Politics and Religion - Who Can Tell Us What We Can and Cannot Do?
Posted: Friday, June 27, 2008
By Ben Morrish
Ben, For an individual who wants to leave religion out of political discussions you seem to display a significant amount of anymosity towards any suggestion that Christianity has had a profound impact upon the development of our political system. Earlier you dismissed my reference to Josh McDowell by stating that "Josh McDowell has been roundly refuted by both atheist and Christian critics." Can you give me a reference on this. Incidentally, since you are so bold as to take a firm stand on the "authority" of science in its application to politics, would you be so kind as to admit whether or not you are an athiest? I am curious also whether you are a homosexual. I am a Christian. I am not homosexual. And I think our personal position on these issues are very pertinent to the conversation so that we can all understand where we are coming from. I would appreciate your honesty.Not animosity. Christianity has of course had an influence on the development of our political system, but the facts is that it is only one factor among many, the US constitution is explicitly secular, and today's political systems are incompatible with Biblical literalism. Almost all those elements common to both Christianity and modern political and moral systems are those elements which can be well supported by reason - and most of these elements did not originate with Christianity. I can't give references via link here as it won't let me, but even a quick search in the world's most popular search engine will bring up a few decent rebuttals. The "authority" of science is, by definition, the "authority" of the facts of reality as best understood, and any decisions made for the real world need to be made on the best available understanding of reality. I'm an agnostic atheist, with a soft spot for the God of Einstein and Spinoza (a deistic rather than theistic, personal God). I'm not a homosexual, indeed my own personal "yuck factor" is quite strong in relation to such acts, but then my own "yuck factor" is quite strong in relation to asparagus as well. I can't personally see the attraction in either, but if other people want to go for it then that's their business.
Apparently my most recent comment did not make it to this page. So, I'll try again... I must admit that you are correct when you stated to Terrence from UK that not ALL of the Founding fathers of the United States were Bible believing Christians. However, the majority of them were not only Bible believing Christians but theists as well. I can provide you with the references on this if needed. Perhaps your sources of information in the UK regarding our history in the United States is inaccurate or has been misinterpreted by you or somebody else. A document does not need to be from the "Bronze Age" to be misinterpreted. As a matter of fact, I have seen an immense amount of misinterpretation, misinformation and rhetoric in the comments on this article. I suppose we are all guilty of that... aren't we? In any event, I would like to know how homosexuality is scientifically correct? Or, how is abortion scientifically correct? We sometimes assume that science has all the answers, when in fact it has frequently been wrong. Science once proclaimed that the Piltdown man was a missing link. When in fact it was a fraud. Science also proclaimed Neanderthal to be the missing link... but has now changed its mind and determined that the mytochondrial DNA of Neanderthal bumps it out of the Human family. And science continues to assert the theory of evolution as if it were a fact... when it is in reality a system of faith. This is the way of humanism. However, it is quite obvious that human intelligence is quite limited. As you should know, considering your interest in science and religion. Because of our human limitations heads of governments have repeatedly been held accountable to a Higher Authority. Tell me, why does the President of the United States place his hand upon the Bible when he is sworn into office? What is the moral implication? Why do we have "In God we Trust" engraved on our currency? And what is the moral implication? And why does every session of Congress open in prayer... and you got it... what is the moral implication?My sources of information on the Founding Fathers are from the US as it happens, although sources from elsewhere could be argued as being more objective. I'd accept that most of them were theists. Most significantly, the majority of them were secularists. Science itself doesn't make moral judgements, it is merely the information about reality which must be taken into consideration when we make moral judgements. Scientists can be wrong, but what makes it so powerful is the mechanism by which it corrects itself. Its ability to change its mind based on new evidence is surely preferable to the alternative - doggedly clinging to the same view *despite* new evidence that indicates that view is wrong. Evolution by natural selection is not a system of faith. It is a scientific fact. This means that it is supported by overwhelming evidence and has stood up to numerous attempts to falsify it. It is possible that it is wrong, but if it is, a new and better explanation would be needed (similar to Relativity replacing Newtonian conceptions of gravity - Newton was wrong, but even so his theory was accurate enough to be useful for centuries, and is still useful today!) The fact that evolution happens is an observable fact, it is the theory that *natural selection* is the *cause* of the observed evolution that is falsifiable. Evolution by natural selection is not faith-based, it is evidence based, and this is why it could be falsified. This ability to be falsified is one of the key things that makes it a scientific theory. Human intelligence is undeniably limited. It is our invention of "extelligence" that has helped us as a species overcome individual human limitation in many ways, although as individuals are limitations remain. Historically, human heads of governments (mostly Kings) have claimed their authority is divinely bestowed, and thus that they are not themselves accountable to anyone on Earth, only to the Higher Power. The implications of this are obvious. The moral implications of those Christian traditions are almost none-existent since the constitution..the law (which determines what is deemed ok and what is deemed not ok)...is explicitly secular. Christian traditions and rituals are commonplace of course, but have at best only a symbolic meaning - the President swears on the Bible as a sign that he submits himself to higher authority, a sign that he is a servant, but the laws of the nation of which he is the head are not the laws of the Bible (although some few happen to be the same), and the president's authority comes not from God but from the people.
Ben, I would like to begin this comment by commending you on your integrity to defend your position. I would also like to remark again that your article is written very well. It is stimulating to be able to carry on a discussion with someone like yourself who defends his position from an intelligent perspective. With that said, I would like to continue this debate... I would argue that evolution is not a fact... but a theory. One of the fundamental tenants of the scientific method is that it can be tested and that the results of the test can be duplicated. Evolution cannot be tested because we cannot duplicate the evolution of species. I would like to make the observation that the minor differences we have seen because of selective breeding is not the same thing as a creature mutating from one species to another species. Whales do not walk. Monkeys do not talk. And there is absolutely no evidence that any creture upon the face of the earth is currently in the process of evolution. To adhere to a paradigm without tangible evidence is a belief system. Evolution is a belief system because it "believes" the missing link is out there... kinda like theists asserting that God is out there... but neither one of us can see it or touch it. How does science and evolution pertain to this discussion regarding politics and religion? It is a question of authority... Now as I approach this I must refer to your comment that you are an agnostic atheist Deist. Well, that is quite an odd combination. I'm not quite certain what that means... but it sounds like you're doing the shuffle on your position. So, let me approach a theory of God from a scientific position... As a scientists I am certain that you accept that "reality" consists of matter and energy that can be measured, etc. And has not quantum physics proven that quarks are particles that appear to be able to exist in more than one location at a time? Has not science asserted that we live in a multi-dimensional universe? And if you accept this model of reality then is it not possible that the "space" in which you live, and walk and talk, could be co-inhabited by beings from a another dimension? This multidimension universe that science has just stumbled upon is something that religion has been proclaiming for thousands of years. The problem with humanism is that we want to believe that we can control our universe by the power of our intellect. Yet, you yourself have stated that human intelligence is undeniably limited. To defend your humanistic philosophy you have asserted that mankind has invented extelligence. Yet, would it not be equally valid to assert that extelligence invented intelligence... literally? Now, with that said I would like to try to bring this discussion back to the question regarding religion morals and politics. In my last comments I cited specific examples of how civil religion has been incorporated into our political process. Your response was that the "moral implications of those Christian traditions are almost none-existent." I must absolutely disagree with you on that comment. The moral implication of taking an oath and swearing upon the Bible is that an individual is pledging to be faithful and honest to their commission, not by the authority of man, nor by the authority of the State, but by the authorioty of God. Faithfulness and honesty are absolutely moral issues. The engraving of "In God We Trust", upon our coinage is another example of the acquiesence of the secular political system to the moral authority of God. The moral implication here is again a question of honesty. Yet, must profoundly... Why on earth would a secular political order such as Congress begin every session in prayer? Is this just shallow tradition and ritual? Absolutely not... it is the very real acknowledgment that our political leaders seek the guidance of God in their proceedings. The moral implications are powerfully self-evident.*Evolution by natural selection* is a theory that offers an explanation for the observed phenomenon (fact) of *evolution*. Speciation has been observed in labs, and elsewhere. Numerous times. The difference between species is just an accumulation of the tiny changes we see in selective breeding. This has been proven and it has been observed! Whales do not walk, but their ancestors did. There are still vestigial remnants that clearly indicate their land-based ancestry. There is evidence of evolution in contemporary creatures, as well as the instances of speciation observed in labs there are many other examples, such as the changes in the beaks of "Darwin's Finches". There's also the strong evidence from molecular biology, that shows a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that strongly supports the idea that all living things are related. Some of the most compelling evidence for evolution is the existence of some extraordinarily BAD design in nature (one example being the hideously twisted skulls of non-skate flat-fish, twisted to bring both their eyes to the "top" side that in their ancestors was their left or right side). The Theory of Evolution is not a belief system, it is an explanation (so far the only one that fits all the evidence) for the observed diversity of species. It has made predictions that have later been verified. No evidence has been discovered which falsifies it, despite many scientists having stated exactly what kind of discoveries would do so (and many attempts to find such evidence have been made). "Missing link" is a nonsense term really, since if we have an ancient species, A, and a modern one, Z, then we discover a "missing link" somewhere between them, M, we are still looking for a "missing link" between M and Z. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your references to a "multi-dimensional universe", its self-evident that we live in a multi-dimensional evidence as we can see that things exist in (at least) 3 spatial dimensions. There is nothing in the Bible, or any other religious text that I'm familiar with, that is a clear prediction of the kind of multi-dimensionality hypothesised by today's physicists. It would not be valid to state that extelligence invented intelligence. Extelligence is a repository of externalised intelligence (outside of the human brain), and you cannot have such a repository without first having intelligence. Morally, it makes no difference whether someone bases an oath to tell the truth on the authority of the state or on the authority of God, as either way they are committing to telling the truth with an implication of accepting punishment from that authority if they are found to be lying. Faithfulness and honesty are obviously moral issues, but whether you swear on God, the Bible, the Koran, your honour, your mother's life or any other personally meaningful authority doesn't change the commitment to faithfulness or honesty involved. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on extolling these virtues, they are common to many faiths, and common also among the faithless. Political leaders in democracies do not get authority from God, they get it from voters.
Ben: Your article makes a good argument but for who? f You commented on each of your subjects from the standpoint of your beliefs. Religion is a persons beliefs and every individual has a reason for believing the way they do. Christianity is under attack. Maybe it is a conscience thing with people. If there is a God (He has spoke to my thoughts as if I was talking face to face) then He does not need any ones approval. If not then who cares what the rest of the world thinks on the subject. Disasters are not of His choosing, It is our spiritual ignorance and it is the destructive forces we are now feeling in the acceleration of destructive weather around the world and the decline of our countries morals and prosperity. Our bill of rights, states it very plainly. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government is not supposed to be a body of people where it micro manages everyone's lives. No one objected to the choices gay people made on their own pursuit of the principles of freedom, only when it became a form of forcing their way of life through legislation. Sodomy means both gay men and woman. It is not the people that are targeted, it is the way of life being forced on children in books etc. It is the same with all forms of idolatry. It is self-destructive. No one argued when a woman chose to have an abortion. It is when it became a form of legislation it became dangerous. Millions and millions of tiny embryo's, with a beating heart, moving legs, and arms, eyes, etc. have been aborted because it is legal. There were few abortions before legislation. It has become a form of birth control. And yes full birth abortions do take place, by crushing the skull of the baby before it can take a breath. The rate of suicides of women with abortions is higher then any other class of people. A woman working for Planned Parenthood recently confessed she received $40.00 extra pay, for every girl she talked into an abortion.(taxpayers money) She confessed also some of them were not even pregnant. Remember the working people are paying the bills for all this legislation, most of them do not want. When a few people think they have all the answers for everyone, and have the powers of legislation, we all lose a little bit more freedom. Believe the way you choose, but why be concerned of others that believe the way they choose. Is it the need to be right, in order to make one feel better, on how they believe?
why is it so difficult for you to accept an intelligence outside of yourself, mankind, etc.? Molecular biology does not prove evolution, it only shows the inter-relationship of all living things. This does not disprove Creation. You have asserted that there is scientific evidence for evolution in that "There is evidence of evolution in contemporary creatures, as well as the instances of speciation observed in labs there are many other examples, such as the changes in the beaks of "Darwin's Finches"." This is erroneous. You are referring to the interpretation of data and the conclusions of that information. The changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches did not change the basic DNA of finches. If you are going to claim that scientific evidence exists then you need to reference these claims. I could say that there is volumes of scientific evidence to support Creation Science or Intelligent Design. However, without the citations it is only an assertion. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in labs or in the fields that irrefutably show that one species has evolved into another. Good day!It is very easy for me to accept intelligences outside myself, there's a lot of them on our little planet, and a great number of them put mine to shame. It is difficult to accept an intelligence outside of man (and to a lesser extent other animal species) because there is no evidence of such a thing. Molecular biology is strong evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and is compatible with predictions made by the theory of evolution long before molecular biology came to exist. As to the observed instances of speciation in labs, this is not erroneous - speciation has been observed happening. This is evolution, and it has been witnessed. The only part where interpretation comes in is what causes it. The theory of natural selection is the most parsimonious interpretation, but a divine interpretation could be attempted here with God as the *selecting force* in evolution. The changes in the beaks of Darwin's finches were genetic, therefore were the direct result of changes in the "basic DNA" of finches. Darwin didn't know that, but it has been tested since his time. Further evidence comes from modern "ring species", where there's chains of slight differences in a species as you move around the world, but each can reproduce with other members of its species in its locality. However, at the far ends of the chain, the differences have become so large that creatures from one end of the chain cannot successfully reproduce with creatures from the other. If the creatures in the middle of the chain were wiped out, then the chain of reproductive compatibility would be severed, and the animals from the start and the end of the chain would have to be categorised as seperate species, due to distinct and consistent differences in behaviour, appearance and genetics, and inability to breed with each other. The evidence is there, and it is overwhelming.
* "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984. * "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission), The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959. * "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." Malcolm Muggeridge (British philosopher), The Advocate, March 8 1984. This is just a few of the great thinkers including scientists that refute everything you are claiming is true. Theory is not true until it is proven. Everything provable has to have a Principle behind its capability to be proven, such as numbers and music. How do I know God exists? He has spoken to my thought as loud as if I was speaking to you face to face. That is all the proof I need, however, that just increased my thurst to know Him better. He told me to write my book,"Who Made God'. Helen M NanneyQuoting other people who are wrong doesn't constitute an argument against evolution. Not one of those quotes contains anything beyond unsubstantiated assertion, and presenting them is nothing more than appeal to perceived authority. You seem to misunderstand what "theory" means in a scientific context - scientific theories are never proven (definitive proof only applies in logic and mathematics). Hearing a voice in your head is not itself sufficient evidence of the existence of any entity that also exists outside of your own head. We humans can all too easily be deceived by our minds and senses, which is why we need the scientific method to support any claims about reality.
Hi Ben: Interesting discussion. As an experienced scientist, I can confirm – science cannot explain many things. As a family person, I can tell – the most important things are love and spiritual growth. In my opinion, to improve your understanding you should marry, have kids, and watch them when they become teenagers.There is much science cannot explain, that is for certain. Most likely science will never (and could never) explain everything, but every increase in our understanding of the universe we find ourselves in is both satisfying and adds to our sense of awe and wonder, as well as having many practical applications.I agree that love, friends and family are the most important things in life, and spiritual growth too (depending on how spiritual is defined of course).Understanding people and how to engage meaningfully with others is vital in one's own development and enjoyment of life.
holy s--t, ben,there weren't this many comments when i first read this article!you are very intelligent, and obviously have learned a lot in your young life, and you know how to intelligently handle all these comments. good for you.i think abortion is a personal thing, and should be questioned or legislated by none. i don't think it should be done, but i also don't think anyone should mandate that it can't."numerous key mistranslations".... i've often thought, with all the mistranslations: What if God said, let no man lie with his lamb?" instead of "let no man lie with another man" something to think about.but, who would believe that?you and me :)best regards,sueThanks for your comment Sue!
I think you overrate my intelligence (and my youth) but I never turn down a compliment, so thank you for that! ;-)
As to the lambs, the Bible has that covered as well:....its just a shame the authors threw in the anti-homosexual references as well in my view, as it has caused a lot of suffering and conflict over something that all the evidence suggests isn't a choice anyway, and is a private matter in any case!
- Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 22:19
- And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. - Leviticus 20:15
- And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:16
Thanks for reading!
hi ben,congrats on winning the contest, good job.there are 11,011 words in your comments! keep writing, and we'll keep reading,and thank you for joining my fan club, i truly appreciate it,best regards,sue
Wow Ben,What a well written, thoroughly argued article! This should have received 5 stars!And you are right, religious beliefs of the people can not be undervalued in policy making decisions, but that does not mean that policy should be dictated by a singular religious belief system. When this happens, we no longer live in a true democracy, but a theocracy.Socialist philosophy was developed in accordance with the "greatest good, for the greatest number of people' in mind. But this led to more governmental power and price control and set wages. Although this was a very popular economic policy after the Great Depression, the deregulated free market economy took its place.Now we are stuck wondering whether or not this policy beholds the greatest good for the greatest number of people; as we have seen a larger division between the have's and the have not's.Many people think that this current election has to do with religious conservatism vs liberalism, or that terrorism is all about fundamentalist, radical Islam vs the secular west. But I think the issue is even larger than this. I think global terrorism is a reactionary response to Capitalism run amuck; e.g, hyperconsumerism and materialism.Great Article!
Benjamin K Morrish is a UK-based amateur writer, interested in a wide range of topics from science to silliness.
He enjoys debating science, pseudoscience and religion, and spends a lot of time over at Richard Dawkins.net.
When he isn't there, he can usually be found writing his blog, All True.
Despite having passed the big 3-0 and having the cynicism of a man twice his age, he regularly gets asked for identification when trying to purchase alcohol.
Leave a Public Comment or Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.
