Free For all - Open Discussions and DebatesFaith is blind and downright dangerousActually, I don't denigrate the Bible. I think it's a fascinating book and an extraordinary work of literature and history. What I do question however, is whether it is anything more than a work of fiction. You see, I love the works of Shakespeare, and I think there's much we can learn from the Bard, but if some people were to believe that stories like A Midsummer Nights' Dream were factual and put total faith in their authenticity, I would adopt a tone of healthy scepticism very like I've demonstrated here. A great deal of detailed and admirable scholarly research has been conducted on the Bible, and it is through this that we do possess a reasonable timeline for when the various parts of the New Testament were written. From my memory of having read about some of this research, the Gospels didn't appear in anything like the form we are familiar with today until roughly 130AD - 140AD. As I'm genuinely interested, I will examine this area more thoroughly. I agree that my opinion of the Bible is just that: an opinion, but it's an opinion based on a very careful logical analysis of the evidence which is available. If I had total unwavering and unquestioning faith in my current opinion, I wouldn't need to think about it anymore and I would close my mind off to all other possibilities. That is what faith does. You cannot believe absolutely in something for which there isn't one shred of evidence without an extraordinary kind of blind faith. But that also demands a closed mind - closed to any further enquiry and devoid of skepticism. And with that, there's no progress, only stagnation. With all due respect, and I don't want to seem disparaging, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word theory in a scientific context. When scientists talk about a theory, they do not refer to something which is totally unproven and therefore totally reliant upon faith, as you seem to suggest. Take a look at Quantum Theory for example. There is a great deal we don't yet know, indeed it is probably the most mysterious and puzzling area in all of modern science. However, Quantum Theory is built upon a very great deal of painstaking research involving proven and quantifiable results that can be and are replicated in a laboratory. So the theory is composed of a great deal of proven fact, and involves a certain degree of logical extrapolation which therefore demands further research. The theory is constantly evolving and progressing as our understanding of the universe grows. That is a good thing. But there isn't a decent scientist alive who simply puts faith in unproveable ideas. That isn't how science operates. That's how religion operates. You mentioned the Atom Bomb for example. The bomb is itself proof that the scientific research that lead up to it's creation was accurate and true. There is no requirement for faith. However, the scientists who pioneered research into Quantum Theory such as Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac etc. were not working toward the creation of a weapon. They sought to understand the world through logical and rational means, and were in fact appalled when they realised that some of the evidence from their research lead to the possibility of a new and devastating weapon: the Atom Bomb. I totally agree with you that there is indeed nothing rational about wanting to blow each other up, but this is not what Scientists set out to do. Divisive faiths and religions help to set nations at enmity with one another, and encourage man to misuse the means at his disposal to inflict great harm on his neighbours. Each opposing side has total faith that it is they who are in the right. I'm sure this would still happen without religion, you mentioned Stalin for example. But there is no doubt that a great deal of the wars and suffering inflicted upon the people of the world have been religiously motivated. And when the Bible refers to God actually ordering a whole mass of people to be eliminated, as you yourself mentioned in an earlier post today, I cannot see how we can put our blind faith in God and expect to get ourselves out of the mess we're in. We need to take personal responsibility for what we're doing and how we treat each other. When a Christian commits a good deed, it is done out of an understanding of the teachings of Jesus, and in the knowledge that persistent immoral conduct will lead to God's displeasure and very possibly an eternity of torment in Hell. In other words, a Christian is being told how to behave and fears what might happen if they don't obey. That sounds like a child's response to morality. On the other hand, when a Athiest Humanist commits a good deed, it is not because of any superstitious belief or fear of what might happen if they don't behave. It is because they have carefully thought it through for themselves and passionately believe in and understand the neccessity for good moral conduct. It springs out of a love for one's fellow man and a passion for this life here and now, not fear of what may come in the supposed afterlife. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame