Having just watched Nerdstock: 9 Lessons and Carols for Godless People on iPlayer I decided that I'd be all bloggy about it.
Being of Christian origin and being brought up as an Anglican, I have the annoying problem of being indoctrinated with some views which I now think incorrect, not least of these that evolution is evil. I've come to think that evolution is most likely the best way of explaining how we came into existence on this spherical cube we call Earth, at the moment. No doubt as with all things sciencey, it'll change, or, ironically, evolve, into something else at a later time when our understanding of how things work expands. I think that it would be a little cocky of us to say that we, as humans, are at the pinacle of our understanding of everything and that from here on out it's just polishing what we already know, and I doubt any scientist would actually say that, but it feels at times like they're saying that they are 100% right and anyone who has a differing view is wrong, which is unfortunately mirrored in religion. I can only really speak from my own observations of Christianity as a religion so some of what I'm going to say could be a complete generalisation and incorrect, but I'm willing to concede if the need arises.
I still class myself as a Christian, or at least a believe is God, Jesus, Holy Ghost etc. yet I can still happily say that I don't regard evolution as complete rubbish, as i think a lot of Christians do, or at least seem to. Yet I find it hard to not get a little defensive when scientist essentially call me stupid for believing in something that, to them, is superstition and unfounded nonsense. Partly due to my proud roots which make me go "NO, STUPID, HETHEN SCIENTISTS! YOU SHALL NOT SAY EVOLUTIONS PROVES GOD DOESN'T EXIST, YOU'RE WRONG, EVOLUTION IS STUPID." which usually leads to me going "Hold on a minute, I kinda believe they're telling the truth, well at least about the evolution thingy." which tends to confuse and annoy me, but I digress, but also partly because they don't do it in a particularly nice way. It comes across as a bit of a QED situation. Christians go "There is a God, because, well we say so" (In my best Eddie Izzard voice) and scientists go "Ahh, but what about the evidence of evolution and all that stuff, it proves that the whole made in 7 days thing is crap, and thus God doesn't exist. QED, you're stupid for thinking he does exist." (In my best Eddie Izzard doing James Mason voice). This, in my opinion, is the worst kind of argument, as it generally leads to "No, you're stupid for not seeing God in everything!", "No, You're stupid for seeing God in everything!' and so on until we all die of boredom. I don't mind being given a different view point on things, but I do mind being thought of as stupid simply because I believe something that is implausible. Surely there are elements of science that are implausible, but still we research them. Back in the days when the world was flat and electricity was a silly work, stuff that we now understand and stick in the true box would have been thought of as implausible and anyone who believed in them would be labeled stupid or utterly crazy, yet they stuck it out and made a big discovery which then made everyone else go "Ohh, well now were clever because we believe you now, and anyone who doesn't is stupid." Equally there were times when to not believe in God would label you as stupid too. What get's me is the concept of having to discredit each other for a difference of opinion, surely a wonderful part of existing is having different opinions and being able to talk about those differences without the need to ridicule, maybe that's just me. I don't believe that The Bible is literally describing the way the earth was created, so it seems silly to use that point as a proof that all Christians are crazy. I do believe that if evolution is correct, there is God involved in it at some level. As convenient and wish washy as that sounds, I don't care. There are some convenient and wishy wash things in science, go fiddle with your own grey areas instead of mine.
It seems that one thing we can agree on, scientist and Christians (not entirely sure why I capitalise that, crazy Anglican rubbish I guess), is that homeopathy and crystal healing is ridiculous, and we're very capable of making those who do agree with it look stupid. Which is kinda ironic and stupid in itself. There are definitely things which just seem silly to believe in, but who can really judge another for their views, which is a bit of a general and leading to other massive, unrelated to this current thought process, discussions which really shouldn't be broached. Surely the concept of believing opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck is silly, yet many people still do, and in some ways it's based around the possibility of knocking something over or poking someone in the eye while you wield around your ungainly portable roof, but that's not the main reason people think it bad luck. There are many other superstitions which have some logical backing and some that relate to cultural or mythical concepts which have been passed through the generations and in some cases evolved into something slightly more believable or logical and sometimes not.
I've come to realise that sometimes the worst thing to do is come together as a group of like minded individuals in order to celebrate the fact that we are right and the other lot are wrong, which this program (hey look I came back to what I started on) seems to do. It collects the big names in science nerdity and gets them to come onstage and give their reasons why they're right, to an audience of people who already agree with them (another generalisation there). This surely is the worst method of debate. "I think that God doesn't exist, because jupiter is made from ground beef" says the crazy man to his equally crazy friend "I agree" says his friend and they both stew in their own ignorance. Now I'm not saying that this is how the program went, I'm simply illustrating that if you collect like minded people into one place they will simply agree with each other and not challenge each other (yes, a generalisation). Equally if you get a load of Christians together, of all denominations, they will at the very least be able to agree that God exists and thus they leave still believing and still unchallenged. I suspect that you could collect a variety of different faiths together and they would still agree that God exists, though there may be some more discussion on exactities. So, what I think would make more sense is to have a program which collects people of all understanding and beliefs who are capable of not just calling each other stupid and allow for a more balanced discussion and allow people to give proper reasoning for their concepts and then allow others to comment and see what results. Collecting together to mock your opposition is more an exercise in ego stroking than it is giving valid reasons why you should believe one thing or another.
I think that's all I can squeeze out of my brain, so I shall stop there. Though I will finish by saying, I don't disagree with scientist, I disagree with the methods they use to convince me/others that we need to rethink our beliefs, it reminds me of how some evangelists try to convert people to Christianity by shouting at them, which I also disagree with.
ps. There are enough generalisations in this article to kill a wooly mammoth.
0 comments:
Post a Comment