…and this is a 
Thank God for Evolution!
Category: Books • Creationism • Evolution
Posted on: July 17, 2007 12:32 PM, by PZ Myers
Why me, O Lord, why me?
One of the more recent books sent to me is Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) by Michael Dowd. I have read it, and I'm feeling biblical.
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
Psalm 22:1
I am so not the right person to review this book—it's like asking Satan to review The Secret. The two aren't even on the same wavelength, and the discombobulated reviewer is going to sit there wondering whether this thing serves his ends or not, but mainly he's going to be confused and find it incomprehensible. Michael Dowd is an evangelical pentacostal preacher and he loves evolution. His purpose in writing this book is to convince his fellow Christians that they can serve Jesus by rejoicing in the wonders of biology. The whole idea makes my head hurt.
I can't just trash the whole thing, though. There are some commendable aspects that I have to acknowledge, even while thinking the whole premise is wrong.
First of all, Dowd is just so danged happy about evolution. This is tent revival biology: not so much concern about the facts and details, but a lot of whoopin' and stompin' and hallelujahs and yee-haws, all for the idea of billions of years of the Creation. It's charming, at first, but also a little wearing, and it's not something to encourage questioning.
For another, Dowd is definitely sincere. There's another book with a similar intent, E.O. Wilson's The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is written to persuade evangelical Christians that biodiversity is compatible with religion and that good people of faith must work together to preserve our world. While I'm entirely in agreement with Wilson's hope, what put me off that book is that it's written by an unbeliever respectfully telling a believer what they should do, and I couldn't help but wonder if his target audience would find the book a bit phony and condescending. Thank God for Evolution, however, is written by a fervent believer to other believers (again, I am not the target audience), and I think has to ring more truly in the minds of those believers. Where Wilson tried to appeal to the reason of the faithful in the cadences of his Southern Baptist upbringing, Dowd is making an appeal to the emotions of the more modern evangelical movement. He's preaching a kind of evolutionary spirituality.
It's an approach that I don't particularly care for, and that I think subverts the science. The message is too often that we shouldn't accept the conclusions drawn from evidence because they are verifiable, testable, objective pieces of reality, but because they will make you feel better, because they will justify your life, and because they glorify God. It's all backwards; God and Christianity are assumed and unquestioned, and what the reader is asked to do is find the right rationalization to reconcile evolution with Jesus. This might be the right approach to take with people who will never, ever question the righteousness of the Lord, but to us post-theistic folks, it's a little silly. Especially when it's drawn out over 390 pages in an unrelentingly enthusiastic book.
At the same time that Dowd is appealing to his fellow believers, though, it's also clear that he is the product of the frantic explosion of American Christian sects, where so many profess the unity of belief in the divinity of Jesus but have little else in common. There is a commonality of methods and ritual and rationale—at least to me, who can scarcely tell a Baptist from a Sunni Muslem—but at the same time, each individual seems to be an idiosyncratic splinter with amorphous jell-o for a creed. For example…
Occasionally, someone who has heard me speak asks in frustration, "What are you, anyway? A theist? Atheist? Pantheist? I can't tell what you are!" My standard response goes something like this: "I'm all of those—and none of them. Actually my wife [the science writer Connie Barlow] and I had to coin our own term. I'm a creatheist (cree-uh-THEIST) and my wife, well, she's a creatheist (cree-ATHEIST). We spell it the same way. We mean the same thing. We just pronounce it differently." This response almost always evokes smiles or laughter.
Here is why this new word can bridge the theist-atheist divide: One need not believe in anything in order to be a creatheist. It's not a belief system. It is based on what we know, not what we believe. I call creatheism a "meta-religious scientific worldview" and posit the following three points as a core to its understanding.
- The Whole is creative in a nested, emergent sense.
- Humanity is now an integral and increasingly conscious part of this process.
- There are many legitimate ways to interpret and speak about Ultimate Reality.
Sorry to say, that does not bridge this atheist's separation from theistic belief—it's glib and superficial, and the three points are awfully New Agey and fuzzy. You won't be catching me calling myself a creatheist, however it's pronounced.
Actually, the way Dowd attempts to unite the various splinters of belief is by this process of redefinition. God is just our experiential Reality, not necessarily an intelligent anthropoid magic maguffin … although it's OK if you feel like personifying him, too. But whatever this god-thing is, it is the reason for reveling in your joy at evolution.
The book is a fascinating read in some ways, as a glimpse of a deeply alien culture. I just can't get much of it, myself. For instance, this is the first pro-evolution book I've ever read that advocates speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues has been a significant part of my spiritual practice for half my life. Speaking in tongues has its detractors, but there are sound evolutionary reasons for its effectiveness. The following practice will REALize the act of speaking in tongues, because it doesn't require you to believe in anything. It's an experience available to anyone who tries it.
How I speak in tongues is simple. I pretend I can speak a foreign language; vocalizing nonsensical sounds in a gentle, melodic, or rhythmic way. I encourage you to try it, right now. Do it in whatever way comes naturally, for a few minutes or longer, until it becomes effortless. Now speak in tongues again, this time inaudibly, though perhaps still moving your lips. Then continue this "speech" without moving your lips; have it happen just internally. Whichever form suits you best, you should notice immediately that your awareness expands. You are more aware of what you see and hear and feel—without trying.
…
Speaking in tongues is immersion in the holiness of this moment, this time and place. I often do it intentionally, to quiet my mind while driving, for example.
I'm afraid I didn't try the technique myself — I didn't see the virtue in it. Anyone out there who wants to, though, report back and tell us how well it worked. I did use my imagination to conjure up an amusing picture of a speaker at a biology conference with his eyes rolled back and chanting nonsense syllables in front of his powerpoint slides (which, in some cases isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination), and also wondered with some horror about how many of the drivers on the road are cruising down the interstate at 70mph blissed out on "ba na shu ra mo bal ka…".
Bottom line: this is not a book for me, and it's probably not a book for most of the readers here. It's irritating, and it takes for granted a whole set of incredible premises that I find objectionable. It's approach is glib and superficial on the biology side.
On the other hand, if you've got a devout Aunt Tillie who is not going to ever question her faith and is going to cut you out of her will because your acceptance of scientific fact means you're going to hell, go ahead, send her a copy. It translates biology entirely into the terms of an evangelical faith-head, and might reconcile her to your ideas. I can also imagine this book finding an audience with the Oprah crowd — there's nothing here to contradict evangelical Christianity, and instead it twists evolution (aargh, it burns) to match the expectations of the religious. That's why I'm going to reject it altogether, but it might just appeal to those who dread getting their science straight.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I'm not sure what I love more about this image... whether it's the idea of the devil scowling in consternation at a self-help book, or PZ with horns and goat legs (isn't that a little too chordate? I would've expected a Cthulhu reference).
Posted by: lytefoot | July 17, 2007 12:42 PM
I hear Paris Hilton is considering religion as a way to polish her tarnished image. She appeared with a number of her female friends recently at a Southern Baptist gathering and, in a slight misunderstanding of the concept, the lot of them doffed their outer clothing and began speaking in thongs.
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 17, 2007 12:45 PM
When began to explain how to speak in tongues, I was reminded of some chain email that said you cannot lick your elbow...Point here being I was at least slightly tempted to try it anyways on both occasions.
Posted by: daenku32 | July 17, 2007 12:51 PM
So I tried that whole speaking in tongues bit described above. My "awareness" increased, alright...my self-awareness. People in the hallway began looking strangely at me. Creepy.
But that whole experience, I think, fortified my original hypotheses concerning speaking in tongues: it's fraudulent. No ghosty is compelling me to speak things; just my imagination.
Now that I know the truth, it must be spread ala the Gospel, by sword and sweat.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 17, 2007 12:54 PM
There's a difference between southern baptists and sunni muslims?
Posted by: No1Uno | July 17, 2007 12:55 PM
First Earth's roundness, then germ theory, and now evolution. The objective of reality is doomed to hit to them eventually... right...?
Posted by: Tom at Thoughtsic.com | July 17, 2007 12:56 PM
They say there is. I don't think I believe them.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 17, 2007 12:57 PM
--They say there is. I don't think I believe them.--
That's nice that you have opinions. For a guy who is supposed to be standing up for "truth" I would think you would go a little farther to find the "truth" of the matter.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 1:07 PM
Yeah. I don't see what the difference is. They're both fundamentalist sect who think their way is the only way.
That TRUE enough for you David?
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2007 1:12 PM
Mr. Dowd has appeared twice in my city in the last two years, most recently at the Unitarian Church. While I participate in some activities at that church (NOT including the Sunday Service, which is usually boring and filled with mushy spirituality), I decided I probably would not be able to stomach him. A friend of mine bought the video, though, so I'll have a look at at that, with barf bag close at hand. I'm glad Mr Dowd appeared at the Church (my friend said there were about 50 people in attendance). However, I wish the nature of the church were such that they would have invited a biology professor from the local college instead.
Posted by: Tim Tesar | July 17, 2007 1:14 PM
This reconciliation of evolution and religion is not as weird as you might think. At least one example I found was Darwinian, but it was Erasmus, not Charles who said:
"The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT! THE CAUSE OF CAUSES! PARENT OF PARENTS! ENS ENTIUM! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves."
E. Darwin, Zoonomia; The Laws of Organic Life (J. Johnson, London 1794), vol. 1, p. 509
Posted by: Kaleberg | July 17, 2007 1:15 PM
daenku32:
I just tried. Licking my elbow that is. It's physiologically impossible for me unless I detach my arms out of their sockets. Is it immoral for those who can do it?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 17, 2007 1:17 PM
Dowd's Web site is The Great Story. It includes recordings of his presentations.
Posted by: Tim Tesar | July 17, 2007 1:17 PM
I once gave a short talk on Intelligent Design to a fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, which contains a liberal hodge-podge of beliefs running from humanism to neopagan to liberal Christian to "spiritual but not religious." Afterwards, we sat in a large circle for a discussion, and I was surprised that many of the people who scorned Creationism as unscientific loved evolution because they think it speaks of a spiritual progression to higher levels of consciousness, ala Teilhard de Chardin. That is scientific, of course.
I felt that they weren't really accepting the theory because of the evidence, but because they could make it fit in well with their spiritual beliefs and their political liberalism. Backwards, as you say. That's why I adopt the stance of secular humanism: method, method, method, and let the results come out where they do.
Posted by: Sastra | July 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Good, I can hardly wait to read the part about how after the flood, Noah got all the life forms back to their respective continents and secluded islands, fresh water lakes and rivers, etc.
Posted by: mikmik | July 17, 2007 1:20 PM
I could never be a creatheist — there's no evidence that Creathe exists! And really, aren't we all more than a little tired of the endless bickering (and, in the past, outright warfare) between the people who believe in Cre-ath and those who worship Creath-ee?
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 17, 2007 1:24 PM
1) I've actually heard people "speaking in tongues", and it is in no way gentle, melodic or rhythmic. It reminds me more of an Arabic battle cry mixed with convulsions.
2) As a former Pentecostal, I can say he may bring a few to accept evolution as a possibility, since he's a "preacher". However, a good number of them, especially in my extended family, will consider him fire and brimstone bound for not accepting the Bible as literal.
I haven't asked, because he hasn't spoken to me in some time, but I'm pretty sure my uncle has basically disowned me for marrying a Roman Catholic. So, Mr. Dowd may win over a few of the fence sitters, but the more fervent members will automatically stop listening to him because of his beliefs.
Posted by: Berlzebub | July 17, 2007 1:27 PM
...it's glib and superficial, and the three points are awfully New Agey and fuzzy.
That's why many fundamentalists don't like Pentecostalism: they tend to give ecstasy priority over orthodoxy.
(Just a little info from someone to whom the culture is not alien).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 17, 2007 1:32 PM
Does this mean that I am a product of evolution AND Jesus rose from the dead to sitteth at the right hand of God?
Is this what Michael wants me to believe?
Not going to happen!
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 17, 2007 1:34 PM
--Yeah. I don't see what the difference is. They're both fundamentalist sect who think their way is the only way.
That TRUE enough for you David?--
Ah yes. Because two things are alike, they of course must be the same. Here we see the wonderful reasoning powers of the atheist in action.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 1:36 PM
They are alike in the most fundamental way.
But go right ahead thinking your sect is extra special and super different.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2007 1:42 PM
This kind of stuff really scares me. Trying to mix science with religion to make it more palatable to certain groups seems like it will eventually backfire.
It's like how certain conservation groups try to work with village holy men to preserve endangered species. Yes, you're translating conservation biology into a language the people understand. But you're also promoting a rather parochial worldview that says you have to listen to authority instead of critically examining what you're hearing.
I've had ecology profs try to convince me that the only chance conservationists have is to convince religious groups that god wants them to protect creation. It certainly would be easier than working against cranks on the evidence. But I'm not sure it's morally right: it certainly goes against my beliefs.
I think evolution is the same way. The whole point of the thing is that it's the result of incredible amounts of painstaking evidence-gathering, not some sort of evangelical bolt of light.
Posted by: katie | July 17, 2007 1:45 PM
1) I've actually heard people "speaking in tongues", and it is in no way gentle, melodic or rhythmic. It reminds me more of an Arabic battle cry mixed with convulsions.
As I recall, the sound was rather reminiscent of a turkey's gobble. But maybe that's just a variation of accent.
More concerning to me is that the people I have observed speaking in tongues have always then been "overcome" by the holy spirit and passed out on the church floor for at least an hour. Always made me nervous to think that the woman unconscious on the floor was going to be my ride home later. But, WHILE driving...Anyone know Dowd's plate number, car make and color, anything like that, just so as I can keep an eye out?
Side note question: isn't the biblical purpose of speaking in tongues to surmount the language barrier in order to spread the good news, or some such? If so, I'd love to see two tongue-speakers pop-quizzed on their ability to understand one another.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2007 1:45 PM
--
They are alike in the most fundamental way.
But go right ahead thinking your sect is extra special and super different.
--
Now we've gone from "no difference", to "they are alike in the most fundamental way". Do we have evidence that this is the "most fundamental way" in which two religions can be a like? No. Certainly it is the easiest commonality to find between them. It requires very little knowledge of either of the two religions. In fact, it basically requires no knowledge beyond the facts that they are religions. Which of course makes it an ideal statement for those who do not want to do any actual reading/studying on religion or theology but merely want to sound like they do.
I find it amusing when atheists end up sounding like the worst fundamentalist Christians.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 1:47 PM
Re: #24
Blake's Law?
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2007 1:57 PM
You don't need to pretend you can speak a foreign language to speak in tongues. That's the weirdest description of the experience that I have ever heard. It does expand your consciousness in some strange way, akin to other forms of meditation, or perhaps even akin to drug use, I suppose. It is an especially consciousness-changing experience when combined with fasting. I have been an atheist for over 10 years now, but I can still speak in tongues at will, and it still feels the same as it did when I thought it was a supernatural experience. Now I am quite certain it is created by my unconscious mind, although I'm not sure how exactly (I'm not sure how I can speak in English, German, or Lithuanian either.) I have no idea what speaking in tongues has to do with evolution.
The book is not scary to me at all however, and it is part of a long history of books about using science as a way to explore and experience God, the Bible being God's written message and nature being God's created message to humanity.
Posted by: writerdd | July 17, 2007 2:01 PM
I remember seeing people speak in tongues and then fall back in a swoon, when I was a kid. Scared the hell out of me...still does!
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 17, 2007 2:03 PM
I've never heard that, kmarissa, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Fortunately, I lived within walking distance of the church. So, I never had to worry about a drive home. My grandmother actually lived right behind it, and I didn't have to worry about inclement weather, either.
I never saw anyone pass out, but they were physically exhausted afterwards. Considering their health and physique, it wasn't surprising though.
By the way, has anyone ever published a book on the "tongues" translations? If someone took the time to make a Klingon to English, surely they would have done that. Especially since speaking in tongues is much older.
@David
Wow, less than twenty-five comments and you've already resorted to Blake's Law? I'm disappointed.
The common link between all religions is believing the unprovable. Whether for reasons of "spiritual" comfort, credulity, or even superiority, that is the common link. So, which reason do you believe, David? Judging by your seeming smugness, I'm putting my money on the last one.
Posted by: Berlzebub | July 17, 2007 2:05 PM
I yawn in David's general direction.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 17, 2007 2:07 PM
And a specific unprovable, no less--an invisible supernatural, all-powerful God.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 17, 2007 2:09 PM
David, I think you're reading too much into what was intended by PZ (and Steve_C) to be a casual, flippant remark. Fact is, from the point of view of an outsider, differences which seem critical from the inside become relatively unimportant. This doesn't just hold for religion, it's true for pretty much anything. An American watching a BBC show might not be able to tell if a character is supposed to be Welsh, Irish, Cornish, Scottish -- and a Brit might not discern the difference between a Southern accent and a Midwestern twang. I don't pay any attention to sports. If someone corrected me and said "The Cardinals are a baseball team, not football" I might jokingly say "same thing." Yes, I know the difference. But if you're not an insider, it's fiddling around.
Sunnis and Shiites will kill each other over doctrinal differences which a Southern Baptist can't even describe. From the point of view of atheists, the sunni/southern baptist distinctions are likewise academic. Some of them are important, from a practical viewpoint, of course. Some sects are more benign and conducive to secular harmony than others. But the actual supernatural beliefs themselves? Whatever. Same stuff, different shovel.
Posted by: Sastra | July 17, 2007 2:10 PM
From a reality perspective based only on the bit you presented, he may not be too bad:
"God is just our experiential Reality, not necessarily an intelligent anthropoid magic maguffin"
In other words maybe he exist entirely in your head. I see that as being reality based.
"Now speak in tongues again, this time inaudibly, though perhaps still moving your lips. Then continue this "speech" without moving your lips; have it happen just internally. Whichever form suits you best, you should notice immediately that your awareness expands. You are more aware of what you see and hear and feel--without trying."
I am not going to try it but I can accept it might work. What might happen here is babbling may cause the babbler to swich off his internal dialogue (it is pobably hard to have a coherent thought and babble at the same time) thus allowing him a little more consiousness for present moment.
Posted by: sailor | July 17, 2007 2:12 PM
See, Davy, it was originally a bit of a joke, with a kernal of truth thrown in oh so subtly. Do sunnis and baptists share each and every one of their silly beliefs? OF COURSE there are petty differences, but at the end of the day it is their similarities that give a rational person pause: superstition, hatred for those who don't believe their particular self-contradictory book isn't inerrant, ignorance of reality, and strangely skewed moral values.
Posted by: No1Uno | July 17, 2007 2:13 PM
David,
I understand your frustration. Just last week my friend and I were out and about, and we stopped to pick up some bottled water. My friend picked up some Aquafina, and I gasped in horror. "What are you doing?" I cried. "You shouldn't drink that!" My friend asked why not, and I replied, "You should only drink Fiji water. Fiji water is very very different from Aquafina water. It has a pink label, and it's bottle is square-ish instead of round-ish. Also, it comes from a real spring in Fiji, unlike Aquafina, which is purified tap water."
My friend was not to be swayed, however. She claimed that the two bottles were alike in the most fundamental way, being as how they were both plastic bottles full of water. Her statement is true, but only if you have very little knowledge of either of the two waters. In fact, it basically requires no knowledge beyond the facts that they are waters.
I find it amusing when Aquafinists end up sounding like the worst fundamentalist Pepsi drinkers.
Coke be with you,
Factlike
Posted by: factlike | July 17, 2007 2:15 PM
Hehe. David. We've heard it all before.
Your mythology isn't special. I know you want to be considered different than Sunni's, but why should you be? Because your version of the fiction has different characters and different mirarcles?
All fundamentalist religions are the same.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2007 2:16 PM
Speaking in tongues:
I find myself not being as dismissive on this one. There are many things that can alter your consciousness-shut of your internal dialogue-exercise new neuronal pathways, etc.
I'm not wise enough to say that any of them are invalid.
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 17, 2007 2:18 PM
Don't argue with David. He is a moron. For David, what Prof. Myers obviously meant was that the two are exactly the same in every detail, and since Muslim's believe that Muhammed was the most important prophet and therefore superbly and uniquely awesome, and Christians believe Jesus was the son of God and therefore superbly and uniquely awesome, they are not exactly the same. Prof. Myers was therefore "lying" or, because of his ignorance of this most important of details, overgeneralizing.
Of course, educated, non-mendacious people recognize that implicit in Prof. Myers's statement was that there is no relevant, or material, difference between the two.
David is (sadly and most likely) incapable of understanding this distinction.
Posted by: nate | July 17, 2007 2:27 PM
RE: Speaking in tongues....
I don't know about speaking ... but does anyone listen in tongues?
anyone?
:
anyone?
:
?
Posted by: tony | July 17, 2007 2:29 PM
If it's all subjectively translated, would they know if they were?
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 17, 2007 2:31 PM
Dowd is not an "evangelical pentecostal preacher." He is a former pastor, yes, but was a pastor in the United Church of Christ. Having grown up in an evangelical denomination (Wesleyan), I can tell you that the UCC's liberal, tree-hugging, Bible-snipping, inclusive tendencies are occasionally used as evidence for the influence of Satan.
In this blog it may be a difference that makes no difference, but to evangelicals (in my experience, anyway) it's the difference between Heaven and Hell.
I can't imagine that Dowd's work would appeal to evangelicals; and if you check out his itinerary you'll see that Dowd mostly welcome at Unitarian-Universalist and Unity venues. (For those who've been blessed with not having to know or care, UUs and Unity are not evangelical, pentecostal, or fundamentalist in any meaningful sense.)
Posted by: Billy | July 17, 2007 2:35 PM
Billy has a bit of a point. I know someone who is at Harvard Divinity and is going to be a UCC pastor...and he basically says that they believe in God but they know that they might be wrong. They're the sect that believes in Doubt. He's related several anecdotes about meeting evangelicals who are reduced to sputtering when he tells them that the UCC embraces the idea that there might not be Truth in religion. I prefer my reality 'straight up' shall we say, but if I had to for some reason choose a religion to be a part of the UCC's would probably be my bet. They are *definitely* as liberal and hippy and earthy-crunchy and inclusive as UU people if not more so in some cases.
Posted by: Stacey C. | July 17, 2007 2:51 PM
I'm skeptical of the whole idea that speaking in tongues expands one's conciousness. If that were the case, we would expect those from religions that practice it on a regular basis to be generally less close-minded and idiotic than the general population.
The pentacostals I've met sure as hell didn't give me the impression that they were any more conscious than anyone else. If anything, they seemed a lot less so.
And by the way PZ, Satan did review The Secret.
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 2:54 PM
"post-theist."
I'm going to use that one, if you don't mind.
Posted by: riddlerhet | July 17, 2007 3:04 PM
--Don't argue with David. He is a moron.--
Cutting response there. I mean, you've obviously done a fair bit of scientific research into this so its not like your just preaching here or anything. Of course not.
Someone is a moron here, but its not me.
--For David, what Prof. Myers obviously meant was that the two are exactly the same in every detail,--
"No difference" does seem to imply that. But maybe in the atheist's dictionary it means a little different.
--they are not exactly the same.--
While true, its a bit of an understatement.
--Prof. Myers was therefore "lying" or, because of his ignorance of this most important of details, overgeneralizing.--
PZ certainly strikes me as being rather ignorant of religion. Whether or not he is ignorant of this particular fact or that, I'm not too terribly concerned.
--Of course, educated, non-mendacious people recognize that implicit in Prof. Myers's statement was that there is no relevant, or material, difference between the two.--
This is my favorite Christian-fundamentalist form of argument. "I'm right, and if you don't understand it your stupid." You are a pretty good impersonator.
--Your mythology isn't special.--
My beliefs aren't special. That's for sure. They are just different than the beliefs of Muslims. Just as your beliefs aren't "special", but they are different than mine. But I suppose such things escape you.
--Because your version of the fiction has different characters and different mirarcles?--
Well, lets see. Those are differences yes? But, lets go on.
Different Gods in nature (Christian God is trinitarian, Muslim is not).
Different Gods in character.
Different views on how to get to the afterlife.
Different views on Jesus.
Different views on Mohammed.
Different "rituals".
But of course these are all meaningless little distinctions to you. Because all your intelligence is capable of grasping about religions is that they involve God, and that you disbelieve them.
factlike--
Though I did find the post amusing, you, like... well pretty much everyone else here does not seem to have the slightest knowledge about religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
--But if you're not an insider, it's fiddling around.--
To this, I agree. If you are ignorant about religion then the differences pretty much are trivial to you. Just like if you don't know much about accents the differences between them can seem pretty trivial to you. And if you want to remain ignorant about accents, sports, or religion, I have no particular problem with that. Just as long as you realize that you are ignorant.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:05 PM
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 17, 2007 3:08 PM
kmarissa, my interpretation of tongues is the same as yours. The relevant passages are in Acts 2:1-12.
It states very clearly that the Apostles began to speak in tongues and that "6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: 'Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!'"
Perhaps David, our resident theology expert, can explain why it is that Pentacostals and Charismatics are unable to read their own fucking holy book.
Does that sound fundamentalist enough for you Dave?
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 3:08 PM
Hm, first Blake's Law, now Courtier's Reply.
Posted by: rrt | July 17, 2007 3:11 PM
By the way David, have you bothered to ask how many of us here came from religious backgrounds? Do you have any idea how many of us have studied theology?
Want to go head-to-head with us on theology?
Seriously?
Would like to try me on?
Wanna start of with Buddhism? It's an easy one. I'll let you pick Theravada or Mayahana, just to be fair.
How about Zoroastrianism, if that's more your flavour?
Maybe you should explain Jainism to us theological idiots, Professor.
That's what I thought. Shut your damn mouth.
Posted by: Brownian | July 17, 2007 3:14 PM
I've occasionally spoken in tongues, and sung too, for no religious reason whatsoever. The only virtue I've noticed is that it's somewhat fun.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | July 17, 2007 3:16 PM
Hmmm, now I just need Richard Dawkins to read my blog post aloud. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 17, 2007 3:16 PM
Hehe. He hits em all in one day. Awesome!!!
We're not ignorant David. We're dismissive.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2007 3:26 PM
--Perhaps David, our resident theology expert, can explain why it is that Pentacostals and Charismatics are unable to read their own fucking holy book.--
Unable, or unwilling? There are stupid people that are Pentecostal, stupid people who are Charismatic and stupid people who are atheist. But I suppose to you it is a perfectly rational argument. Since there are Pentecostals who are wrong, and Charismatics who are wrong, then Pentecostals and Charismatics are somehow "unable" to read the Bible. Unwilling, or simply have not ever read the Bible does not seem to cross through your mind.
--By the way David, have you bothered to ask how many of us here came from religious backgrounds? Do you have any idea how many of us have studied theology?--
Should I care? Behe studied biochemistry. No, of course not. One can study a subject, and yet not end up learning a damn thing. I can only call things how I see them. If some of the posters who have responded to me have had intellectual backgrounds in theology, they sure haven't shown them. They've shown about the same intelligence as someone who considers that there are no difference between baseball and football, because both involve teams, a ball, and scoring points. Its pretty much the same level of thought. The fact that they may have PH.D's doesn't really concern me. When any actual argument comes up that shows that these differences really are trivial, I'll be more than happy to retract what I've said. But I'm hardly holding my breath.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:27 PM
Steve_C
I can only call them like I see them. And what I see is the same level of intelligence in regards to religion as the person who thinks that baseball and football are fundamentally the same has in regards to sports.
Now, are you totally ignorant? No, of course not. I am certain that there are a great many areas of which you are quite knowledgeable. Its even possible that you aren't ignorant about religion, just merely not thinking too much about your responses period. Certainly possible.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:31 PM
I should have said "same thing". Not "same has".
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:32 PM
David wrote (along with a whole lot of other crap): To this, I agree. If you are ignorant about religion then the differences pretty much are trivial to you.
Well, David: I am an ex-fundamentalist Christian. I know a good deal about the different strands of Christianity -- Catholic, Orthodox, fundamentalist, liberal (even obscurantia like the filioque) -- and while I know rather less about Islam (and the difference between Sunni and Shia), I'm aware that there is a marked difference in content between, say, Baptist-ism and Sunni. So I don't think I can reasonably be described as "ignorant about religion". When I'm in the mood, I can even be persuaded to discuss some of those differences (esp. w.r.t. the likely socio-political effects of different religious beliefs -- something with which I have to be concerned, whether I like it or not).
But as far as truth value is concerned, all those theologies are equivalent: equally lacking in evidence, and equally unlikely to describe anything that really exists. IOW, the differences are, in one important aspect, "trivial".
Of course, someone without a chip on their shoulder would have just ignored the original remark as a throwaway piece of snide.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 17, 2007 3:34 PM
"Different Gods in nature (Christian God is trinitarian, Muslim is not)"
- Yes, but still no proof of being
"Different Gods in character."
- Yawn
"Different views on how to get to the afterlife."
- Please provide proof of Afterlife
"Different views on Jesus."
- Please provide proof of Jesus
"Different views on Mohammed."
- Great boxer fromt he 60's and 70's...oh wait, a different Mohammed?....ok....Yawn.
"Different "rituals"
- Yawn
I'm good...anyone else?
Posted by: Steverino | July 17, 2007 3:36 PM
--Well, David: I am an ex-fundamentalist Christian. --
And I'm an ex-atheist. Big deal.
--I'm aware that there is a marked difference in content between, say, Baptist-ism and Sunni. So I don't think I can reasonably be described as "ignorant about religion"--
Its nice that you are aware of a marked difference. If you are not ignorant about religion, great. Just show it.
--But as far as truth value is concerned, all those theologies are equivalent: equally lacking in evidence, and equally unlikely to describe anything that really exists. IOW, the differences are, in one important aspect, "trivial".--
So now we've gone from "no difference", to no fundamental difference, to no fundamental difference in terms of "truth value". Also, as for "equally lacking in evidence" the idea that Mormonism is equally lacking of evidence as Christianity shows to me that you are ignorant about religion. Mormonism has several beliefs that have been actually disproved. The best people here can do for Christianity is to yell "No evidence! No evidence! No evidence!"
I would think that people here would think that football and baseball are "fundamentally the same".
Both are sports.
Both involve a ball.
Both involve two teams.
Both games involve getting the highest score.
Both teams have "positions".
So football and baseball are really fundamentally the same thing, right?
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:45 PM
David, if you really think that PZ's comment meant that he was honestly and utterly unaware of any difference between the two religious beliefs and is unable to tell the two apart in any way, you may want to go back to Nuanced Conversation 101 and give up on ScienceBlogs for a bit.
If, as I suspect, you are actually just offended that he jokingly referenced the similarities between the two, rant about THAT if you want (believe me, we'll find it just as funny), but don't pretend to have the reading comprehension of a seven year old as you are doing now.
Maybe it would help if you grew a sense of humor.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2007 3:45 PM
Not to be picky, but we already have a word for it: theistic evolution.
Posted by: Leon | July 17, 2007 3:46 PM
Wow... Blake's Law, Courtier's Reply, and Shifting Goalposts, all in one thread. I'm impressed David. Do you do balloon animals, too?
Posted by: Berlzebub | July 17, 2007 3:48 PM
--Maybe it would help if you grew a sense of humor.--
I don't find ignorance funny. I just find it sad.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:48 PM
Hmm. "Post-theist"? There's much mileage in that phrase, methinks.
Posted by: Wrought | July 17, 2007 3:51 PM
Let's see.
PZ does remind me of a fundamentalist Christian. Its been the atheists that have been shifting the goalposts from "no difference" to "they just all aren't true" and I will admit to not being familiar with Courtier's Reply.
So at best you get a one out of three accusation rating.
Unfortunately I don't do balloon animals. Do you?
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:51 PM
Okay, so you're going with the seven year-old then. Sigh.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2007 3:52 PM
Kmarissa, you might want to wait until I actually answer your comment before jumping to conclusions. I know you aren't used to that... but I would suggest giving it a shot now and then.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2007 3:56 PM
Yeah, David must be pretty faithful. He's had himself a top-notch humorectomy. That's an even better sign of commitment than getting sprinkled with water, there.
What I find surprising is how long people have been engaging this troll. His criticisms are about on the same level as Wells' complaints about Haeckel in texts.
Posted by: wrg | July 17, 2007 3:58 PM
Kmarissa, you might want to wait until I actually answer your comment before jumping to conclusions. I know you aren't used to that... but I would suggest giving it a shot now and then.
Um, you did. See #61.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2007 3:59 PM
People who find sports meaningful would think football and baseball are significantly different (and could spend hours detailing all the differences); people who find all sports meaningless would think football and baseball are functionally identical (i.e., equally meaningless); people who like to whine about others' opinions would whine either way.
It's not about "ignorance"; it's about point of view. Figure it out!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 17, 2007 4:00 PM
David wrote: "Well, lets see. Those are differences yes? But, lets go on.
Different Gods in nature (Christian God is trinitarian, Muslim is not).
Different Gods in character.
Different views on how to get to the afterlife.
Different views on Jesus.
Different views on Mohammed.
Different "rituals".
But of course these are all meaningless little distinctions to you."
David, you are (unintentionally) right. These ARE all meaningless little distinctions, because they are all differences of opinions on fictitious/non-existent subjects. It's like arguing about whether the Starship Enterprise could defeat the Death Star.
We who aren't in either of these little fan clubs can see the big similarities which you don't seem to notice. And when we have a bunch of Sunni fundamentalists telling us to repent and join their religion or God will smite us, and a bunch of Baptist fundamentalists telling us the exact same thing, the differences really do seem terribly minor.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 17, 2007 4:00 PM
wrg, I know, I know. Bad me. But it's just so funny. I've never seen anyone get so upset over so obviously a flippant and sarcastic comment, and actually WANT people to think he took it literally.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2007 4:02 PM
Nope, I don't, David. But they weren't the ones shifting goal posts. Every time someone explained why they thought the two were the same, you came up with some excuse why the goalposts should be shifted.
I even said:
Which gives a perfectly logical explanation as to why the two are "the same", and RamblinDude even backed me up by clarifying it further.
Now, that is the only assertion I've made, and that you have ignored. Granted, the last part of my comment was a bit of a rant, and doesn't require an answer, but it doesn't take away from my statment. I'm even willing to bet that's the reason PZ said they're "the same", until he says otherwise.
When you strip Christianity, and the other theistic religions down, all it leaves is the same thing. Belief in one god who can't be seen or proven, but still controls everything and gives you a reason to judge others, despite what your precious book says.
Posted by: Berlzebub | July 17, 2007 4:05 PM
David,
And I'm an ex-atheist.
That explains a lot. Those mean old atheists are attacking your religious beliefs again. But instead of trying to actually defend your beliefs, you pretend to misunderstand what atheists mean when they say that religions are basically the same in an attempt to score juvenile debating points against people who irritate you. Yawn.
Posted by: Jason | July 17, 2007 4:08 PM
/thread
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 17, 2007 4