After the stirring (and I say that facetiously) debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, my views did not change one iota about anything. Everything that was said has been reverberated a plethora of times, from Internet debates to television debates to general knowledge and common sense.
Calling out scientific theories for often being wrong: check.
Explaining how Noah’s Ark could have never happened: check.
The mention of the Bible saying/not saying how old the Earth is: check.
Blah, blah, blah. It all reminds me of an article I read in Salon by one Frans De Waal in which he wonders whether militant atheism has become a religion itself. De Waal’s points (which can be found here) are legitimate in certain instances, albeit open-ended because the debate is far from over. He uses famed atheist Christopher Hitchens as the centerpiece of the story, which is a good place to start.
But, like most aspects of the scientific/religious debate, things have no end. They don’t have much of a beginning either. It’s a free-for-all of personal ideologies, but I would be remiss to add that, personally, I don’t think people are focusing on the right things.
AKA, the argument is much more simple than people realize.
Without religion, atheism would not exists. But why does atheism exist? To counter the religious zealots. And yes, there are atheists out there who challenge Christianity and Judaism and many other religions just to arouse them. Those people are the trolls of our day. But I would say that most are logical in their assertions and their arguments, and do their best to counter points that are logically or equivocally unbalanced.
Me? I don’t care for religion. It doesn’t do anything for me. It never really has. I think the world would be better off without it because it turns ordinary people into extraordinary bigots, just because of what they were taught or think they were taught. Again, that is not everyone but I see it far too often.
Different strokes for different folks, I understand that. But the science bashers usually always refer to the, “Science is worse than religion because scientific theories are often wrong.” Well, yeah. That is why theories are initiated and then tested, and if they don’t work they are debunked. But that could be said about anything in life, especially when it comes to technology. Certain pieces have to fit to complete a product, and even when a product is complete then it can still be better — eventually.
It really is simple: religion is a destructive entity in the course of human fragility. Why can’t people just be good towards one another, and that can be the end of it? This world needs more pragmatism and less idealism.
I am just completely opposed to the school of thought, or action, in which religious folk live their human lives for someone else (an entity in the form of a god). If that’s your goal, what is the point of living in the first place?