Everybody has heard about the concept of "original sin", the eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil against God's explicit command which stained all mankind from that moment until the end of days when God wipes sin from the face of the universe with his incredible magic powers. Now, it's important to note that the term "original sin" is not used in the Bible, but it is a very common term amongst the religious and the concept of original sin is very much laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately for believers, original sin is impossible. Let me explain.
The Bible explicitly states that Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, but they didn't know it because they did not have the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is well established in the Old Testament that looking at a naked person is sinful, and the first thing Adam and Eve did when they realized they were naked was to cover themselves and hide their nudity from God, who, for some reason, is really bad at hide and seek even though he knows where you're hiding...but the things the "omniscient" God doesn't know is the topic for another post.
So how could it be that Adam and Eve were looking at each other naked all this time, but it was not a sin? Any Christian will readily explain to you that this is because they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil. Since they weren't aware that they were looking at each other naked, nor that it was a sin, they were not sinning. This was God's plan. If we never knew about sin we wouldn't be able to sin.
Then comes the strange part. God tells them not to eat from the Tree. He says if they do then they'll die. He then leaves his children with their creepy uncle, who God knew full well couldn't be left alone with children, but he had some shopping to do and didn't want to leave them in the hot car in the parking lot, maybe? I really don't get that part. "I love you so much! I've got a few things I have to do. I'll be back a little later. (Should I mention the murderous asshole who wants to corrupt my children and undo all of my good works, whom I have inexplicably given free reign to roam wherever he chooses, including near my precious children? Nah. I really don't see that causing any problems.) Have a nice time!" Yeah, that makes sense.
So along comes the devil, saying, "Hey, look at THAT tree! That looks pretty good! You should try it!"
But Adam and Eve aren't having any of that. They respond, "Yeah, it does look good, but God told us not to. He said that one will kill us."
To that the devil replies, "Nu uh! It's good for you! Try it! You'll see that I'm right!"
So, Eve tries the fruit, then gives it to Adam. Seeing that she didn't die, he tries it and BOOM! Original sin!
But hold the presses! WHY was it a sin? Because they did what God told them not to, of course! Because they listened to the Devil instead of God, of course! BUT, before eating the fruit they didn't know good from evil. It was, after all, the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". That is the EXACT name of the tree. So if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, did they even KNOW that God was good and the devil was bad? They certainly wouldn't have understood that the devil was "evil" because they had no concept of evil. Furthermore, without giving them this knowledge God had left them completely unequipped to deal with the concept of a "lie". The devil lied to them, but they didn't know what a lie was. And to take it even further, they didn't know that eating the fruit would be a "sin" since they had no concept of sin. So, if seeing each other naked was not a sin because they had no concept of sin, how could eating the fruit have been a sin, since they had no concept of sin? Since they didn't know the devil was evil, how could they have known that they should not listen to him? Since they didn't have a concept of lying how could they have possibly known the devil might be lying?
Before eating this fruit they had no concept of good or evil. The very name of the tree tells you that it gave them both of these concepts. They could not have known God was good. They could not have known the devil was evil. They could not have known that eating the fruit would be a sin. They could not have understood that it was possible to lie. Since they had no knowledge of evil they would have had NO REASON to suspect the devil of being anything bu EXACTLY as trustworthy as God. They wouldn't have known to be wary of him, they wouldn't have understood that he was "evil" and, most importantly, since they didn't know eating the fruit was a sin, IT WASN'T! After all, they didn't know looking at each other naked was a sin, so IT wasn't. By the very argument which explains away why seeing each other naked was not a sin before they had the knowledge of good and evil it was IMPOSSIBLE for Adam and Eve to sin until AFTER they ate the fruit. Not to mention it was also impossible for them to conceive that the devil might be bad or that he might tell lies, which are both concepts they didn't have before eating the fruit.
So any "original sin" would have had to come AFTER eating the fruit, once they had the knowledge which even allowed them to be capable of sin in the first place.
Of course, this is just a single example of the many, many, many, many, many, many, many things which make the original creation story completely ridiculous to take seriously as in any way factual. And, of course, that doesn't stop people from twisting their minds and way of thinking to such a degree that they can believe it anyway. But just remember, religion is full of examples of one deity or another doing the impossible, but this particular example should make us all proud because it's an example of human beings doing the impossible, and all without the magical help of fairies and lawn gnomes to help us! Yes, we human beings sinned the impossible sin all by ourselves, without any help from magic whatsoever, and we should all be very proud of our ancestry for that. After all, when was the last time you did something which was literally impossible?
Friday, August 1, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Reconciling religion and science
This is one of my pet peeves. People keep arguing about reconciling religion and science. Some say it's possible, others say it's not, some just say it needs to be done. Let me just state to start off that it is completely possible for science and religion to be reconciled. In fact, there is no need for discussion. It would be easy to do. So why are we talking about it instead of doing it? Let's look into it.
Science, as intelligent, informed people know, is a method of explaining the natural universe around us. Science cannot implore a supernatural explanation because if it did then we would really never have an explanation for how anything works. Let's look at how science would look at a supernatural event.
Let us imagine, for argument's sage, that there are gnomes poofing into existence all over the planet. It's just "POOF!", there's a gnome. He goes about his business, keeps to himself and doesn't hurt anyone. Eventually he buggers off to wherever he came from, never to be heard from again. But it keeps happening. Let us further imagine that these gnomes are, in fact, magical creatures and it is magic bringing them into existence and removing them from existence in our physical world. How would science deal with this? It would start with observation. Then there would be experimentation. We would certainly dissect a few of the little guys, if they didn't shoot magic all over our faces when we tried. But try as we might, science can find no natural explanation for why this is happening because there isn't one. So, what scientific theory would we use to explain it? None. There would be no theory because it is supernatural and science cannot give a supernatural explanation. There would be no naturalistic explanation of this, so there would be no scientific explanation. Scientists would proclaim that there was no scientific explanation for what was happening.
That is the important thing to note about science. You CAN NOT give a supernatural explanation or invoke the supernatural in any way. If you do, it's not scientific; it's not science. With this in mind it's easy to see what science thinks about the concept of gods. Nothing at all. Science claims it neither possible nor impossible that one or more gods exist. Science does not even brooch the question because science isn't meant to explain the supernatural. Its purpose is to explain the natural.
Religion, on the other hand, is all about the supernatural and its influence on the natural universe. Religion is great at explaining the supernatural. In fact, religion is perfect for explaining the supernatural. Why? Because you don't have to test anything. You don't have to prove anything. You simply have to believe it's true and, if you're lucky, convince others to believe it as well. You don't have to prove that God created the world in 6 literal days, though many have tried and, sadly, believed they succeeded simply by pointing out that the Bible says it's so. These so called "Bible literalists" are, frankly, not very bright. They claim that every word in the Bible is absolute truth and the Word of God. Yet when you point out the passage which outlines how long your slave must survive a fatal beating for it not to be a crime they talk about "a different time". When you point out the concept of a firmament with windows in it to let the rain through they talk about people who "didn't understand". Apparently any part of the Bible which is inconveniently obviously not literally true, that part was written by fallible men, yet at the same time every word is the "Word of God". I suppose it makes sense if you believe a god fathered himself to sacrifice to himself as a way to forgive us for breaking some convoluted and contradictory rules he wrote himself because the old method of forgiveness involving ongoing sacrifice, inexplicably, was no longer sufficient. But I digress.
So now we have to determine why there is a need to reconcile science and religion. Who wants this reconciliation? Why do they want it? Why is it a problem that they are not reconciled and how can it be fixed? We have already determined that science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, so it's not science that desires this reconciliation. In fact, is is the religious of the world who want the two to be reconciled. But why? If science doesn't have anything to say about their religious beliefs, why do the two need to be reconciled? Because science says the Earth wasn't created in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago. Houston, we have a problem. How are we going to fix that? When we look at the science every single branch of science which can put a date on something further back than 10,000 years does. There is not one single science which gives the slightest evidence that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Everywhere science looks there is evidence that the universe is billions of years old, whether we look into space, dig in the ground, land on another planet or go to the bottom of the see. Scientifically speaking, a 10,000 year old Earth is simply not an option. It just isn't true. This certainly creates a problem for reconciliation. Fortunately not every religious person believes this, so it's not necessarily a problem for all religious people. So let's look at another example.
On to evolution (evilution?). Evolution says that everything on Earth evolved from the most primitive lifeforms we can find evidence for. This is at odds with those who believe that we were created in our current form by God. Again we have a problem reconciling the two. All the evidence shows evolution is a reality. In fact, it is one of the most hated and, thus, most tested theories of all times. If any theory has been put through the paces and come out as a reality it's evolution. There is simply no evidence, no science to even suggest that evolution is not a reality. It's about as solid as it gets, unless you count intelligent design as science, but since it starts with a supernatural being setting the design in motion, and since you would not sail into the middle of the ocean on a "design" for a ship, it requires that this "design" then be "created", it's supernatural hogwash with no basis in science or reality, so we can safely dismiss it as, and forgive the scientific terminology here, "crap".
So, no luck finding a way to reconcile science with particular religious beliefs so far. What to do? Let's move on to why it's a problem and come back to this sticky situation. It'll be quick as the problem is obvious. Science keeps telling religious people that their beliefs are wrong. They see this as a personal attack, as an "evil" being done against them, as anti-religious. Of course given that science uses "natural" explanations only it most certainly is not intended to be an attack on religion. It's simply what the evidence is telling scientists. But I can certainly see how this is a problem I told you it would be quick.
Now back to how to reconcile science and religion. What can we do? Can we fix the science which people don't like? Well, the evidence is what leads to the conclusion. Can we change the evidence? That would certainly not be scientific. If we started doing that science would stop working. Can we change the conclusion despite the evidence? Again, not very scientific, nor very productive. So what to do? Let's do a quick recap.
Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, only the natural. As a result, science doesn't care what your personal beliefs are. So, science has no need to reconcile. On the other hand when supernatural beliefs include influences in the natural universe then those with supernatural beliefs are concerned with what science says. It is for this reason that the religious people of the world want reconciliation between the two. So, one side doesn't care and holds beliefs based on evidence and methodical experimentation, the other side does care and holds beliefs based on what nameless, primitive, misogynistic men wrote thousands of years ago. The answer is simple. If you want to reconcile science and religion then YOU have to change. Science has no need for reconciliation, science works quite well, science doesn't need to change. Religion has a desire for reconciliation, religion is an individual thing, religion needs to change OR forget about reconciliation. It's that simple. If you want science and your religious beliefs to be reconciled, then just DO IT! Change your religious beliefs so that they no longer conflict with reality. There is plenty of room left for magical beliefs, even beliefs which affect the real world such as prayer healing (I know this guy who has this cousin whose boyfriend's sister heard about this guy who had cancer and he prayed about it and after months of chemotherapy it was gone!) But when religious beliefs conflict with scientific reality either change your religious beliefs to match proven reality or stop whining about reconciling science with your religion. We're not going to change the data until we get an outcome everyone likes. We're not going to change to conclusions to something which doesn't offend your religious sensibilities. The data is what it is and it says what it says and we're not going to pretend reality is any different than what reality is just to make you happy. So if you want to reconcile science with your religion, go ahead and change your beliefs. Problem solved. If you don't want to do that then there will be no reconciliation between the two. Science isn't demanding reconciliation, after all. It's only religious people who are demanding reconciliation. What they are really demanding is that science change to match their beliefs. They are demanding that reality be altered to match their beliefs. It's never going to happen. Science works and it's not going to break itself so that you can hold your primitive beliefs unchallenged.
Science, as intelligent, informed people know, is a method of explaining the natural universe around us. Science cannot implore a supernatural explanation because if it did then we would really never have an explanation for how anything works. Let's look at how science would look at a supernatural event.
Let us imagine, for argument's sage, that there are gnomes poofing into existence all over the planet. It's just "POOF!", there's a gnome. He goes about his business, keeps to himself and doesn't hurt anyone. Eventually he buggers off to wherever he came from, never to be heard from again. But it keeps happening. Let us further imagine that these gnomes are, in fact, magical creatures and it is magic bringing them into existence and removing them from existence in our physical world. How would science deal with this? It would start with observation. Then there would be experimentation. We would certainly dissect a few of the little guys, if they didn't shoot magic all over our faces when we tried. But try as we might, science can find no natural explanation for why this is happening because there isn't one. So, what scientific theory would we use to explain it? None. There would be no theory because it is supernatural and science cannot give a supernatural explanation. There would be no naturalistic explanation of this, so there would be no scientific explanation. Scientists would proclaim that there was no scientific explanation for what was happening.
That is the important thing to note about science. You CAN NOT give a supernatural explanation or invoke the supernatural in any way. If you do, it's not scientific; it's not science. With this in mind it's easy to see what science thinks about the concept of gods. Nothing at all. Science claims it neither possible nor impossible that one or more gods exist. Science does not even brooch the question because science isn't meant to explain the supernatural. Its purpose is to explain the natural.
Religion, on the other hand, is all about the supernatural and its influence on the natural universe. Religion is great at explaining the supernatural. In fact, religion is perfect for explaining the supernatural. Why? Because you don't have to test anything. You don't have to prove anything. You simply have to believe it's true and, if you're lucky, convince others to believe it as well. You don't have to prove that God created the world in 6 literal days, though many have tried and, sadly, believed they succeeded simply by pointing out that the Bible says it's so. These so called "Bible literalists" are, frankly, not very bright. They claim that every word in the Bible is absolute truth and the Word of God. Yet when you point out the passage which outlines how long your slave must survive a fatal beating for it not to be a crime they talk about "a different time". When you point out the concept of a firmament with windows in it to let the rain through they talk about people who "didn't understand". Apparently any part of the Bible which is inconveniently obviously not literally true, that part was written by fallible men, yet at the same time every word is the "Word of God". I suppose it makes sense if you believe a god fathered himself to sacrifice to himself as a way to forgive us for breaking some convoluted and contradictory rules he wrote himself because the old method of forgiveness involving ongoing sacrifice, inexplicably, was no longer sufficient. But I digress.
So now we have to determine why there is a need to reconcile science and religion. Who wants this reconciliation? Why do they want it? Why is it a problem that they are not reconciled and how can it be fixed? We have already determined that science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, so it's not science that desires this reconciliation. In fact, is is the religious of the world who want the two to be reconciled. But why? If science doesn't have anything to say about their religious beliefs, why do the two need to be reconciled? Because science says the Earth wasn't created in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago. Houston, we have a problem. How are we going to fix that? When we look at the science every single branch of science which can put a date on something further back than 10,000 years does. There is not one single science which gives the slightest evidence that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Everywhere science looks there is evidence that the universe is billions of years old, whether we look into space, dig in the ground, land on another planet or go to the bottom of the see. Scientifically speaking, a 10,000 year old Earth is simply not an option. It just isn't true. This certainly creates a problem for reconciliation. Fortunately not every religious person believes this, so it's not necessarily a problem for all religious people. So let's look at another example.
On to evolution (evilution?). Evolution says that everything on Earth evolved from the most primitive lifeforms we can find evidence for. This is at odds with those who believe that we were created in our current form by God. Again we have a problem reconciling the two. All the evidence shows evolution is a reality. In fact, it is one of the most hated and, thus, most tested theories of all times. If any theory has been put through the paces and come out as a reality it's evolution. There is simply no evidence, no science to even suggest that evolution is not a reality. It's about as solid as it gets, unless you count intelligent design as science, but since it starts with a supernatural being setting the design in motion, and since you would not sail into the middle of the ocean on a "design" for a ship, it requires that this "design" then be "created", it's supernatural hogwash with no basis in science or reality, so we can safely dismiss it as, and forgive the scientific terminology here, "crap".
So, no luck finding a way to reconcile science with particular religious beliefs so far. What to do? Let's move on to why it's a problem and come back to this sticky situation. It'll be quick as the problem is obvious. Science keeps telling religious people that their beliefs are wrong. They see this as a personal attack, as an "evil" being done against them, as anti-religious. Of course given that science uses "natural" explanations only it most certainly is not intended to be an attack on religion. It's simply what the evidence is telling scientists. But I can certainly see how this is a problem I told you it would be quick.
Now back to how to reconcile science and religion. What can we do? Can we fix the science which people don't like? Well, the evidence is what leads to the conclusion. Can we change the evidence? That would certainly not be scientific. If we started doing that science would stop working. Can we change the conclusion despite the evidence? Again, not very scientific, nor very productive. So what to do? Let's do a quick recap.
Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural, only the natural. As a result, science doesn't care what your personal beliefs are. So, science has no need to reconcile. On the other hand when supernatural beliefs include influences in the natural universe then those with supernatural beliefs are concerned with what science says. It is for this reason that the religious people of the world want reconciliation between the two. So, one side doesn't care and holds beliefs based on evidence and methodical experimentation, the other side does care and holds beliefs based on what nameless, primitive, misogynistic men wrote thousands of years ago. The answer is simple. If you want to reconcile science and religion then YOU have to change. Science has no need for reconciliation, science works quite well, science doesn't need to change. Religion has a desire for reconciliation, religion is an individual thing, religion needs to change OR forget about reconciliation. It's that simple. If you want science and your religious beliefs to be reconciled, then just DO IT! Change your religious beliefs so that they no longer conflict with reality. There is plenty of room left for magical beliefs, even beliefs which affect the real world such as prayer healing (I know this guy who has this cousin whose boyfriend's sister heard about this guy who had cancer and he prayed about it and after months of chemotherapy it was gone!) But when religious beliefs conflict with scientific reality either change your religious beliefs to match proven reality or stop whining about reconciling science with your religion. We're not going to change the data until we get an outcome everyone likes. We're not going to change to conclusions to something which doesn't offend your religious sensibilities. The data is what it is and it says what it says and we're not going to pretend reality is any different than what reality is just to make you happy. So if you want to reconcile science with your religion, go ahead and change your beliefs. Problem solved. If you don't want to do that then there will be no reconciliation between the two. Science isn't demanding reconciliation, after all. It's only religious people who are demanding reconciliation. What they are really demanding is that science change to match their beliefs. They are demanding that reality be altered to match their beliefs. It's never going to happen. Science works and it's not going to break itself so that you can hold your primitive beliefs unchallenged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)