Shoot the Wall (A.K.A. The Rant Thread)

[Pseudonym]

ARGH, just got trapped by Jehovah's Witnesses. She read passages from the Bible at me, asked me if I was interested in the state of the planet, I told her I was an Environmental Sciences student, and she pulled out this brochure about the origins of life. Obviously I was unimpressed, I think she was a bit surprised when I immediately twigged it was a creationist brochure that denied the theory of evolution, and I pointed out I didn't believe life was created by a 'divine being.' FFS. 

[T.o.b.y]

5 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

ARGH, just got trapped by Jehovah's Witnesses. She read passages from the Bible at me, asked me if I was interested in the state of the planet, I told her I was an Environmental Sciences student, and she pulled out this brochure about the origins of life. Obviously I was unimpressed, I think she was a bit surprised when I immediately twigged it was a creationist brochure that denied the theory of evolution, and I pointed out I didn't believe life was created by a 'divine being.' FFS. 

Oh dear. Fortunately, the ones around here don't seem very zealous. They mostly just hand out brochures. Once two ladies tried to engage me in a longer conversation right outside the house where we live but fortunately I had an infant with me at the time who woke up and screamed at the top of his lungs. I don't know if they thought he was posessed by the devil or just trying to protect their ears, but they left pretty quickly after that... 

They used to ring the bell all the time at my husband's parents' house. And my father-in-law would explain over and over again, very patiently, that as a Lutheran minister, he was unlikely to change his faith and he was afraid they were wasting their time with his family...

[Carol the Dabbler]

14 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

I think she was a bit surprised when I immediately twigged it was a creationist brochure that denied the theory of evolution, and I pointed out I didn't believe life was created by a 'divine being.'

We were of course not there at the time, so we have no real way of verifying that, one way or the other.  Of course an individual can be sure, but another individual can be equally sure of a different explanation, and there's no way they can prove anything to each other.

That sort of disagreement tends to strike me as largely a matter of point of view or semantics.  What's the real difference between the big bang theory and "Let there be light"?

[Pseudonym]

The main difference being I'm not going around to their houses handing out brochures about evolution. People can believe whatever the hell they want, what I take exception to is the idea of pushing their beliefs onto others. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm no fonder of those visits than you are.  But seriously and in all fairness, considering that their intent is to save your immortal soul, they show considerable restraint.

[T.o.b.y]

4 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

We were of course not there at the time, so we have no real way of verifying that, one way or the other.  Of course an individual can be sure, but another individual can be equally sure of a different explanation, and there's no way they can prove anything to each other.

That sort of disagreement tends to strike me as largely a matter of point of view or semantics.  What's the real difference between the big bang theory and "Let there be light"?

As far as I know, the main difference is whether there is a divine being who created the world with intent or whether things "just happened". With cause and effect of course but without some kind of plan. 

I think that it's probably easier for the human mind to imagine a divine plan. The theory of evolution seems pretty abstract in comparison. It can also be scary to see yourself and the whole world at the mercy of complicated natural mechanisms without any kind of central force that knows what it's doing and ideally even cares about us. 

To me, the latter seems more likely though. The world is scary and random. 

As for people trying to save my soul, I do appreciate that, which is why I try not to be rude to them. I do suspect though that in some cases, it's more about finding another person to help finance their organization. 

[Pseudonym]

It’s incredibly patronising believing my soul needs saving just because I don’t have the same beliefs. I wasn’t rude when she was reading sections of the Bible at me, literally preaching, nor was I rude when she gave out leaflets. I was unbearably British about the whole thing. However I find it incredibly cheeky to try to force your religion onto other people and trying to convince someone [who is about to be] training to be a scientist that science is wrong seems very ill advised. Am I one hundred per cent sure that the various scientific theories are correct? No, of course not, and there is a reason they are called theory rather than fact, but I’m more inclined to believe in them than in... actually I should probably stop there because I hate organised religion and I’ll start really offending people. The point is, don’t come to my house or my place of work and try to convert me when I’ve made it clear it’s not going to happen.

[Carol the Dabbler]

30 minutes ago, T.o.b.y said:

As far as I know, the main difference is whether there is a divine being who created the world with intent or whether things "just happened". With cause and effect of course but without some kind of plan.

I just don't see why it has to be either/or.  What if the divine being (or committee or whatever) invented science?  What if they use, say, evolution as a tool?  It bugs me when somebody claims that in order to be a scientist, one must first be an atheist.

[Pseudonym]

Annoyingly I have to duck out now because I'm off hiking, but just to add a couple of things. Personally I wouldn't say science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive, though in my case they are. Secondly, the booklet was addressing and refuting evolution, not the big bang. The big bang theory does seem a bit of an abstract idea that I'm wary of, but I do believe in evolution. 

[T.o.b.y]

38 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I just don't see why it has to be either/or.  What if the divine being (or committee or whatever) invented science?  What if they use, say, evolution as a tool?  It bugs me when somebody claims that in order to be a scientist, one must first be an atheist.

I didn't say that. I don't think that either. I know plenty of scientists who believe in God and plenty of religious people who believe in science. But you asked what the difference was between "let there be light" and the big bang theory. And I do think it's a pretty big difference whether you believe that you live in a world that was purposefully created and is being monitored by a superior power or whether you see yourself and your surroundings as the result of a few coincidences and a long chain of cause and effect with no overarching idea or plan or purpose whatsoever. It's just a fundamentally different worldview. 

[Artemis]

59 minutes ago, T.o.b.y said:

And I do think it's a pretty big difference whether you believe that you live in a world that was purposefully created and is being monitored by a superior power or whether you see yourself and your surroundings as the result of a few coincidences and a long chain of cause and effect with no overarching idea or plan or purpose whatsoever.

Just poking my nose in here (not joining the debate), I just wanted to mention that there are some views that settle a bit in the middle, like Deism and the Clockwork Universe.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

11 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I just don't see why it has to be either/or.  What if the divine being (or committee or whatever) invented science?  What if they use, say, evolution as a tool?  It bugs me when somebody claims that in order to be a scientist, one must first be an atheist.

 

11 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

I didn't say that. I don't think that either. I know plenty of scientists who believe in God and plenty of religious people who believe in science.

Sorry, Tobe, I worded that poorly.  Didn't mean to imply I was paraphrasing you.

I have definitely heard some people say things to that effect, though, and I agree, it's ludicrous.

[besleybean]

Ooh, a row I could get into!  
Ha, you're all so sweet...wouldn't want to offend!

#militantatheist

[Pseudonym]

On 9/15/2018 at 6:48 PM, besleybean said:

Ooh, a row I could get into!  
Ha, you're all so sweet...wouldn't want to offend!

#militantatheist

There was a discussion in Speedy's a few months ago about religion that I was hoping you might chime in on.

[Arcadia]

Just dropping in to say I wholeheartedly agree with each of the last dozen or so posts.

[Carol the Dabbler]

On 9/15/2018 at 1:48 PM, besleybean said:

Ooh, a row I could get into!  
Ha, you're all so sweet...wouldn't want to offend!

#militantatheist

Don't worry, Bev.  Your beliefs are your own -- why should anyone be offended that you don't agree with them?  (Unless of course your credo ends with "... and anyone who doesn't agree with me is ipso facto really, really stupid.")

[Arcadia]

Or, "you're going to Hell." I've had a couple of people tell me that's where I'm headed, since I don't follow their faith. So charming.

When did it become acceptable to drag faith into a public debate, anyway? When I was a kid, I was taught that was very impolite … faith, like sex, was a private matter, not a public one. I'd just as soon they had both stayed that way. *sigh*

[besleybean]

That's fine as long as you don't live in a theocracy or somehwere there is a massive religious lobby...and not like there are many places like that in the world,hey?!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good point, Bev.  I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state.  Even here in the US (where it's basically written into the constitution), there are a few areas where the separation isn't complete -- and sure enough, they're causing trouble.

[Pseudonym]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on politics in my own country never mind anywhere else, but it seems in the US when politicians campaign it seems to be the done thing to emphasise that they have 'good Christian values'? I don't think that would go over so well here. 

[Pseudonym]

Omg, working out invoices with VAT and discounts is not my forte. Brain fried. 🤯

[Carol the Dabbler]

6 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

...it seems in the US when politicians campaign it seems to be the done thing to emphasise that they have 'good Christian values'? I don't think that would go over so well here. 

Isn't everyone there sort of assumed to be an Anglican unless otherwise specified?  Maybe the politicians who are Anglican don't see the need to mention it, and those who aren't figure it's safest not to say anything?

I think "Christian values" is frequently a code word for fundamentalist, but I believe I've also seen it used by Catholics and other non-fundamentalist Christians.

[besleybean]

I was baptised in the Church of England and confirmed in the Scottish Episcopal Church...not that it matters a jot.

But yeah, some "Christian values" just don't seem very nice to me.

[Pseudonym]

I assume them to be atheist rather than Anglican, and if they are religious they better not be piping up about it when they're on a political campaign. I don't think there's a place for it, religion and politics should be kept separate. We had a party leader not so long ago who was forced to resign after saying he didn't support gay marriage because it conflicted with his Christian beliefs. 

[besleybean]

He has the right to his personl beliefs, but whether or not they should be involved with what is supposed to be a secular state?