What Christianity and alien abduction have in common
I just finished reading Michael Shermer’s book, “Why People Believe Weird Things.” It’s very long-winded — the book could easily be 1/10th its size and still make the same points — but it did make me realize one thing. The book discusses alien abduction as an example of a weird thing that many people believe, and points out that it is based entirely on anecdotal stories without a single shred of physical evidence. As I read this, I realized that the same can be said of Christianity or, indeed, any other religion. There is as much physical evidence for Christianity as there is for alien abduction: i.e., none. Indeed, if we consider the scars that supposed abductees claim were caused by alien medical experiments, there is actually more physical evidence for alien abduction than for Christianity.
Moreover, the mental processes that leads to both beliefs are remarkably similar. Both depend upon a leap of faith based on highly improbable stories told by people of unknown credibility. Both heavily rely on dreamlike visions: abductees call them “memories,” Christians call them “prophesies” or “revelations.”
And, significantly, both beliefs gained popularity during times when contemporaneous events caused large numbers of people to be receptive to the belief. It cannot be mere coincidence that the rate of reported alien abductions grew dramatically during the 1960s and 1970s, when the NASA space program — and the idea of space travel — was capturing attention around the globe. Likewise, Christianity arose at a time and place in human history when many people were claiming to be the Messiah, and many more were claiming to be prophets sent by God. The belief in witchcraft during the 17th century fits this same pattern.
Does this mean Christianity is invalid? No, but it does mean Christianity has a lot more in common with alien abduction and witchcraft than it does with, say, Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Karl, you apparently don’t bother going to the links we specifically provide for you.
There is nothing “magical” about how new genes appear. The simple (well documented, often observed) transcription errors cited above are all that is needed. They happen stochastically, a more precise term that may be read “randomly” to people without chemistry, biochemistry, quantum physics, and biology training.
When these errors combine to form a new gene, sometimes there is a visible difference in the development, growth, or behavior of the organism. Most transcription errors result in either no difference, or a prenatally fatal difference. In the minority of other cases, there is some noticeable physical effect, like extended color vision or the ability to digest things your ancestors found indigestible or dying sooner from Huntington’s disease.
Those differences can increase or decrease lines of descent from a gene pool. If a single mutation confers a 1% advantage in survival or procreation, it will likely constitute 90% of the population in less than 65 generations (1.0165 = 1.91, or about a thousand years in pre-urban human evolution). Now compound this with many such mutations every generation, and hybrid vigor calculations, and one necessarily sees an exponential change in any species. And this is observed.
The old ideas about binary dominant and recessive genes only applies to a small minority of characteristics. For example, eye color is loosely connected this way, but skin color is not.
Science has no need to cite a causative agent. It simply describes what happens due entirely to known natural processes. I don’t denounce religious beliefs for the lack of credible witnesses; I do it because they claim validity in contradicting direct observations via ancient writ.
Example (that we’ve been over): The world is at least hundreds of millions of years old according to dozens of completely independent dating methods, many predating Darwin. The crust first froze nearly 5 billion years ago, according to a handful of others. The universe in which it floats is showing us deeper and deeper time, the more carefully we look. Yet a small minority of Christian and Muslim scholars claim that their interpretation of an old book (totally disconnected from repeatable observation) proves that the universe and the Earth cannot be older than a few thousand years.
We naturalists and 90% of the rest of the world accept the dozens of (verified, always testing, never accepted as dogma) methods as producers of facts, and the old book as a faith-based view of a minority. The descendants of this minority will accept what we know now about geology and biology, as they now easily accept that the sky is neither a closed sphere nor a canopy, nor is the world flat, nor does light exist apart from sources to emit it, nor vision without those sources, nor disease as a result of sin (all traditional Bible-based understandings).
I don’t think that you, Karl, are stupid. We wouldn’t bother engaging with you if we did. But must you so often make claims that run counter to massively reinforced human knowledge of how the universe actually behaves?
Karl wrote, “Surely science can look for a reason for how these genes appear besides the glossy overused mantra of random mutation.”
Karl, the reason why geneticists refer to processes as being “random” is because that is what the mathematics shows the processes to be. Random processes behave in particular ways — a normal or “Gaussian” distribution, for example. When experimental data fits a Gaussian distribution curve, the process is said to be random because, by definition, that’s what it is. This doesn’t require any deep knowledge about what causes the process to be random, it is merely a recognition that the process *is* random because it behaves exactly the same way that other, known random processes behave.
I make statements that obvious make it hard for you to understand how I discount what seems to be overwhelming evidence to you. Any amount of circularly reinforced human theories that have been put together as much by imagination purported to be field stidies and analytic investigations should be questioned more than it is accepted.
Darwin said so himself, but his postulates and theories were pushed into the forefront of modern science by atheistic lawyers and those opposed to existing religions in general.
Accepting any naturalistic philosophy that purports to answer questions of a metaphysical nature are futile and will continue to only cause dissention among scientists world wide.
University scientists may believe they have a corner on what is approved metaphysical explanations for matters beyond scientific observations, but even the majority of Americans still believe there is more to life than meets the eye. Most Americans still believe in matters of the spirit, including God. Atheistic scientists who think they do mankind a service by pushing matters of the spirit out of everyday life are only asking for trouble, especially those who deny an intelligent creator.
I make statements that obvious make it hard for you to understand how I discount what seems to be overwhelming evidence to you. Any amount of circularly reinforced human theories that have been put together as much by imagination purported to be field stidies and analytic investigations should be questioned more than they are accepted.
Darwin said so himself, but his postulates and theories were pushed into the forefront of modern science by atheistic lawyers and those opposed to existing religions in general.
Accepting any naturalistic philosophy that purports to answer questions of a metaphysical nature are futile and will continue to only cause dissention among scientists world wide.
University scientists may believe they have a corner on what is approved metaphysical explanations for matters beyond scientific observations, but even the majority of Americans still believe there is more to life than meets the eye. Most Americans still believe in matters of the spirit, including God. Atheistic scientists who think they do mankind a service by pushing matters of the spirit out of everyday life are only asking for trouble, especially those who deny an intelligent creator.
As for Mark wanting to know what could replace the vacuum caused by the collapse of any modern scientific theory, have you considered that nothing stands a chance because of the climate in modern univeristies today?
Intelligent design can’t even be discussed by other departments in universities without the biology departments breathing down their necks.
You assume that because there is no canopy now that there never was one (bad assumption). You assume that the Bible teaches that the world is flat, when it clearly does not. Disease came into the world as a result of sin. That does not mean that disease that comes today is the result of individual sins (original sin brought it). There is a connection between sin and STD’s (common sense teaches that). Where does the Bible teach that light emits apart from a source? God is light so as long as He exists then there is a source. Again, pay attention to the details sir and you might learn not to make regurgitated remarks that others have made mistakenly.
Karl: You have failed in your attempt to divide the world into “atheistic scientists” and people of faith. Beliefnet has published an article indicating that 30% of biologists are theists. Although this brief article doesn’t lock the issue down with precision, apparently LOTS of scientists both believe in God AND accept a naturalistic world view. http://www.beliefnet.com/News/1999/12/Scientific-Semi-Belief.aspx
Perhaps you should call up Francis Collins and try to convince him that he is really an atheist.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html
Karl writes:—”Intelligent design can’t even be discussed by other departments in universities without the biology departments breathing down their necks.”
Karl. Let’s try this one more time.
Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENCE.
Nothing’s stopping universities from discussing it in Philosophy Courses.
“Nothing’s stopping universities from discussing it in Philosophy Courses.”
Tell that to the philosphy teachers who don’t have tenure.
Erich,
Your 40-60 split for university scientists in general verses 30-70 split for biologists and even a greater 23-77 split for physicists/astronomers are just the tip of the iceberg. The are social definitions that tell little about really is going on in the heads of those responding to these questions.
These surveys are not scientific and are by no means representative of anything other than how these scientists believe they are suppose to be responding to the question in the context of how and why it is being asked.
I’ve never been trying to divide the world into clear cut lines of theists versus atheists. People who are uncertain of what they believe will always stay open to ideas other than their own. If someone could convince me with truly overwhelming naturalistic evidence that ruled out the existence of any thing other than a naturalistic physical existence, I would be fully insane to hold to what I believe.
You can never get me to sell out the importance of values to my thought process. No amount of overwhelming circular physical evidence will ever make me ammenable to a strict naturalistic point of view. You may not understand this, but it is because I believe the second commandment is exactly what is says it is.
The tendency of everyman and woman to create a god in their own image is exactly as it states. Dan seems to call it pimping what you believe in, I call it idolatry. Naturalism taken to the extreme of modern science is nothing short of idolatry.
I point to tendencies in most scientific minds as being fully capable of creating through the use of their imagination a description of the world that limits their conceptions of god, but they still believe they are theists in the process. Those who have no problems with the assumed meanings of field observations and inconceivably low possibilities must use imaginations that work overtime to keep god in the box they have created.
I do not judge people as being stupid or ignorant that read books like The God Delusion, I am only saddened when readres are overwhelmed by the naturalistic perspective it presents of a writer who denies the existence of God but who chose to worship a god of their own imaginations.
Calling unproven hypothetical science reliable and fully trustworthy is the same as saying I can believe what I chose to imagine but no further.
Erik writes: “There is a connection between sin and STD’s (common sense teaches that).”
Erik, what is the connection between a young mother and cancer? I have known two 30-something mothers of young children who have recently died painful deaths from cancer and left behind bewildered children. Did God do that to them and why?
Mike,
you took my comment on STD and sin and then spin it to ask me about a young mother and cancer, do you not see the difference in the two? Or are you just trying to set a trap for me to fall in so that you can later write “see, Erik Brewer wrote such and such”? Be honest.
I have several stories from being over seas where people were totally anti-God until they became sick with an illness/disease and then they turned to God in repentance and He used that situation to strengthen the faith of the person and use that person to bring others to Him. Sometimes the person was healed and other times the person was not. In both cases, people’s lives were changed for the better.
Erik, I was merely trying to point out that your cause-and-effect, sex=sin=STD=God’s punishment, doesn’t hold water with me.
As I’ve said to you before, the concept of a God who would punish someone with a painful disease who didn’t believe in Him (after making proof of His existence somewhat hazy to begin with) seems excessively petty and spiteful to me.
Mike,
I understand what you are trying to do. What I do not understand is the fact that you do not see the connection between sexual immorality (sin) and STD’s.
I never said that God punishes those who do not believe in Him. Sin (a choice made by man and all of mankind) brings death and suffering. Again, please do not blame God for what people do.
You are assuming what you say instead of knowing the facts.