The Intersection

I Fought God and, God Won

i-1a3489e918ce8c7d713456714d4a7596-God.jpg

[God: "Go ahead, make my day."]

I have been staying out of the science and religion mess lately–although I think it’s already known that while I’m personally non-religious, I agree with Nisbet that going head-on at people’s faith probably isn’t a very good strategy if you want to defend the teaching of evolution in the USA.

But in any event, what harm can come from a tiny little post? (Grinning fiendishly.)

So here’s my contribution: I merely wish to point out a good analysis of polling data over at Pew that strongly supports the broad Nisbet perspective. The gist: The American public doesn’t generally perceive a necessary conflict between religion and science; but if you tell them there is such an either-or conflict, guess which one of the binary options they’re gonna choose?

Yeah, that’s right. White-beard-in-the-sky-guy–or some variation thereon.

Comments

  1. #1 degustibus
    August 30, 2007

    This is the same American Public that believes that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack.

    If you want to remain true to science, at some point you have to go head on and say there is no supernatural critter behind it all pulling the strings. As you sort of coyly do by default, claiming to be “non-religious”. (Humanist, no?)

    ah, well, degustibus I say

  2. #2 Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD
    August 30, 2007

    I checked your link, and they didn’t put it in ALL CAPS the way Nisbet does, so I don’t believe them.

    P.S. Every time I’ve arranged a showdown with that God character, he’s been a no-show.

  3. #3 Dan S.
    August 30, 2007

    I you want to remain true to science, at some point you have to go head on and say there is no supernatural critter behind it all pulling the strings.

    Do you feel that science is actually able to say this – that we are able to establish this through science? If so, how?

  4. #4 bigTom
    August 30, 2007

    I read the poll results as showing:

    The majority of Americans like science, but will continue to hold their current beliefs regardless. Most do not feel science threatens their beliefs. Therefore to at least a plurality science/religion are orthogonal and can co-exist. I agree with Chris, if we make science and religion mutually antagonistic we will likely lose. The status quo until recently was to keep them orthogonal. We can choose to fight a battle we are likely to lose. Or we can try to return to the former state (orthogonality).

    That does not mean there isn’t a vocal fundamentalist minority that feels threatened by science, and wishes to destroy the scientific worldview. IMO the best way to fight this group is to get the majority of Americans, who want science, and their religion too on our side.

    A good example of this appears in sciencedaily today:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829120500.htm
    Scientists, and (creation-care) evangelical leaders are touring Alaska to highlight the effects of climate change.

    The art of politics is compromise. Since we are not in an overwhelmingly strong position I think some sort of compromise is needed. I am trying to avoid the “the best is the enemy of the merely good” trap.

  5. Who says I’m in the religion business?

    When I created humans, they were supposed to like Mooney. Can I help the way they evolved?

    Einstein was wrong: I do play dice with the Universe, especially when it comes to mutation and evolution.

  6. #6 ~ ~ FSM ~ ~
    August 30, 2007

    RE: YHWH

    What the… Again? Get back in your box!

  7. #7 Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
    August 30, 2007

    Welcome to the SciBling Colosseum Chris! You be Titus Pullo and I’ll be Lucius Vorenus. I guess Nisbet can be Mascius.

  8. #8 Wyatt Thompson
    August 30, 2007

    Ok “scientists” show me proof of any other possible reason for us being here. No, ok then. And God isn’t a “supernatural critter” as you so lovingly put.

  9. #9 Norman Doering
    August 30, 2007

    Dan S. responding to this:
    “I you want to remain true to science, at some point you have to go head on and say there is no supernatural critter behind it all pulling the strings.”
    wrote:

    Do you feel that science is actually able to say this – that we are able to establish this through science? If so, how?

    You can’t disprove some undefined, deistic type God that might have kicked off the universe and walked away, but we’re talking about Christians. They have a Bible and it’s full of things like demonic possession (not a popular theory in modern psychology, ya know), original sin (how does that fit in with evolution?), God coming down from heaven to knock over the tower of Babel and confuse language, Jesus ascending into Heaven (where exactly did he go? What’s up there to ascend to?) and ton of other dubious claims about the way the world works.

    Are all those things just supposed to be metaphors?

  10. #10 MarkH
    August 30, 2007

    This polling issue seems besides the point. Yes, right now you have a majority of people that will side with Jebus. It’s a snapshot.

    But there is a question of whether or not the opposition to religious fundamentalism and antiscience will gain more support that submission and, well, dishonesty about the abundant conflicts between science and tribalistic or ignorant beliefs of dozens of religion. I realize people see conflict and they think “Christianity/Baptists/Evangelists”. But science conflicts with most if not all religions on some issue, and there’s nothing we can do about it.

    I’m disturbed by this idea though, that just because more people are irrational about their religion that this is a fight what shouldn’t be waged or given up. Yes, people who believe that where science and religion conflict, religion should conform to reality are probably in the minority. Attacking religious ideas that are scientifically incorrect is unpopular. It always has been. Is that a good reason to stop?

    If not for the current generation but how about for the next to see these ideas before they’ve hardened their ideologies?

    You ask me, this idea of Nisbet’s is the end of all progress towards scientific enlightenment and intellectual progress. Shying away from the truth just because you don’t have everyone on your side to start is cowardice. It’s your job to win them over with fact, truth and argument (or wait for them to die), not by coddling invalid ideas.

  11. #11 Fred Bortz
    August 30, 2007

    Wyatt T.: Ok “scientists” show me proof of any other possible reason for us being here.

    Does there have to be a reason?

    Science deals with how and what, not why.

  12. #12 Jinchi
    August 30, 2007

    I agree with Chris, if we make science and religion mutually antagonistic we will likely lose.

    And honestly, what’s the point? If you want people to learn science, teach science. If you spend your time insisting that they reject everything they’ve learned to believe from birth, first, you’re proselytizing.

  13. #13 Richard
    August 30, 2007

    People only choose god because of the THEIST NOISE MACHINE. We’re working on the problem.

  14. #14 Jinchi
    August 30, 2007

    I’m disturbed by this idea though, that just because more people are irrational about their religion that this is a fight what shouldn’t be waged or given up.

    It’s not one fight though. If you get up in a lecture an say “the world not just 6000 years old” you’ve picked a fight with a couple of Discovery Institute devotees. Say “there is no god” and you’ve just insulted every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist and Sikh in the room. And to what end? You’re no longer talking science, you’re talking philosophy.

    It’s not dishonest to get up and talk about science without first shredding every possible mythology. Sure most Americans call themselves religious. But they all believe very different things. Most are happy to see science as a positive force for progress, even if they head off to church every Sunday. They don’t see any conflict. Why do you?

    So if someone challenges you on the age of the Earth, or the science of evolution, or global warming, argue the facts – not god. It’s what you know and most people are predisposed to agree with you already.

  15. #15 Derek James
    August 30, 2007

    The assumption seems to be that pointing out that unjustified religious beliefs are irrational and dangerous is going to polarize people’s opinions. What about people who are unsure, and might be persuaded by the cogent and eloquent argumentation of Harris or Dawkins? Are you suggesting that people speaking the truth should otherwise keep their mouths shut? If it’s true that the new crop of atheist books polarizes people, what’s the alternative? Do nothing? Deny people the opportunity to read arguments against religion that might help them make an informed decision?

  16. #16 Jinchi
    August 30, 2007

    Are you suggesting that people speaking the truth should otherwise keep their mouths shut?

    I think you’ve got to make a distinction between a science-vs-religion debate and a “reality”-vs-religion debate. Science can’t speak to the truth of the existence of god. It can only respond to assertions made in the name of religion that are demonstrably false: The Earth is not flat. It wasn’t formed completely in 7 days. We aren’t the center of the universe. The stars aren’t painted on celestial spheres …

    Those are the type of questions that scientists can and should confront critics on. Let them make the argument based on their religion, make the counter argument based on science.

  17. #17 MPW
    August 31, 2007

    bigTom: “The art of politics is compromise. Since we are not in an overwhelmingly strong position I think some sort of compromise is needed.”

    The religious and the non-religious setting aside differences over religious claims to work on other, mutually valued priorities, which happens plenty, is an example of compromise. The non-religious keeping their mouths shut about their opinions on religious claims, to avoid the religious turning their backs on us, is *not* compromise. It’s knuckling under. It’s ceding the stage once again to a group that’s had it almost exclusively to themselves for millennia already. How long do we have to keep doing that before it starts working to undermine the dangerous prevalence of false and nonsensical religious claims in our society’s discourse? And, uh, how is that supposed to work again?

    Jinchi: “Say “there is no god” and you’ve just insulted every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist and Sikh in the room.” See, here we go again. We keep hearing that the simple statement that “the claim that a deity exists seems to have no good evidence for it, and I judge it false” is a personal insult to theists. Not an observation or belief with which you may agree or disagree as you choose, but an attack, a display of intolerance. This sort of special kid-glove standard for religious claims over and above other kinds of truth claims has been the status quo for most of human history in most places. Again, why do otherwise intelligent people continue to believe this is an intellectually respectable position, or one of any use whatsoever? Seems to me that theists’ developing a slightly thicker skin could only be good for them and for atheists.

  18. #18 MarkH
    August 31, 2007

    @Jinchi

    That is clearly not what I was talking about. Science is in conflict with religion. It is a fact. If you believe that the sun is pulled across the sky by a dude and some horses – you have a conflict. If you believe the earth is 6000 years old – you have a conflict (as you mention). If you believe crystals or chakras or divination have magical powers – you have a conflict.

    Basically any material belief in religion or literal belief in scripture is going to conflict with science. This is not just some small number of people in the room. You’re talking some 20-30% of the population. Extend it to psuedoscience of new-agey beliefs and you get the 20-30% on the other end of the spectrum. You don’t have to be PZ Myers to piss these people off, trust me.

    I do not think the answer is to shy away from condemnation of obviously absurd ideas. And yes, this is a conflict between science and all kinds of religious beliefs that even theistic scientists will acknowledge. There is no avoiding it, science conflicts with nonsense, and there is a great deal of nonsense in the practice of all sorts of religious and quasi-religious beliefs.

  19. #19 Robert Thille
    August 31, 2007

    I’ve been thinking about this for awhile. I don’t know if Dawkins’ approach is the best one to convince the believers that rational, scientific investigation is better than blind faith. Certainly Dawkins is convincing to someone with an open, rational mind, but I don’t think the frontal attack is very effective on the bulk of the believers.
    However, I think that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett are effective in making non-believers realize that they are not alone and they there is hope that people in the future can be more rational.
    I also think that as more non-believers make it known that it’s ok to be a non-believer, fewer children will feel like they have to go along with the brainwashing.

  20. #20 bad Jim
    August 31, 2007

    It appears that acceptance of evolution is highest in the least religious countries. That suggests that, for a great many people, the only way to get them to accept evolution is by convincing them to give up their religion, and that we can’t avoid the conflict.

    Religious people strongly believe that humans were specially created and that only humans have souls. Most don’t consider humans to be animals; Bill O’Reilly recently said that calling the pope a primate was an example of “hate speech”.

    When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding

    So what are you going to do?

  21. #21 Matt Penfold
    August 31, 2007

    Why is the data you cite restricted to the US ?

    I know is has escaped Nisbet’s notice, and it seems your but most of the world is NOT American, and the conflict between rationality and supersition is not only an issue in the US.

  22. #22 Russell Blackford
    August 31, 2007

    Not only is the conflict between a rational image of the world and a religious image of the world not confined to the US (and I’m sick to death of all the American parochialism I see), but it’s also the case that the most serious attacks on our liberties do not come from creationists. How many times does it have to be said that the most powerful enemy of reason and liberty is the Vatican, with its opposition to condoms, abortion, and just about every promising new technology, not to mention its whole morality of misery and guilt? The point of the religion-science debate is to help put the religionists, particularly those in Rome, somewhere safely on the other side of a line between Church and State … and preferably to undermine their social influence in general.

  23. #23 Matt
    August 31, 2007

    Russell,

    Not only that but those atheists who claim Dawkins et al are too strident will happily cite the Catholic church as an example how you can accept evolution and believe in god. They all to often fail to mention that the support the Catholic church offers comes with a side-order of bigotry against gays and the condemining of millions to death from AIDS through opposing condom use.

    I am not sure that the “moderate” atheists really have thought just who they are getting into bed with. I know some oppose the Catholics on gay rights, condom use etc, but that will hardly endear them to the Catholic church and leaves themselves open to same charges they level against Dawkins. Ed Brayton is a prime example of this thinking, and he really does think he is more “reasonable” than Dawkins!

  24. #24 J. J. Ramsey
    August 31, 2007

    Matt: “Not only that but those atheists who claim Dawkins et al are too strident will happily cite the Catholic church as an example how you can accept evolution and believe in god. They all to often fail to mention that the support the Catholic church offers comes with a side-order of bigotry against gays and the condemining of millions to death from AIDS through opposing condom use.”

    Matt, considering that believing in God need not entail anti-gay bigotry or opposition to birth control, what you offer is a non sequitur.

  25. #25 Matt Penfold
    August 31, 2007

    J.J Ramsey.

    Clearly belief in a god does not require being anti-gay or anti-condom. However when it comes to fighting creationism in the US people who belong to churches that do hold such views are held up as an example of how “moderate” christians can believe in god and accept evolution. Ken Miller is one such. He may or may not personally be anti-gay but he is a Catholic and we do know the Catholic church does hold bigoted views on gays. You may wish to be associated with such people, I do not. The “Nisbett and Mooney” strategy would mean we have to be nice to such people to win the fight over creationism. They ignore the fact that there are other fights. Whether they think the creationism is the most important, or they do not care about the others I do not know.

  26. #26 J. J. Ramsey
    August 31, 2007

    Matt: “Clearly belief in a god does not require being anti-gay or anti-condom. However when it comes to fighting creationism in the US people who belong to churches that do hold such views are held up as an example of how ‘moderate’ christians can believe in god and accept evolution.”

    That is because they are examples of Christians believing in God and accepting evolution. It doesn’t follow that those who want to follow their example in regards to evolution will feel the need to follow them in other respects. You are playing a guilt-by-association game. No one says that allies have to agree with each other in all respects, or even that they cannot have some conflicting goals.

  27. #27 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    September 1, 2007

    What’s with all this fear of “offending people” in the name of teaching evolution? There has been a shot across the bow of the so-called non-overlapping magisteria, and it was not only done by the OEC’s, but the Theistic Evolutionists and ID’iots. They have insisted that there is a way to show scientific proof of God.

    People who have faith that God exists better stop being so adamant that there can be any sort of proof if they don’t think that atheistic scientists should talk about atheism. And the atheists need to stop patronizing them by pussyfooting around the issue; especially by saying that atheists should be “hush-hush” about it our we will turn the majority of Americans into OEC’s! Religious people can afford to be grown ups and admit that their faith is faith, and not based on any sort of fact. Personal revelation is not evidence.

    There are Non-Overlapping Magisteria. One magisterium is based on fact and the other on fancy.

  28. #28 Matt Penfold
    September 1, 2007

    “That is because they are examples of Christians believing in God and accepting evolution. It doesn’t follow that those who want to follow their example in regards to evolution will feel the need to follow them in other respects. You are playing a guilt-by-association game. No one says that allies have to agree with each other in all respects, or even that they cannot have some conflicting goals.”

    You miss my point, again. Sure there can be conflicting goals, but that is not my point. My point is that some of those who think Dawkins is too outspoken against religion in general are equally as outspoken against specific religions or denominations, eg the Catholics and their position on gay rights.

  29. #29 Tulse
    September 1, 2007

    When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin’s theory.

    So Chris, explain to me how this doesn’t indicate that religion is an impediment to science. Explain how these findings don’t imply that all the accommodation in the world won’t change the beliefs of the religious on certain topics. Explain how this doesn’t mean that without a direct challenge to religion, science will always be rejected when it conflicts with belief.

    It seems to me this poll implies exactly the opposite of what you claim, namely, that no amount of moderate, reasonable marshalling of evidence and attempted accommodation will shift the opinion of the religious. It seems to me to clearly suggest that the only long-term hope for science is to reduce the influence of religion.

  30. #30 Texas Reader
    September 1, 2007

    I posted this over at Pharyngula: I’m in agreement with Chris. Due to how emotionally strong people’s beliefs in the supernatural are, we’re better off supporting evolution with the science than we are by attacking their beliefs. The truth is that the most likely way for them to end up giving up their supernatural beliefs is to inculcate in them an appreciation for science and reasoning. Let them come to their own conclusions about their supernatural beliefs after they learn the science. That’s how it happened for me, and if anyone had just attacked my religion I would have tuned them out. This isn’t a matter of APPEASEMENT, its just a common sense way of approaching the matter based on recognizing the emotional allure of the supernatural for so many people.

  31. #31 etbnc
    September 1, 2007

    Perhaps, then, it would be helpful to start a dialog to consider methods, and techniques, and different ways of persuading audiences? The hows, more than the whys.

    What if different people are influenced by different approaches?

    My engineering background tends to make me think in terms of matching tools to tasks. In this case I would think it would be beneficial to consider ways to match persuasive methods to audiences.

    Cheers

  32. #32 Greg Laden
    September 1, 2007

    Chris:

    You are so cool! You have no fewer than two actual Gods commenting on your site! Jesus H Christ, I’m impressed.

    Greg

  33. #33 PZ Myers
    September 1, 2007

    Welcome to the SciBling Colosseum Chris! You be Titus Pullo and I’ll be Lucius Vorenus. I guess Nisbet can be Mascius.

    And I’ll be Octavian, while Greg Laden can be Agrippa. The non-fictional characters, and the ones who win. Sounds fair.

  34. #34 Sheril R. Kirshenbaum
    September 1, 2007

    And I’ll be Octavian, while Greg Laden can be Agrippa. The non-fictional characters, and the ones who win. Sounds fair.

    Why PZ, that makes you my favorite (and indeed, you know Pharyngula is among my favorite blogs)!

    However, it doesn’t quite seem fitting since Augustus used religion to protect his position and promote his political agenda. He wanted to be seen as divine which I suspect would not be appropriate for an atheist.

    Then again, given this resemblance, maybe the comparison is palatable yet. ;)

  35. #35 Bunjo
    September 2, 2007

    Fear of snakes by monkeys is an instinct – but one that is dormant until triggered by seeing another monkey being scared of snakes. I suspect that humans also have similar dormant instincts which can be triggered by cultural cues. For instance many rational people still have non-rational ‘superstitions’ they learned from their parents, but these superstitions vary from culture to culture, suggesting that the instinct is common, but the expression is cultural. Although I count myself as part of the reason based community, crossed knives on the draining board (allegedly forcasting an argument according to my mother) or in a drawer still make me feel mildly uncomfortable.

    Religion may also be based on a more general instinct (fear the absent alpha male?) and is certainly exploited and amplified by religious authority figures. If this is so, reason and facts alone will very rarely overcome the instinct – our brains and bodies don’t work that way. Deprogramming the instinct (by NLP or other techniques) may be practical for the willing individual but this is not feasible for tens of millions of unwilling people.

    The only way out of this situation appears to be making sure that people do not have this instinct triggered while they are children; this appears to be the case in more secular countries. Unfortunately you may argue that this could have an adverse effect of reducing respect for authority generally. I could argue that in more secular countries respect for community authority has also reduced along with respect for religious authority.

    The point of my comments are that reducing the religious irrationality in the USA (and elsewhere) is likely to take several generations, and the means to do it go well beyond mere rational debate.

    Regrettably it seems much easier to trigger the instinct than to prevent it…

  36. #36 vjack
    September 2, 2007

    Having read and enjoyed your book, The Republican War on Science, I am surprised to read what you appear to be suggesting here.

    Science is grounded in reality; religion is an amalgam of superstitious ritual and faith-based delusion. If highlighting this discrepancy leads people to embrace an ancient religion, then we must improve our abysmal system of education. To simply give up and agree to treat religion with kid gloves is to forfeit the war on science.

  37. #37 Adam Bradley
    September 2, 2007

    If you’re going to go and put that song in my head, at least get the meter right. It’s “I fought the LORD and the LORD won.”

  38. #38 Norman Doering
    September 3, 2007

    etbnc wrote:

    Perhaps, then, it would be helpful to start a dialog to consider methods, and techniques, and different ways of persuading audiences?

    I’ve made a stab at that here.

  39. #39 ngong
    September 4, 2007

    What is it with this hypothetical “best approach”? Some atheists are hardcore, others are softies. Presumably, the softies will have special sway over some segment of believers, and the hardcore types will have influence over another segment. The worst “approach”, I would think, would be to try to artificially suppress one flavor of non-belief.

  40. #40 rocket
    September 4, 2007

    Religion, particularly the Catholic religion, is very much about rationality, it is rationality that makes us in the image of God. A religious person tries to live in accordance with reality. There is no conflict between truth and truth, so there can be no true conflict between a true religion and true science. On the other hand science is often taken as a justification for irrational behavior. In particular sex outside of marriage or contraception within marriage is irrational. For the religious we would say this is because sex is being used outside of what it was designed for; babies and bonding. From a scientific point of view there is not much difference. But an irrational scientific view says because nobody is in charge we can do whatever we want. But the result is all of Western culture i.e. scientific culture is committing demographic suicide particularly in Europe where the population of the Enlightenment is falling in half every 30 or 40 years. Because science deals only with the material world, it really has nothing to say directly about the immaterial world, other than that the world we observe is infinitesimally improbable. But it is a irrational choice, if not a leap of faith to say that nothing exists except the material world. Logically science which deals only with the material world has no logical bearing on whether there are truths beyond the material world.

  41. #41 Molkien
    September 4, 2007

    “Catholicism… very much about rationality” I stopped reading right there.

    And as for the title of this post – You are specifically NOT fighting against God (or his stupid followers who would fall deeper into stupidity upon being offended) and thus giving him the win. Being beat by something you claim does not exist… don’t know what to say about that one.

  42. #42 Shiritai
    September 4, 2007

    Just my two cents:

    Pushing religion out of science is a worthy gold, an obtainable goal, and one that I think we all agree on.

    Pushing religion out of philosophy and ethics, though, that’s a very tricky goal, and seperate from religion’s affect on science. This is also, in my opinion, not a worthwhile goal. There will always be organizations of people with similar views of morality, whether they be religious, political, or philisophical.

    Why waste time with philosophy, saying “There is no god”, when there are parents afraid of vaccinations, and people who drink water to cure illness?

  43. #43 Anton Mates
    September 8, 2007

    I merely wish to point out a good analysis of polling data over at Pew that strongly supports the broad Nisbet perspective. The gist: The American public doesn’t generally perceive a necessary conflict between religion and science; but if you tell them there is such an either-or conflict, guess which one of the binary options they’re gonna choose?

    Chris, could you unpack your reasoning here a bit more? I don’t really follow.

    So far as I can see, the Pew analysis says that the American public–particularly the majority which rejects evolution–does perceive a necessary conflict between religion and science. In the Gallup poll cited, the majority of respondents who rejected evolution said they did so primarily for religious reasons, as opposed to being unconvinced by the evidence. Apparently science and religion have already clashed in the minds of this group, and religion won.

  44. #44 J. J. Ramsey
    September 8, 2007

    Anton Mates, I think the idea is that religious people don’t perceive an overarching conflict of science and religion in general, just conflicts on specific issues.

  45. #45 archgoon
    September 10, 2007

    So, what do you do when there is a direct conflict between religious belief and scientific findings?

  46. #46 OrneryPest
    September 13, 2007

    That’s White-beard-guy-in-the-sky who’s really an impossibly convoluted three-headed mini-pantheon called a Holy Trinity consisting of Daddy-O, Junior, and The Spook. Oh by the way, I enjoyed your presentation to the Washington Area Secular Humanists several months ago.

  47. #47 Myoujou
    October 24, 2007

    i think the main problem is that people take religous scriptures to litteraly. almost all scriptures as self admittent to beaning written by a mortal in honor or by direction of a diety. in fact the only thing i can think of that is said to be written by god himself was the 10 comandments which are vary basic and i think almost every one can agree on. if people would stop taking everything in the bible or any other scripture as pure journalistic honesty then the majority of the futile bickering would end. no human is perfect and no one will wright exactly what happens. mix that with several thousand years of age and a few translations and what you have is alot of muck based of fact but containing vary little, like historical fiction. one vary simple example is Lucifer. currently the name Lucifer is synonamys with the Devil or Satin. yet Lucifer originaly came from a translation of a hebrew word meaning “bringer of light.” this is why you will not find the name Lucifer in the old testement of any new bible, the mistake was recognized and fixed. yet somehow in the new testement the name Lucifer comes up as being an achangel who fell from heven, where do you think they got the name from? the old mistake of corse. this sort of indiscrepency has happend manny times. another vary commen one that few people know about is Satin. originaly in hebrew it was used a noun meaning advrosary yet after translation became a pronoun reffering to the devil. simpily people need to keep in mind that most of the “holy scripturs” where written by the mentaly ill or overly imaginitive stalkers obbsesed with good and honorable, yet normal, men.

  48. #48 Brandon
    June 8, 2008

    You people can say what you want but when judgement day comes and your one of the people thats not going to heaven thats your problem. So go ahead dont believe in God or Jesus because it’s soon going to be YOUR problem later on.

    P.S. how do you think the universe was created? how do you know how anything was created? the answer to that is “God”
    God made it happen. He was always there never has an end or never had a begining. Build a time machine and go back in time when jesus came, and maybe you might want to believe in God .

  49. #49 Seth
    July 5, 2008

    There is a God and I’m getting sick and tired of hearing about evolution in school!!!! I’m also tired of all the arguments that goes on between us Christins and Scientists. There is enough evidence to prove both that God and evolution exsist. Though I don’t belive in evolution myself. I think it’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of. Also, I know that Darwen came up with the theroy of evolution but the day he died he became a beliver trust me. You don’t belive me just wait till you die then you’ll belive too but by then it will be too late to turn to Christianity because you’ll be on the other side.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.