Re: On credulity and religion
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
12 Jul 1996 20:23:23 -0600
In article <4rrgil$7cc@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Rosemary G. Scott <rosegs@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>explain. Personally, I find the concept of God to be completely
>rational on its own, yet when one contrasts it with the theory of
>evolution, it becomes infinitely more rational.
For your faith in God to be truly "rational," you need to provide us with
examples of evidence for your faith's validity, and (more importantly)
with examples of what evidence would force you to abandon that belief.
I hasten to add that irrational beliefs are every bit as protected as
logical ones by the Constitution. I'm just picking a nit about your
abuse of the word "rational," here.
>I don't know why people have a problem in accepting a God that always
>was and always will be, when the same folks can take a mass of chemicals
>floating around in the universe for granted
"A" mass? One?! ;)
We accept that chemicals are floating around the universe
because we can see, measure, and describe them. Is that really as
irrational as making untestable claims about the origins of those
chemicals? Of course not. I say pink unicorn Platonic archetypes made
selenium on a lark, and silver as an afterthought. Prove me wrong. :)
>--accepting on faith that this mass
>collided, exploded, cooled, and grew amebas who in turn acquired more
>cells which brought forth all of life as we know it. Thank you Mr.
>Darwin, our very own jolly Santa Claus!
Darwin did not come up with the Big Bang, which appears to be what you
are alluding to, here. He did, however, exist. There's
evidence of his having existed. Santa Claus, unfortunately, leaves no
such clues. Sort of like gods, spooks, fairies, and hobgoblins.
Starting to get the picture? Or just feeling more defensive and
self-righteous than ever?
Bryant
|