LJWorld.com weblogs Dangerous Ideas

Fossils and Faith


"Resurrected Life" is a quite interesting article but there are just some things about it that really bother me as a scientist and as a religious person. For instance, Mr. Detrich thinks that non believers have nothing to live for. Personally I don't believe it is in my ken to say whether or not someone else has anything to live for based on their beliefs. Granted I don't know what is going on in the depths of atheist Richard Dawkins' psyche, but he certainly seems to think his life has a point.Second of all I am bothered by this statement about nonbelievers:"They might just accidentally come to the conclusion that life would be better if they believed in a super being, in a creator, rather than life would be better if your actions didn't matter."This is a kinder gentler version of Pascal's wager which basically says you should believe because the reward is eternal bliss and the penalty eternal damnation. I have never been impressed by this wager in it's original form and I am even less impressed with Mr. Detrich's kinder gentler version. Also, does Mr. Detrich's kinder gentler version extend to devotees of, say, Krishna or for that matter any sort of belief in a supreme being?Next, I wonder why is the notion of God "creating" incompatible with scientific explanations of how life came to be and evolved? Mr. Detrich seems to at least accept the geological time scale. Well, if that scale is valid then why could not God's actions to bring change be seen from our end as being-well - evolution? Finally what am I to make of the concluding statement in the article where he says it is "better to be on the side of good than on the side of bad." Well what about that? Is some one automatically good because they believe in a higher power and some one automatically bad because they don't? Or is some one automatically bad because they believe that evolution happens? Does Mr. Detrich still think we are "evilutionists" as he writes in his "musings"?http://www.spearofjesus.com/musings.html


Ronda Miller 10 years, 4 months ago

It seems in some respects that people who do not "believe" would enjoy their lives more. They are living in the here and now, and not concerned with eternal damnation.

I don't believe that you have to believe in order to be a good person, and, as we have learned many times over, a religious person isn't always morally right in their beliefs.

This is a good topic for debate.

kansascrone 10 years, 4 months ago

exactly, ronda - i know many people who do not "believe," many of them coverts. they have experienced both sides of the coin and have chosen a life without religion.

in comparing them to those i know who are religious there are virtually no differences in them relative to purpose in life, personal integrity or any other way of contrasting the two groups as a whole.

Ronda Miller 10 years, 4 months ago

How come you said that better than I did kansascrone?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

It also disturbs me that some see glory in reaching the top of their belief hierarchy. While that may go hand in hand with total selflessness and total selflessness may serve what so many perceive as "the greater good"...does it, really?

Though I have it in spades 2/2/2008

This world begs for an afterlife, as death is so foreign to the living, and selfishness runs so rampant.

And it is so much more cost effective to fold to Ceasar, even betting our lives, with eternal bliss is in the pot.

I will certainly go to the hell of the loving master if that is his wish,

for I am an ignorant fool and; therefore, my damnation is deserved, however eternal it may be.

I do wonder about how eternal it should be and how I'd deserve so much more time than my peers

but am hopeful just the same that ignorance is indeed...bliss.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.