"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming." --Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, Evangelical Christian.
few things really get my goat like willful ignorance. it is bad enough to believe something for no good reason, but it is infinitely worse when it is thrown in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. take for example the latest political sacred cow: ron paul.
people often say that evolution is a political non-issue. but a person's stance on evolution indicates some very important things on how they view science and education. ron paul not only rejects one of the most important and well-supported biological theories but doesn't understand the difference between scientific theory and a colloquial catch phrase: "just a theory" (i've been saying this a lot lately). how can he be expected to take scientific advice from experts on anything if he already rejects the view of 99% of biologists on the most important question in biology? how can he be an advocate for education if he doesn't understand the scientific method and basic terminology?
comparing ron paul to other candidates on this issue is not like the old south park episode of comparing a douche with a turd. it is comparing turds of varying consistencies. ron paul may very well be the best candidate for the presidency, but his ignorance on basic science does not bode well for a commander in chief.
edit: i just found out ron paul was a practicing physician in the military for a number of years, which makes his comments on evolution all the more disheartening.
Ignorance is (not necessarily) bliss. And spreading misinformation and drawing false conclusions on poorly conducted studies is shameful. Even if you are attacking something that seems intrinsically bad--like soda (everyone likes a scapegoat). I was going to post the following remark on a shared link on facebook, but I didn't want to stir the pot with this particular person (she's an english major). Instead I will post it here so I can get it off my unscathed chest:
This is nothing more than scare tactics to get people to click on their site. The last line says it all. "However, people that drink diet soda tend to have more unhealthy lifestyles, and so the study can't specifically be linked to diet soda as a cause." In other words, correlation means nothing by itself (statistics 101). It can only support other evidence. I have seen similar "studies" attacking meat and high fructose corn syrup using the same tactics. All of these things may very well be bad for you, but these sorts of studies only hurt their credibility by misrepresenting the data. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
this is some what of a continuation of my story of leaving the mormon church.
there has been a lot of talk in the media about mormonism lately. partly because of various politicians and their increasingly public views on the matter. but also because of sites like this which have been spreading around social media like an empty collection plate--or tithing envelope! (by the way, to my knowledge, this site is run by an active member of the mormon church). one of the more interesting things on this site is a new survey which asked people why they left the mormon church (see left).
now, before i get in to my own reasons, i would like to point out that when i was growing up church leaders (and family members) said time and time again that the main reasons why someone would leave the church is because they were offended by someone or because they couldn't give up their favorite "sin." since these reasons are at the very bottom of the list, they are not only not my reasons (every time you use a double negative, god kills a kitten...), but they apparently aren't anyone else's reasons either. this misconception seems to be one of the reasons this survey and site were undertaken.
for me, several of these could describe why i left. i guess, if i were to choose a primary reason i would go with "re-evaluating what it means to know," with "losing faith in god" as a close second. i don't get hung up quite so much on opposing views of joseph smith or the book of mormon or church history, as these things are largely a matter of opinion and both sides seem to have their share of covering up and spin. to those who accuse the mormon church of being a cult i would say: the beginnings of any religion will appear cult-ish--especially to outsiders. so, really, its a non-argument.
i do take issue with a few things in the book of mormon, like anachronisms (things being out of place, i.e. horses in america, steel, compasses, conflicting geography, etc.); as well as the claim that the book of mormon was originally said to be a record of the native americans, and the fact that this claim has been so thoroughly debunked through genetic research that it was (quietly) removed from the introduction of the book of mormon just a few years ago (i still have my 1981 edition to verify the change). but these things are notnecessarily nails in the coffin as outlined in this video (again, made by an active mormon):
getting back to my reasons for leaving the church, i said that i "re-evaluated what it means to know." in other words, "why is faith a virtue?" the more i have thought about this, the less convinced i am that gut feelings are a reliable source of knowledge. they may have a place when all other options are exhausted (similar to the "god of the gaps" argument, or taking a multiple choice test), but even then it is no better than an educated guess (and that's being more generous than some would put it).
and then to say that your faith gives you "knowledge" (which you can hear in any "fast and testimony" meeting of the church) is just mind-boggling to me. faith is not knowledge. it is the opposite of knowledge. it is an assertion of beliefs that you have no evidence for. if you had evidence then you wouldn't call it faith. i'm sorry, but faith seems to be little more than socially acceptable credulity.
there is a path to knowledge which includes logic, reason and evidence. if you don't have those things then you can not assert that something is true (even with those things, it is still up for debate--this is called peer-reviewed science). if you don't have those things then all you can do is say you don't know; and if you say you don't know if there is a god, then guess what--YOU'RE AN ATHEIST by definition.
one of my new favorite things to do is watch a public access show called "the atheist experience" based out of austin, texas (in the heart of bible country, i might add). it is a great show for believers and non-believers alike, where a panel discusses religion and answers callers' questions from an atheistic perspective. this is probably the best thing to come from texas since the oil tycoon (probably). here is a clip where they discuss some of the things i mentioned concerning knowledge versus belief. the ending is especially telling... ;P
OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: i do not hold any ill-will toward any one who chooses to stay in the mormon church. if faith is enough for you, then more power to you. for me, it is not. as some would say, "i don't hate you--i just think you're wrong."
imagine, if you will, martin luther king, jr., and thousands of other civil liberals, marching on the washington monument in DC. once he takes his place at the podium to address the walkers, he promptly instructs everyone to empty their buckets of red paint into the pool of water beside them. what would this accomplish?
yesterday, a friend (and mind you, she is still a friend--i think) posted this picture and stated: "This is why I hate wool... among other things :(".
the picture is from peta2.com and shows a process called mulesing (a surgical procedure for removing maggots from the flesh of sheep, although this is in no way explained by the picture or caption). upon reading the comment threads on both her page and the link, i found that very few people seem to actually know what this picture shows. most commenters think that it is a picture of sheering gone bad and a mistake caused by the ineptitude of hurrying farm hands (which you can no doubt find on peta2.com as well).
the "conversation" began with two girls reinforcing their support for peta's cause and (in my opinion) showed a misunderstanding of the picture's content:
the phrase that stood out to me as showing the most ignorance was kaycee stating: "they just want to get the job done quick so mistakes are made often." upto this point jill seems to get the picture; kaycee seems to be misinformed. but this isn't kaycee's fault. as i will show, it is peta's fault for intentionally misleading and misinforming viewers through sensational propaganda.
although i don't normally get involved with such pointless debates on facebook, i felt a need to chime in and set the record straight (since peta wouldnt). so naturally i said:
now, i knew that kaycee wouldnt like what i said. but i thought that i said it in an informed, and respectful way. at the very most, i blamed peta, and not them, for being misinformed. she didnt like that...
you can read the rest of the dialog here if you would like, but i dont want to spend any more time on it. my point is this: peta intentionally misrepresents, misleads, misinforms and flat out lies when they feel justified by their goals. this is (ironically) as unethical a political sceme as i can imagine. even the nazi nationalists thought they had a good point. but do the ends justify the means? is the promotion of half-truths any thing less than the promotion of ignorance?
ingrid newkirk (co-founder and current head of peta, last i checked) is to social liberalism, what bill o'reilly and fox news is to broadcast journalism (maybe i will address this in the future). both sensationalize media for their own supposed "just" causes. this is called propaganda and is a common and effective tool used by terrorists, domestic terrorists, and tools alike.
where would blacks be if martin luther king, jr. employed the same tactics that peta uses today? would homosexuals get anywhere politically if they began throwing red paint on newly wed heterosexuals? does hysteria and vandalism really promote progressive change? i humbly submit: it does not.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
MY GENERATION GREW UP RECITING THIS EVERY MORNING IN SCHOOL WITH MY HAND ON MY HEART. THEY NO LONGER DO THAT FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING SOMEONE!
LET'S SEE HOW MANY AMERICANS WILL RE-POST THIS AND NOT CARE ABOUT OFFENDING SOMEONE [caps not added]
and i almost replied: "did you think to ask why people are offended?"
i dont understand how people equate supporting separation of church and state with an aggressive attack on god. if this is the case then the constitution is also an attack on god.
here is my fundamental problem with this debate. taking "under god" out of the pledge does not force god-believers to make an acknowledgement that god does not exist; however, having it in the pledge DOES force non-believers to make an acknowledgement that god does exist--usually in a public setting, no less.
as a side note: the pledge of allegiance was written in 1892, and the phrase "under god" was not added until 1954.
At the end of the Book of Mormon, the prophet Moroni gives a challenge (Moroni 10:3-5) where he admonishes the reader to ask God if the things written in the Book of Mormon are not true. What a great opportunity—a chance to ask God a specific question, and receive a specific answer. What better way can there be to both prove the existence of God and determine His true and living church?
While in high school, I wanted to find out if this was real, and if I really could find out for myself that the Mormon Church was true. So I read, prayed and waited. But nothing happened. Concerned, I thought I must have done something wrong. Maybe I had sinned and wasn’t worthy for an answer yet. So I repented and tried again. Still nothing.
At the end of high school it was expected of me to go on a mission for the church. My family expected it; my quasi-girlfriend expected it; even my non-Mormon friends expected it. Just before my temple endowment, my older brother came home from his mission and raved about how amazing it was and how much stronger his testimony had become. Ah ha! This was what I needed to really get an answer. What better way to know God than to serve Him by going on a mission and preaching and serving others? Surely, God would reveal himself to one of his servants. Surely, God would answer the prayers of one of his children concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, if that child was humbly spreading His word.
I do not regret going on a mission. It was a great experience, and so much more than just a two-year "vacation." I grew as a person, as an American citizen, and as a man. But I never received an answer to prayer. Still, I tried. There was no choice but to keep with it. My family and social ties depended on this. Perhaps going to college and starting a family of my own would show my commitment, and then, yes surely then, God would make it known to me.
So I went to B.Y.U. and earned a degree; all the while, feeling depressed for not knowing, like those around me, of the Church’s authenticity. Every time I would sit in church and hear someone say that they “know the Church is true,” I would asked myself: “How? Your faculties are the same as mine. The promise, the requirements, the whole experience is the same. For over a decade I have tried to know what you claim, but I do not. How do you know? How can you know, what I cannot?”
Spiraling into ever-growing despair, I decided to try a new approach. Perhaps it isn’t true. Perhaps I haven’t received an answer to a single prayer because no one is there to respond. But if this is so, then why do I feel so depressed and unworthy when I sin? Then it hit me. This could be a conditioned response to my upbringing. Maybe, I feel bad because I am told that I must. Once you remove the threat of eternal damnation, there is no reason to hate yourself or feel condemned for not meeting the standards imposed upon you by a “loving God.”
Numerous times I have heard stories of those who accepted the atonement of Christ for their sins and felt as though “a weight had been lifted” from them. I felt the same thing when I acknowledged my doubt. My sins no longer have power over me. I no longer feel unworthy, depressed or condemned. I no longer feel burdened by fleeting perfection. Instead, I embrace my imperfections as part of who I am. And I am fine.
"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming." --Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, Evangelical Christian.
