz with condemnation. When Bush went on a Christian Crusade, not a beep. The conclusion can only be that Christians don’t like gays, but happily invade other nations.
If someone were to shoot up a school in the name of atheism, any sensible atheist would make it known on his/her blog that those are not the values of atheism. Organizations uniting atheists would issue statements saying that the school shooter’s values are not those of atheists, but are probably more in line with nihilism or objectivism.
People have to be responsible for what they believe in.
December 15, 2007 at 10:13 pm
So be it, if you want to make that distinction, but you have again made some staements from perception that are untrue.
“You cannot sit idly by while a lot of people do a lot of things explicitly in the name of Christianity and then later cherry-pick the parts you like and say that only those come from true Christianity”
Yes I can, cause Christianity is Christianity. it hasn’t changed. People and traditions have. Some of these people continue to take on traits/rules/traditions of Christianity and others choose to take on man made ones (i.e. the Catholic church). Whne I speak to Christianity, I do just that. Not to denominations, not to peoples perceptions, not to man made rules. I speak to what the Bible says is Christianity and nothing else.
“If George W. Bush says that he hears the voice of the Christian God and God told him to invade Iraq (Bush actually claimed this) and the majority of Christians do not rise up and issue statements saying that it’s a perversion of religion, then the invasion of Iraq becomes something that Christianity as a whole is responsible for.”
first of all, what rock have you been hiding under. Many, many, many Christians do not agree with this and have voice there opinions. i’ve heard it loud and clear, but then i am listening to them. Secondly, this doesn’t make sense. If you claim to be a Muslim and you do something that is anti Islam…it is not a Islamic act. If you claim to be a Christian and then do something in the name of God that is Anti Christian…it is not a Christian act. again, you would do well to understand the Christian faith so you can see the difference.
“People have to be responsible for what they believe in.”
Agreed, people have to be responsible for what they believe in and then what they do. We can’t go on blaming Christianity or atheism for one man’s idiocy. We should blame the man. If that makes you feel comfortable…fine, but it would be untrue.
December 15, 2007 at 10:25 pm
One statement I could have made clearer is,
People do not need to be responsible for what they believe, they need to be responsible with what they do in the name of what they believe.
In all, THEY are still responsible.
December 16, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Very interesting dialog here….enlightening even.
I am learning about myself as a Christian as I read through this, and for the most part alot of what I am reading confirms my understanding and underscores my personal commitment to Christ and Christianity.
Thanks for the engaging, thought provoking conversation!
December 17, 2007 at 5:24 am
Hey Lori, this is really cool. What kind of thoughts do you have. I’d love to know. I love to see peoples perspectives in discussions like this. We each have our own view and it does us good to understand others and how they see things.
Brent
December 18, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hmmm, my thoughts? Well, I don’t know as much about history (church history, scientific history, human history) as others in this discussion do. What I do know is that when I start looking for absolute truth, it is in the simple things that I find it. I find it interesting to read the little bit about Elver’s past experience with Christianity, and how I can see that pattern in my own family. It’s causing me to understand how important it is to not hide under a rock, and to allow my voice to be heard within my family and circle of friends and co-workers, so that God may use my voice for His work. This dialog confirms my belief that truth lies with Him and that without Him, science, understanding, knowledge, learning, exploration, curiosity….and on and on…could not, would not exist.
I admit I was offended at the thought that being a “churchgoer” meant that I might have a psychological addiction to religion. Then I read on. Amazing the depth of understanding surrounded by the blinders that prevent Elver from seeing the truth that is staring him in the face! He acknowledged that we, as Christians, REPLACE our unbalanced center with God! Exactly! I took the ME out of me, and replaced it with Christ and amazing things happened. I am NOW what HE created inside AND out….and I did it without a psychologist’s bill at the end!
All joking aside, I spent several years as a “Christian” avoiding the “psychological addiction” that I saw when I attended an adult baptism at a Baptist church. I remember leaving there saying to my companion that I could see how easy it would be to get ’sucked in’. I lived on that fence for many years. I wanted to believe that I believed in God, and that all the things my parents taught me as a child were good and right and true, but I couldn’t pull myself out of the muck of the real world. I was miserable. I didn’t go on a quest for the truth. I didn’t read up on other religions, or philosophies and I didn’t go exploring other ways to make myself feel better. I just sat there, in that muck feeling sorry for myself. What I have learned is that what I perceived to be an addiction was really the joy of freedom that Christ offers. I wish that for all people. Who doesn’t like joy? Who doesn’t like freedom? And being attracted to those things isn’t an addiction…I think it’s human nature, the way we were created.
These paragraphs/questions are for Elver:
I think sometimes we convince ourselves that we need a reason, or an answer, because with out a reason or answer something can’t exist. But what about us? What is the reason, or answer to the how and why we are here? And if those questions can’t be answered by faith, religion, and God, then do we exist?
With regard to your comments about pre-marital sex and contraceptives: What has science brought to humanity that has been more effective than abstenence? Ignorance prevails in many many cultures. In Africa, for example, where AIDS is killing more people than any other war in history, young men are given contraceptives, given the information regarding STDs and STILL they go out and have unprotected sex with whomever they can when ever they can. Now compare that thought with the image of a world where each man and each woman only has one partner…for life. Where would AIDS be then? Would there be teenagers throughout the world having babies, and would those babies grow up without their fathers and in some instances their mothers…? Another scenario comes to mind; 2 consenting adults, living together without the commitment of marriage. Children are born. How do you teach those children a moral code? Do you simply say “it’s ok to have a partner…oh, and if that doesn’t work out it’s ok to go find another one and so on and so on as long as you use a condom?” Now take that out a generation or two. Now, the moral code has been diluted to “it’s ok to have a partner…oh, and if that doesn’t work out it’s ok to go find another one and so on and so on” …..no mention of condom here. THAT is human nature…THAT has happened over and over and over. And because of that, we are killing ourselves and each other with diseases like AIDS (which, by the way, science has failed to find a cure for….oh and cancer too…
Ok, I’m done. I think there is a reason that I sometimes feel muted!
December 20, 2007 at 5:20 am
Lori, thanks for your response. Holy cow…I LOVE your passion! I think you are right on.
Hopefully Elver hasn’t gotten bored of us
December 20, 2007 at 7:18 am
So you hold science responsible for not yet finding the cure for cancer, yet your solution is to stand around and do nothing. How very Christian of you.
The position that science takes is: We don’t yet know, but we are studying the problem and have made considerable progress in finding the true answer.
The position that religion takes is: The answer is written in a book. Oh and by the way, there are about ten or more popular books, all of them have a different answer. And if you accept any of them, you cannot question the answer. Because it’s written in a book.
That’s a non-sequitur.
The problem with abstinence is that most people will not abstain from sex.
I remember seeing a statistic from the early days of the United States. I think it was from the late 18th century. USA was even more religious back then than it is now and something like 97% of marriages were between a man and an already pregnant woman.
Not having sex is a 100% effective method for avoiding pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, but the problem is that abstinence education is not the same thing as people not having sex.
If you tell people not to have sex because of God or for any other reason, then some of them will still have sex. Telling them not to do it demonstrably does not work.
You are failing to see the difference between these two things:
1. Not having sex.
2. Telling people not to have sex and expecting them not to have sex.
The second one does not work.
In fact, the second one logically does not work even in the Christian value system, because man has free will.
There is a countless number of things, religious and non-religious in nature, that you could have replaced your unbalanced center with. What makes you think that something like the God of your local branch of Protestantism, which itself is a branch of Christianity, is the right one?
Simply because you happened to be born there?
People who grow up in Muslim communities become Muslims. People who grow up in Christian communities become Christians. How can there be one true God if the God you follow in your life is determined by your place of birth, which is essentially random?
Why brag about replacing your unbalanced soul with God instead of finding internal balance for it and developing your mind, your ability to think and judge things based on what they are? Why give up your soul, that part of you that makes you unique, and replace it with a mass-produced idea of God simply because it makes you feel better? Because it gives you the illusion that you know things which you really don’t know.
December 20, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I think the title of this post needs to be changed to golden compass review: unless you scroll down. lol
great conversation here guys Good to see where you are at Elver. Brent your the man..
December 21, 2007 at 12:40 am
Elver,
I have been busy (and I see you have been too) so I will simply post a few shots across the bow until I can spend some time in dialog with your latest proselytizing.
You OBVIOUSLY have a religion bro’ and you simply will nto admit it.
You have the set of beliefs (whatever you say they are) and you have come here to make converts dude.
Most athiests would simply shrug and go on since arguing against nothing is a little like insanity. (since you don;t believe in God, how can you argue against a nothing?) Yet you have continued to come in here and argue as if you are not sure and are seeking confirmation.
Well let me tell you that in my experience (with God saving me from sure death, I can confirm for you that He does in fact exist and tolerates all the atheist’ sand their questions sincerely hoping that they will allow their hearts to be changed.
I will post more as I have time. But I want to win you over to faith in Jesus Elver. And to that end I will post as I havfe time.
Blesisngs to all+
December 21, 2007 at 12:49 am
Elver: “The problem with abstinence is that most people will not abstain from sex.”
From my paradigm the difficulty in abstaining from sex is an evidence of sin in the human condition. I find that we humans for the most part lack the ability to do what we believe and therefore change what we believe to allow for what we do. We believe that it is wrong to lie but cannot stop doing so, therefore we allow for small lies and cover up large ones. We don’t believe in cheating until we look at the oppression we suffer under the IRS… and then it’s ok. We believe in lifetime monogamous relationships until we find someone more stimulating. We turn nutrition into gluttony, need into theft, love into lust and even faith into murder.
Take a good look at human history and current events. That we cannot do what we think is right. All attempts become corrupt and perverse. God was right, in Noah’s generation, to repent of having made us.
Morality cannot be legislated. Humans don’t need stronger rules or consequences, we need changed hearts. That is why I believe the gospel. I see in it the evidence of our need and the hope for our future. Take a look at Jesus and see what mankind should be. See a man who lived what he believed, whose heart, mind and spirit were in unity of belief, purpose and action. Gandhi was impressed, Napoleon was in awe, emperors, kings, philosophers and scientists have believed and continue to believe that he is the savior of humanity. Look carefully and perhaps you also will see the truth that you are no different than the rest of us, standing in need of a savior.
December 21, 2007 at 3:58 am
AMEN!
No…you the man Joel
December 21, 2007 at 2:58 pm
In other words you will continue to ignore all my arguments while thinking you’re being clever.
Dude, what I don’t have is a set of beliefs. What I do have is evidence. From the real, objective world. These aren’t beliefs. They are logical statements based on fact. No leap of faith required.
I’m not here converting anyone to anything, unlike you guys telling me to befriend a Christian so he could show me the light. I am merely reacting to your claims by pointing out holes in them. I do this out of concern for the future.
You are being stupid and you are misrepresenting my position. I am not arguing against God. I am arguing against your belief in God.
Oh no! But… but… You are arguing against me! That means you don’t really believe in God! I knew it!
So by your logic it would not be okay for me to convert you (which I’m not doing anyway), but it would be okay for you to convert me. Why is one of those things okay and the other is not?
From my paradigm it’s evidence for evolution.
Er. I don’t. Seriously. I don’t do those things.
The IRS serves an important function, as does the tax I pay. It’s not an oppression. It’s me contributing to everyone in our society in an indirect way. Paying taxes is a good thing. Hell, it’s even a Christian thing. To look at taxes and say that because of your greed, cheating on taxes is okay… That’s not logical.
If you believe in lifetime monogamous relationships, but elope with another woman because she has bigger knockers or whatnot, then you don’t really believe in lifetime monogamous relationships.
This is a great example of giving in to peer pressure. Everyone in your community expects you to have a lifetime monogamous relationship, but that’s not who you are, so in trying to be who you’re not, you end up hurting everyone and yourself.
The fun thing about not having to live up to “standards” like this is that you can be true to yourself. Some people are polygamous by nature. Some are monogamous. I know who I am — a monogamous person who doesn’t do one night relationships. And since I don’t deny my nature, I can tell to my spouse honestly who I really am and what she can expect from me. If she’s fine with it and returns the honesty by telling me who she is by nature, then we can have a stable and lasting relationship.
Look at the many anti-gay right-wing ultra-Christian senators who have been caught having extramarital homosexual relationships. They deny their own nature and it ends up costing them everything they had.
Communism failed because it expected to change man. Marx expected the workers to rise up and seize the means of production. Never happened. But back then and even now communists believe that if only they could make man see how communism can benefit him, then we could all be in heaven.
That doesn’t happen. When communists take power, they end up making stronger rules. Few people rise to power and govern over everyone else.
A similar thing happened to the early church.
The only path that doesn’t lead to oppression is to lead by example, not by indoctrination.
Gandhi once said: “I like your Christ, but I don’t like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” And he was right.
Here’s a controversial thought. Jesus has more in common with today’s atheists than he does with today’s Christians. Well, except for the whole “belief in God” part. But in both Jesus and today’s atheists you see people with a strong moral center.
A strong moral center does not come from anyone’s teachings. It comes from experience and honesty. If you claim that your morality is that which someone else said 2000 years ago, then you have a weak moral center. If you understand your own nature and you are honest about who you are, then you have a strong moral center. The latter can only happen if you do not believe in absolute God-given final truths.
Jesus had the privilege of being the first prophet. He was honest about his own nature, he understood himself, and this understanding, this moral center, he passed on to his disciples.
What atheists are doing is forging their own moral centers in much the same way that Jesus did. They do not copy and claim it as their own. They look inside themselves and build from there.
Why would I need a savior? I am an honest person. I have strongly held personal moral beliefs that arise from my nature — I don’t try to live up to anyone else’s standards. If I am unhappy with what I’m doing or where I’m living, I don’t need to turn to God, I turn to myself and find a better solution. When I’m in trouble, I use my brains and muscles to get myself out. I take responsibility for my actions and behave in full knowledge of that.
Why would I need a savior? To save myself from myself? But I don’t need saving. I know who I am, I know what I can accomplish, and I’m not afraid of the world. Why would I need a savior?
December 21, 2007 at 7:57 pm
A society where each individual creates and follows their own morality cannot long exist. It inevitably falls into anarchy. If all things are relative then there is no truth or morality. I have met individuals, who being true to themselves, take what they want from others not caring about the consequences of their actions. They lack conscience. They are true to their inner beliefs. History is littered with men who have understood themselves and followed their inner nature and moral beliefs to the destruction of others. Just because you are introspective and honest doesn’t mean you are good or right.
December 21, 2007 at 7:59 pm
A society where each individual creates and follows their own morality cannot long exist. It inevitably falls into anarchy. If all things are relative then there is no truth or morality. I have met individuals, who being true to themselves, take what they want from others not caring about the consequences of their actions. They lack conscience. They are true to their inner beliefs. History is littered with men who have understood themselves and followed their inner nature and moral beliefs to the destruction of others. Just because you are introspective and honest doesn’t mean you are good or right.
December 22, 2007 at 12:44 am
You’re kidding me, right?
You can’t be serious…
This is why we have laws.
When person A exploits person B, the law steps in and punishes person A. That is why we have laws. To make it so that one person cannot exploit another.
Who you are and what you do is up to you, but if by exercising your own personal freedom you infringe on the freedom of another person, the law steps in. That is the purpose of having laws.
There will always be people who lack conscience, even in 100% religious societies, even among devotedly religious people. We have laws to protect ourselves from them.
By forcing your own version of absolute truth and absolute morality, you are, at best, creating hypocrites and insincere people.
December 22, 2007 at 4:03 am
Elver - Who creates the laws then? And on who’s basis for morality and right and wrong are they set? Where do you think these laws came from in the first place?
December 22, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Laws come from ancient Babylon, about 1760 BC
Why do you think you need absolute morality and absolute right and wrong in order to have laws? You absolutely don’t.
Laws are a social contract. Between people in a society. Laws arise from simple logic: punish things that you would not like to suffer. Laws change as society changes.
Laws should not mandate morality, lest we end up with thoughtcrime and organizations like KGB.
Let me say this again: You do not need religion in order to have laws. There is nothing inherently religious about them.
December 22, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Elver,
Ah, so the law is based on what the most people want to be the law, eh? So if the most folks want pedophilia to be allowed by law, you have noting to say about it and “to each his own” huh?
What about Nazi Eugenics? is that okay as a law or does someone else need to come in and force their own morality on everyone to correc that?
Man does not know morality outside of God. It is God who sets the value of human beings and sets them above all the other creatures.
It is God, and ONLY God who says each individual has an intrinsic worth. Your morality leaves that wide open to interpretation and all sorts of debauchery.
Your morals of having pre-marital sex in a responible manor is only right for you then. You certainly cannot expect your partner to adhere to it as well.
You have fallen into your own trap here.
As to faith in God, it it takes more faith to believe there is NO God, especially the one who created the heavens and the earth, than to believe there IS a God. ANd the evidence ALL backs up “Creation by God” as the answer to the beginnign of the universe. If you cannot see that, you simply are not looking and must have your eyes and ears closed.
Have a Merry Christmas all. I will continue to join in the discussion and answer Elver as time permits.
Blessings+ to all.
December 24, 2007 at 12:32 am
Your ignorance of the world is astounding.
The age of consent in Japan used to be 9 until pretty recently. (1999 if I’m not mistaken.)
The age of consent in Islam is also 9 or the first period, whichever comes first.
Age of consent is a relatively recent invention. Up until the 70s legally made kiddy porn used to be sold in public all over Europe. Several of the world’s biggest pron producing companies, like the Color Climax Corporation, got their start by making legal kiddy porn.
Back in the 70s the pedophile activism movement almost got sex with kids legalized in the Netherlands. You know who was on their side? The union of psychologists, the union of schoolteachers, and the most popular political party in the country.
In those days they used to give out pamphlets to little kids in schools eplaining what pedophilia is and how it’s not a bad thing after all.
And you know what? This had been studied since the 50s and those 20 years of research agreed with them: sex with children has no harmful psychological effects in a supportive and understanding environment. No research has been done since the 70s because the pedophile activism movement died out back then. Reason being: HIV/AIDS.
When some dude in the Netherlands tried to restart the pedophile activism movement a couple of years ago I was so shocked, I did some research and that’s what I came up with. Based on my research I can say this: Had HIV/AIDS not appeared in the 70s, there would be no such thing as “age of consent” in 1st and 2nd world countries today. Pedophilia would be legal and would be practiced openly. The world was only a step away back then.
So, yes, if most folks want pedophilia to be allowed (back then that was the case) and if research shows that this would have no ill effects (as research showed back then), then yes, pedophilia would be legalized.
Human rights are protected globally under NATO, EU, and other treaties. It is in the interest of everyone to make sure our basic rights remain protected. Nobody needs to force their morality on everyone to “correct” anything.
Morality can exist perfectly well without God. Atheism is a great example of this.
It isn’t only God who says that. My grandpa also once said that each individual has an intrinsic worth. A lot of people, with God and Godless have said that.
I can assign any value on myself or anyone else. No problem with that. However when I do something to exploit someone else, law steps in and punishes me. And law does not care if I think that someone is worthless or not. Law is blind. That’s why it works.
What? You’re grasping and straws here, and being completely stupid.
I can always choose a partner who has the same set of values regarding pre-marital sex as I do. Just like you can choose a Christian partner. I can choose one whose values preclude cheating on me.
This is completely untrue.
On my side is 300 years of continous study of the objective world which has produced exactly zero evidence for God. There is nothing whatsoever in this world that we cannot explain without invoking “God” as an explanation. The probability that God exists is infinitesimally small, unless it’s the kind of God that hasn’t touched the world since the Big Bang billions of years ago. Therefore the existence of God is exactly as likely as the existence of an invisible and untouchable teapot in orbit around Earth. You do not believe in the teapot, why should you believe in God? Based on all that we can and have observed, the teapot and God are of equal probability.
On your side is an enormous leap of faith which says that yes, there is an invisible force called “God” and he cares about where you put your penis and if you put it somewhere he don’t like, he burns you alive for all eternity. And you’re saying that with zero objective evidence.
I’m sorry, but it takes no faith whatsoever to be an atheist. Lack of God is a probabilistic conclusion of science. It takes all the faith in the world to believe in God.
There is zero evidence to support the idea that God even exists. If you have any evidence which cannot be explained in a much more simpler fashion, then I’d like to see it.
Well, it’s up to you to decide if you want to continue embarrassing yourself or not.
December 24, 2007 at 2:05 am
I do not claim that I have ever embraced atheism. Quite honestly, atheism is a concept I cannot fathom. Nor am I adept at the art of debate, thus my point in responding to this “blog” is not to refute anyone’s viewpoint or defend the validity of my own. Frankly, my belief in God is not up for debate. I read Fr. Dave’s blog because I know Fr. Dave and I like him. He’s an intelligent, compassionate, witty guy with lots of good things to say. But, for what it might be worth, I would like to share the following:
Many years ago, sometime during the late 1970’s or early 1980’s as I recollect, there was an article about astrophysics published in National Geographic. While astrophysics has always been somewhat of an esoteric subject, National Geographic was definitely not an esoteric publication. At the time the article was published, I was probably in my late twenties or early thirties. I was not then (nor am I now) inclined toward higher mathematical thinking. However, having always been fascinated with the absolute awesomeness of the universe, I was drawn to the subject matter of the article, thus I read it. The gist of it concerned itself with the refutation of the “big bang” theory as being quite different from what some scientists had originally postulated. Astrophysicists, through observation and mathematical calculation, determined that there was indeed a “big bang event” but that, just prior to that event, what actually existed was an indescribable nothing. There was no light, no space, no time, no electromagnetic force, no gravity, no electrons, protons, atoms, neutrons, quarks - nothing. Whatever it was that existed was indescribably small and indescribably dense, but indescribable nonetheless, because science had no reference with which to measure it or even understand it. Thirty years ago, when I originally read the article, I guess I considered myself quite clever (now, as I rapidly approach eligibility for senior discounts, I know that I’ll never live long enough to be as clever as I thought myself in my youth) and I realized after I finished reading that these astrophysicists, who were indeed much more clever than I could ever hope to be, had simply, irrefutably, proved the existence of God. Today, men the likes of Stephen Hawking have published studies on singularity and agree that our universe, everything we know, experience, and are, originated with a “nothing” that was so absolute that physics cannot measure it. Science, as my limited mind comprehends it, has indeed proved the existence, the reality, the awesome, unimaginable, magnificence of God.
Blessed Christmas to all!
December 24, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Sharon,
Good post and in line with my own thinking.
Something doesn’t simply and inexplicably come form nothing without a first cause and science has never been able to pin down that first cause. This is where Elver, for all his knowledge about the science of sex is left wanting. We know that for every action there has to be a reaction, however not one scientist has ever been able to definitively and empirically (what Elver likes to have) proved the action that has caused matter/the universe to come into being.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Elver,
You know a lot about sex and the evolution of sexual practice and mores, yet you are so unwise. Your knowledge increases and your enjoyment of life and mystery decreases. But I am astonished at your utter ignorance of the Christian faith.
I cannot find anything in your existence to make me want to stop believing in God. In my mind, you are a sad caricature of a human being…one who does not have any idea of the “why” of its existence.
I am truly sorry for you in this regard.
You seem to be an intelligent guy (at least as far as storing and regurgitating information and facts are concerned) however there does not seem to be any LIFE in you.
If all you want is to exist regurgitating facts and responding to urges and impulses as an animal would and by creating your own little world of morality, I wish you success in your attempt.
If ever you want to know the purpose of your existence, to know real joy and fulfillment and to know you were hand made as an individual by Creator of the universe and all that is or ever will be, then I do suggest you step out of your little box of nothingness and throw yourself fully into different ideas and thought (primarily Christianity since the 70 virgins thing is only a ruse) and then check the results of your investigation.
You have not ever walked in the faith or I can guarantee you would not have left it, unless of course you were in it for greed and personal gain to the exclusion of relationship.
I could go on and on in this argument, but I am tired of being called stupid by such a closed minded individual.
I suggest we withdraw from this blog and give it back to Fr Dave as a Christmas Present. In your case, I think Calvin was right that you were pre-destined to be where you are.
December 24, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Merry Christmas to all, and have a Happy and blessed New Year!
DcnC
December 26, 2007 at 1:58 pm
To Sharon:
While we might not know right now or might not have known 30 years ago what came before the Big Bang, it does not mean that we cannot know in the future.
Take String Theory, for example. If developed further and proven right, it is very likely to tell us exactly what happened before the Big Bang. Not just String Theory. Any other candidate for the Theory of Everything shares this property. Once we have a theory that unifies quantum physics and gravity, we’ll be able to tell a lot more about the Big Bang and what came before.
Suppose you were living 150 years ago and read an article saying that scientists don’t know what happens inside our sun and some scientist is quoted as saying: “It’s doubtful that we’ll ever find out. We have no way of leaving the atmosphere and we can’t enter the sun. It’s too hot in there for any man-made material.” You would conclude: “Because the inside of the sun is indescribable, this is proof for God.” But you’d be wrong.
Today we know what happens inside the sun. Likewise some day we might know what happened before the Big Bang. Problem is: we currently don’t have the data and the fitting theories needed to describe what happened. Just as 150 years ago we didn’t have the data and the theories needed to describe what goes on inside the sun. Today we know.
The concept you are describing is known as “The God of the Gaps.” Essentially people see God everywhere that science hasn’t yet reached. This is most visible in something called “intelligent design” which takes arbitrary complex-looking features of living cells and says that these features disprove evolution with their sheer complexity. Therefore some intelligence must have designed these features. Unsurprisingly the claims of intelligent design proponents are demolished easily with new discoveries.
You have to look at it from an historical point of view. 150 years ago not knowing what goes on inside the sun might have been seen as proof of God. Then we found out. Now the next bit which we cannot yet explain fully is seen as proof of God. Until we find an explanation for it that fits all other explanations. Then this “proof of God” retreats to even smaller and smaller areas.
Furthermore the “proof of God” that you see in the gaps of science does not prove the existence of the Christian God or the Islamic God. If before the Big Bang a Cosmic Creator did exist and if he/she did set the Big Bang and our universe in motion, there is still no proof that he/she is the Christian God.
When scientists speak of the unknowns and the beauty they see in the laws of nature, they sometimes use the word “God”, but what they usually mean is the God of Einstein or Spinoza. Their ideas regarding God have been more recently revived by Scott Adams in his fiction.
Einstein’s idea was that some kind of Creator did start the universe and it is up to us to discover his laws by looking at his creation. Science, to him, was the best tool for looking at the Mind of God. He wasn’t a Christian or a Jew or of any other common faith. But, in a sense, he was religious.
Scott Adams proposed the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient creature who asks the only question he/she cannot answer: what happens when I don’t exist? His idea was that the Big Bang was the result of this “God” trying to find out the answer and we, the universe, are pieces of “God” reassembling itself.
Nature does have a beauty and wonder that might be interpreted as being “proof of God”, but you cannot take a currently unknown part of the world and use the fact that science doesn’t yet understand it as “proof of God”. One day science will understand it. What then? Does your God stop existing? Do you admit to having been wrong? Do you take some other, smaller part of the world that science doesn’t yet understand and claim that as proof of God?
You should send your kids off to study higher mathematics. I have studied it and it’s quite amazing how it all fits together. You can have two entirely different schools of mathematics working on two entirely different branches of mathematics and one day they’ll discover that there’s an overlap. They have broken through the barrier in between. Their ideas connect to one another. Mathematics aren’t invented, they’re discovered and studying the hundreds of years worth of maths occasionally does feel like a spiritual experience when you grasp the meaning of some piece or finally understand how it all fits together. There is more “God” in understanding science and mathematics than there is in seeing a part we cannot yet understand. However, the “God” in nature is not a Christian God. There is no mathematical proof for the 10 commandments.
I’ll give you three answers to that.
1. Science, unlike religion, is not dogma. It makes new discoveries every day. What makes you think that the “first cause” won’t be discovered in the future?
2. Science has made great progress over the last 100 years in understanding the “first cause”. We’ve been able to formulate the question in the language of science, we’ve been able to verify that our question is correct, and it’s possible, though unlikely, that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will be able to answer the question. In other words: we might understand the “first cause” within 10-15 years.
3. What makes you think that the laws governing our universe are anything like the laws outside our universe? While in our universe something has to come from something, we don’t know enough about the outside to say that the same is true there. For example, all the universes might exist in a superposition, a bit like Schrödinger’s cat, so that our universe is one of many in a wave function that hasn’t yet collapsed. No first cause would be needed.
I find it dishonest of you to continually do the following:
1. You attribute some belief to me or science. (”Science doesn’t know the first cause.”
2. You then claim that because of #1, science or me is seriously lacking and we should all embrace religion, because it made you feel good.
And when I disprove you, you ignore me and find some other point where you can do the same. You are, quite simply, being dishonest in doing so.
I am not surprised, merely disappointed.
Please, stop claiming things about me for which you have no proof. This is called libel.
Ask any scientist. He’ll tell you that by understanding how things work, his/her enjoyment of life and mystery have increased substantially.
I probably understand it better than you. The “problem” is that I also understand other religions and religion in general. I have seen enough of the world to draw my own comparisons and my own conclusions.
What you feel about your own faith is no different from what a Muslim feels about his/her faith. Or what a Catholic feels about his/her faith. Or what a person of any other creed feels about his/her creed.
What you claim that religion gives you also happens to people of other religions. The same feeling of peace, meaning, happiness — these feelings come with almost all religions.
But here you are saying that your religion is right and all others are wrong. And people of all other religions say the same thing.
You fail to see it.
What little understanding of the world you have comes from one very biased book that you cannot see beyond.
Instead of looking at the world and seeing what’s really there you look in your book and then try to paint it on the world. But here’s the problem: people with different books also try to do the same. People trying to write their own books just for themselves try to paint their own small piece of the world. And there you are, book in hand, preaching tolerance, understanding, brotherly love, and representing none of those things, because yours is the absolute truth and in the name of absolute truth everything is allowed, all dissension must quelled. In the name of Jesus, Allah, or whatever — the banner and the details may be different, but the hypocritical core remains the same: love only those who are under the same banner; for all else there is anything from hate to death.
December 28, 2007 at 1:15 pm
…..”IF”, and “PROVEN” in the same first sentence…nuff said.
December 28, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Meanwhile Christianity proves nothing
Science provides answers to the big questions. Not all of them, but it’s working on it. We can consistently demonstrate, if need be, that the answers science produces are, in fact, true. Science provides knowledge.
Christianity provides answers to the big questions, but there is no way to verify some of the answers and some other are demonstrably false. At best, Christianity makes you believe that you know the answers while giving you either unverifiable or demonstrably false claims.
We hold science to a high standard. Its claims must be proven with experiments. With mountains of evidence. The FDA takes 10 years to approve a drug, because they do scientific testing to make sure that the side effects are minimal and you don’t get sick by taking it.
Religion is held to no standard. In fact, it’s taboo to even criticize claims made by any religion. Any claim made by any religion is treated as “sacred”. No proof required. And the way to get there is to claim something, find a following, and be declared a religion. Suddenly you’re exempt from any requirements of proof.
If in the face of this you claim that religion provides better answers than science to the big questions of the world, you are obviously fooling yourself.
December 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Your reductionism does not allow you to enjoy the variety of life as it simply sets you into the cog of the machinery. The earth and all life then becomes mere categorized atoms without a purpose or soul. For what is the value of a “soul” without the God who created it?
Why, as you say, is there an intrinsic value placed on human life in your moral/value system? From whence does it proceed. To what end? Simply for the here and now?
Again, you have presented nothing that has persuaded me that your way is better than the way of my Lord and God.
While I cannot present the argument you need that the God of the bible - the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ – does exist in terms that are empirical, or supported by your scientific “fact”, neither can you prove that He does not exist.
Further, you still have not provided the first cause of creation. You have only presented theory’s with no empirical data to prove your position. So for all your knowledge, you have not in any way affected my belief, but you have anchored yourself into a fixed box of statistical facts where variables and mystery can not exist. For in order to have mystery, you have to have faith in what cannot be known empirically. If you can know it empirically, it is not mystery.
God exists in that mystery. He is known and yet cannot be fully known. And yet in looking at all of creation, one cannot help but stand in awe and wonder at the delicate balance of nature and the universe that He created. One bump in the process and all of it is gone. One planet out of alignment and it all burns or freezes.
Science is only good so far as it describes what we are made of and what our world is made of. It cannot tell us “who” we are or why we are who we are.
So your arguments do not have a purpose here. You have no way of knowing what I know or don’t know. You make propositions based only on your reading of my posts and not in knowing who I am. That is the real problem here. You can quantify from a distance based solely on what you see and can prove and yet you cannot know me at all. So therefore, the only proof of my existence is the written word that I am presenting here. There is no other proof.
And yet…you respond to me as if I do in fact exist.
And that is the reason I say you have a “religion” in your atheism. You have a set of belief’s, be they in line with other atheists or not, they are yours and unchangeable until such time as proof comes along to change your view (or until you decide you don’t like those sets of belief’s anymore.) Your religion is in arguing with those that believe in God to prove (if it were possible) that God does not exist.
As to religions, you may have studied all the religions in the world, but nothing will “fit” for you until one of them actually DOES something for you. You have not lived long enough to be “in the foxhole” as it were. Once you have faced real crisis – real life changing crisis – and come out the other side, then we can talk. But your type of person does not convince on mere debate. You need proof. You are a “Thomas” if you will. You must touch the nail scars and put your hand in His side before you will believe. I pray that one day you get the chance.
December 28, 2007 at 10:08 pm
ELVER:
Meanwhile Christianity proves nothing
DcnC REPLIES:
It’s not here to prove anything. It simply IS. It is presented to you to either believe or not. God is the great I AM.
ELVER:
Science provides answers to the big questions. Not all of them, but it’s working on it. We can consistently demonstrate, if need be, that the answers science produces are, in fact, true. Science provides knowledge.
DcnC REPLIES:
Science only provides knowledge. It is limited in what it can prove. It cannot prove evolution. It cannot prove extinction. It cannot prove or disprove God, nor our need for a belief system.
It can provide evidence but not proof. It can only surmise existence prior to written recordings, and they themselves are suspect in many cases.
You cannot reproduce evolution for example. No one can do so as it supposedly occurred over millions of years according to science and there is no way to empiracally prove that. No one was alive then. Neither do we have any photographs.
We have no written documentation other than that of a scientist of 100 years ago or so, who SUPPOSED that due to certain traits found in certain animals that they MUST have come from such and such. Yet there is not continuous proven link all the way back to the primordial ooze to prove it or anything else for that matter. It is all theory and supposition. Your string theory is a good example. Nothing is proven. Everything depends on “proof” and “if” (Thank you Lori) yet to come. Therefore you cannot make a definitive statement one way or the other.
If you want to argue the validity of scientific theory, that is something entirely different. But you cannot argue against the existence of God. You have absolutely no proof scientifically.
ELVER:
Christianity provides answers to the big questions, but there is no way to verify some of the answers and some other are demonstrably false.
DcnC REPLIES:
Okay Elver, which is it now – is it “Science provides answers to the big questions” from your previous paragraph, or is it this one “Christianity provides answers to the big questions” from this paragraph?? Can’t be both.
And there is no way to verify some of the answers that science gives either. If you claim otherwise, you are being disingenuous.
ELVER:
At best, Christianity makes you believe that you know the answers while giving you either unverifiable or demonstrably false claims.
DcnC REPLIES:
Darwinists are in the same boat.
ELVER:
We hold science to a high standard.
DcnC REPLIES:
Until the next research grant wants a different outcome (tobacco companies.)
Heck, look at all the food and medical advice that has flip flopped over the last 5 decades. That is enough to prove you wrong here.
ELVER:
Its claims must be proven with experiments. With mountains of evidence. The FDA takes 10 years to approve a drug, because they do scientific testing to make sure that the side effects are minimal and you don’t get sick by taking it.
DcnC REPLIES:
And yet there are so many drugs that seem to have recently developed negative side effects that supposedly were negligible or non-existent when the drug was initially approved.
How about the Kinsey studies? How about the claims that homosexuality is genetic. They didn’t even have a control group during that study, yet it was widely claimed as fact even today.
No, your belief in science is at least as untenable (if not moreso) that my belief in Jesus.
ELVER:
Religion is held to no standard.
DcnC REPLIES:
This statement is simply wrong on its face. Our standards are held through the historic church of 2000 years. You said so yourself in an earlier post that it was static and unchanging. While I disagree with you, for the purpose of this portion of the argument I will grant you that it is unchanging and held to the highest standard where the historic consensus is concerned.
ELVER:
In fact, it’s taboo to even criticize claims made by any religion. Any claim made by any religion is treated as “sacred”. No proof required. And the way to get there is to claim something, find a following, and be declared a religion. Suddenly you’re exempt from any requirements of proof.
If in the face of this you claim that religion provides better answers than science to the big questions of the world, you are obviously fooling yourself.
DcnC REPLIES:
You have fooled yourself with your confusing arguments. I would say you are a study in contradictions. You have failed at your task of proving God does not exist and that all religion is bad.
Depending on what measure you use, liberal, good, just or moral, Christianity is the only religion that is good. Granted there have been aberration, but in its 2000 years it has done far more good for mankind than science (unguided by Christian morals). In fact, there really is no comparison. Science cannot save the soul.
Science has been used for good and bad (Nazi experiments) as well.
There is ultimately no need for science and religion to be at odds. One deals with the physical world and the other the metaphysical/theological.
Science will give you food and medicine, but only Jesus Christ will give you real and lasting peace in your soul. I will stick with Jesus. After all, I have been on both sides of the fence having messed around with Satanism as well, so perhaps I am not the right one for you to argue with in the first place. It is not so much what my religion tells me about what I can or cannot do, what I can or cannot believe; It is all about the overwhelming, crushing, all consuming and omnipotent power of Jesus Christ that literally saved me from the clutches of hell that I had got myself into that I cling to and believe in. The other stuff simply fills out who it is I believe in and how I should relate to His other followers. That’s what makes the cross – both my relationship with Him (vertical) as well a relationship with other believers (horizontal.)
December 29, 2007 at 1:16 am
Truth be told, I largely think the same thing about Christianity. How can you enjoy the variety of life if you can only have one kind of life — the kind that’s described in the Bible?
The intrinsic value placed on life, and human life in particular, comes from the simple fact that we, humans, create the rules and to us, humans, we ourselves are most valuable. Now, of course, a bit of logic is applied. If we all thought “I am the most valuable”, then society would not work. Therefore we compromise and come up with “all humans are of equal high value.” Likewise we extend this value, but to a lesser degree, to other living beings we recognize as being similar to us.
Life and intelligent life in particular have value to us, because we are intelligent life forms. It’s as simple as that.
And yes, for the here and now. If you know that this is the only life you’ll have, you’ll spend it the way you like, not the way someone tells you to spend it in order to have a good afterlife.
It doesn’t mean that atheists don’t value their dead ancestors. If anything, the grief is more powerful, because there’s no false hope. But, you know, the important parts of the person still live on. I don’t visit my grandfather’s grave, but not a week goes by when I don’t think about his influence on my life. He was a great guy. Built our home with his own hands and taught me a lot about the world. No other person has had more influence on me than he did and that influence, not to mention the genes, live on inside me and I’ll pass it on to my friends, family, children.
He is dead. I will never meet him again. It would be nice if that was possible. If I were to meet him in the afterlife, assuming such a thing exists, I would be really happy. But I’m not going to spend my life hoping that things for which there is no proof actually exist. It would be a waste of time.
This is the purely atheist/humanist view of the world. If we add a big dose of science into the mix, we realize that all of us are actually made up of atoms that were made inside a huge star that went supernova billions of years ago and seeded our part of the galaxy. One day the atoms that make up who we are will return to the stars, to the void between the stars, to everything around us. Some of these atoms will surely end up in other living organisms, in other humans.
Purely statistically speaking, assuming that Jesus was a real person, then in every glass of water there is at least one water molecule that went through Jesus’ bladder 2000 years ago.
Scientists are talking about extending human