Scientific findings and thus knowledge about the natural world, anatomy and physiology, genetics, psychology, social-psychology, etc. convincingly unravel religious claims about how the natural world formed, how life developed and evolved, how humans were created, i.e. evolved, etc. Serious investigation through reading books, viewing documentaries, listening to personal accounts by scientists and people who are not genetically consistent with conventional understanding, lead to natural versus supernatural, i.e. religious, conclusions.
These lists and topics presented below are not exhaustive, and I think they won’t put Bart and other religious scholars out of business. I want to encourage everyone to expand their reading, viewing and listening to topics that challenge beliefs and their self-serving biases. I am better for doing so. Only four forces exist in the universe, and the entire natural world was able to form from them: Electro-magnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force.
Sample books include:
- Spying on Whales
- Inheritance: How our genes change our lives and our lives change our genes
- A more perfect heaven
- Physics of the impossible
- A brief history of everyone who ever lived
Sample documentaries include:
- H2O The molecule that made us
- What Darwin never knew; Cracking the code of life; Secrets in our DNA; Human nature
- Your inner fish: Meet the ancestors you never knew you had
- Making North America; Australia’s first 4 billion years
- The first alphabet: A to Z how writing changed the world (prior to this storytelling and memory was necessary)
- The entire Discovery Channel “Secrets of the Universe” series.
- Oh, and using the argument “Big Bang, etc. are only theories”, reveals insufficient knowledge of the scientific process (Observation, Description, Explanation, Prediction).
Those who want to believe that God created man need to explain things like:
- How 50% of human DNA is shared with bananas. And no the answer can’t be because all are from the same creator.
- Why would the same creator include approximately 30% of human DNA as non-functional remnants from viruses.
- Why would mice and humans include the same virus remnants? Evolution is the only answer.
- Why should X and Y “sex” chromosomes be involved in over 1,000 different functions? Answer: X and Y are not primarily sex or gender determining chromosomes, they are involved in much more. Early scientific labels are not the best for these chromosomes.
- How could a woman be born with other than XX chromosomes? Yes, it has occurred.
- How could a chimera be formed? That is a person whose genetics was formed from two embryos which fused into one person. Kramer: “Mother nature is a mad scientist, Jerry.”
SteveHouseworth said
Scientific findings and thus knowledge about the natural world, anatomy and physiology, genetics, psychology, social-psychology, etc. convincingly unravel religious claims about how the natural world formed, how life developed and evolved, how humans were created, i.e. evolved, etc. Serious investigation through reading books, viewing documentaries, listening to personal accounts by scientists and people who are not genetically consistent with conventional understanding, lead to natural versus supernatural, i.e. religious, conclusions.I want to encourage everyone to expand their reading, viewing and listening to topics that challenge beliefs and their self-serving biases. I am better for doing so. Only four forces exist in the universe, and the entire natural world was able to form from them: Electro-magnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force.
I would prefer to teach people better rather than to challenge and unravel them.
Second, challenging and unraveling better not make people amoral or immoral.
Ah, that’s the danger, take away the moral backbone and easily people will not be anchored. Anything goes and everything went.
I have a general question about Christianity – this is probably not the right place for it … but here goes …
First, not trying to butter anyone’s bread here, but I think Prof. Ehrman is one of the most important intellectuals of our time. For a plethora of reasons, most of which are fairly self-evident to anyone who has been paying attention to the changes in American culture since the early 1980s.
My question is therefore … is modern Christianity (in the aggregate) more a reflection of society’s popular expression of norms/mores or has society hewed to essential notions of Christianity (as an aspirational ideal.)
That is – have inevitable progressions in Western Civilization brought about by technological progress (greater leisure time, the gradual acceptable of women and historically disenfranchised sectors of society, generally more enlightened attitudes towards criminal punishment, protections in workforce etc. etc.) been a reflection – or in some way are they influenced – by the general underpinnings of Christianity or is Christianity sort of “along for the ride” (i.e. is it evolving as a result or is it causing or shaping the evolution).
The reason I ask is not a purely intellectual one – the reason I ask is because I am concerned about where Christianity is likely to go in the future – is it truly waning? Or will it continue to be the dominant political and social rubric against which we norm our societal institutions and legal framework?
Thanks – for everything.
Greg
You say “Modern Christianity” as if it is one monolithic thing.
But it is striking how much less diverse Christianity is today than it was in its first two centuries.
…the reason I ask is because I am concerned about where Christianity is likely to go in the future – is it truly waning?
Well I am no prophet, nor a prophet’s son (or a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees for that matter) but I think it is truly waning in the West. The only demographic where Christianity is holding its own is among immigrants. That said I think it will be centuries before we can truly talk about a “post-Christian” culture. (Alas, “we” won’t be talking about it of course.) Yet there will come a day when Jesus is just a name in a history book. For four thousand years humans found salvation through Osiris. How many people now really know anything at all about Osiris?
Steve,
A good question. I’ve been thinking about the same question the past few weeks. While Christianity is far stronger in the U.S. than in most of the rest of the Western world, many of the societal changes you referred to are more typical of the rest of the West than of the U.S. Also, fundamentalist Christianity is largely a U.S. phenomenon, and that generally impedes the kinds of changes you (and I) see as favorable.
During the past 50 years or so, Christianity has not appeared to have played a strong, direct role in the changes you addressed. How do you see that?
Steve,
A good question. I’ve been thinking about the same question the past few weeks. While Christianity is far stronger in the U.S. than in most of the rest of the Western world, many of the societal changes you referred to are more typical of the rest of the West than of the U.S. Also, fundamentalist Christianity is largely a U.S. phenomenon, and that generally impedes the kinds of changes you (and I) see as favorable.
During the past 50 years or so, Christianity has not appeared to have played a strong, direct role in the changes you addressed. How do you see that?
Stephen, both the information used for your conclusion, and your conclusion, are based upon the zeitgeist. Consider the popularity of movies, particularly musicals, during the depression years. Also, more literate people live today than did only a century ago, let alone 200+ years ago. The problem is not literacy but gullibility based on not reading a full set of information. I won’t get into economics and politics, except to say that so many false dichotomies exist between socialism and capitalism because people choose to present a skewed set of information, thus consumers of this information tend to accept this skewed information. Same has occurred within religion. Consider the social-psychological reinforcement of skewed religious topics presented weekly or multiple times per week via churches.
Our time is frequently characterized as “post-literate”. This doesn’t mean that nobody can read. Fortunately very few folks make it out of our sundry school systems without being able to read basic English. What it does mean at least in part is that our culture no longer derives its foundational stories from literature. The stories we tell ourselves by and large are no longer derived from literary sources. And those stories that are derived from literary sources are successfully spread to the degree they are filtered through other media. It just seems a natural question to ask if this state of affairs has anything to do with the decline of religion in our country.
Stephen said
Our time is frequently characterized as “post-literate”. This doesn’t mean that nobody can read. Fortunately very few folks make it out of our sundry school systems without being able to read basic English. What it does mean at least in part is that our culture no longer derives its foundational stories from literature. The stories we tell ourselves by and large are no longer derived from literary sources. And those stories that are derived from literary sources are successfully spread to the degree they are filtered through other media. It just seems a natural question to ask if this state of affairs has anything to do with the decline of religion in our country.
So, yes . . . with a more detailed, and dare I say “literate,”explanation of what I would have assumed.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)