Quote of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on April 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, ‘this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.’ As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America’s religious culture was cracking.
‘That really hit me hard,’ he told me last week. ‘The Northwest was never as religious, never as congregationalized, as the Northeast, which was the foundation, the home base, of American religion. To lose New England struck me as momentous.’…
Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer people now think of the United States as a ‘Christian nation’ than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is ‘losing influence’ in American society, while just 19 percent say religion’s influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion ‘can answer all or most of today’s problems’ is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Let me pose a question to you: allowing the assumption that not only is there a god, be He is the God you understand Him to be, which do you trust more, a few stanzas passed down, transcribed, and translated by men, or the history He has written with His own hands into the very rocks of the Earth?
Evolution is not a story made up like some totalitarian propaganda, it is a story read from the Earth itself. If you believe God made that Earth, then it is a story He left for you to find. Aren’t you the slightest bit interested in what He has to say? Or will you deny him, trusting not in the evidence He has set before you, but cleaving instead to the words of men?
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM
As surely as the Sun rises in the East, when the government mucks about in religion through faith-based initiatives and overt political appeals based on religion, the influence of religion on society declines.
The government can only destroy religion. Government can never effectively promote religion. In order for religion to remain healthy, it must be kept as far away from government as possible.
gridlock2 on April 5, 2009 at 9:40 AM
how can it be read from the earth itself, when the fossil record doesn’t support it? all you have are examples of animals, fully formed, and then some go extinct. thus ‘punctuated equilibrium’ which says basically it evoled too fast to leave fossils…ok….its basically a miracle.
but you have no evidence for evolution. none in the lab, none in the fossil record. have you read the ‘edge of evolution’? there was a paper challenging it recently, and upshot is behe was vindicated. if you call evolution ‘micro’ evolution, thats fine, but to think evolution can create new types of animals, is nothing more than faith.
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 9:41 AM
So true. Look at how wimpy & liberal state-sponsored churches in Europe are.
Also, as BHO is showing us, when you get gov’t $, you get gov’t control.
jgapinoy on April 5, 2009 at 9:42 AM
you know 2,500 years ago, those ‘words of men’ from a guy named Ezekiel…predicted Israel would be a nation again, and Iran would be her primary enemy…coincidence???
and 2,000 years ago, those same ‘words of men’ predicted that the world would have one government, and one currency…and now we move in that direction in a huge way….coincidence?
or get ready, here He comes…?
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM
No doubt about it: there are many absolutely brilliant atheists. And there are lots of absolutely brilliant Christians. So we have extremely intelligent folks who have diametrically opposed beliefs. How can this be?
What causes atheism?
I believe God intentionally arranged things so that the scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence alone would be less than overwhelming to prove his existence and his authority. You have to want, to seek, to love ultimate truth, regardless of the consequences, to find it. Fortunately, God promises that those who seek him wholeheartedly will find him. Unfortunately, most folks don’t want him, because they love sin and/or they think they know best how to live their lives (pride). To illustrate:
–Sir Julian Huxley, nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog”, was asked why the scientific community quickly embraced evolution, and he candidly responded, “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”
–Jesus Christ once rebuked the religious leaders who rejected him because of their pride: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not want the glory that comes from God?” You have to humble yourself to receive glory from God.
Who has more credibility?
The atheist scholar gathers facts to bolster his position, as does the Christian scholar. But I believe that the atheist has some credibility problems. First, he doesn’t believe in an all-seeing Judge, so he has no motivation except pure altruism to honestly search for and propagate truth, and no human is constantly altruistic. In fact, I think Christians are far more likely to act altruistically. Second, when an atheist confidently asserts that he knows there is nothing in the universe except matter and energy (as Carl Sagan did shortly before he met his Maker), he probably hasn’t inspected the entire universe to see if this is true. It’s like saying, “I’ve never met a blue-eyed African American, so there are none.” Those who have met blue-eyed African Americans, like I have, will disagree, but the doubter may keep doubting.
When the Bible says,
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
it’s not speaking of a lack of intelligence. The Hebrew word translated “fool” here has a moral connotation, as in acting or believing foolishly.
jgapinoy on April 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM
The main problem I have with a lot of the comments here is that the commenters are using religion as a proxy for moral values. Clearly, there are plenty of people in this nation and across the world that believe feverantly in Christianity, but do not hold to the same values as those complaining about atheists on this blog, while there are a number of us who do not believe in Christianity, but have come to those values by other means.
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 9:46 AM
The evidence is there. You just refuse to see it.
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 9:48 AM
you are in a way confirming christianity, by affirming that you cannot do any better…and would your values be the same if you were an atheist in a muslim society? assuming you could live very long….
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 9:49 AM
you just see what you want to see. its just like in physics, we’re down to the anthropic principle, or the multiverse…the multiverse is a total fantasy, with no evidence, nothing. but its ’science’ because the only alternative…God..is unthinkable to the atheist mind…
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Not exactly hard things to predict, considering one was made when Iran owned what we now know of as Israel, and the other when Rome seemed to own the entire world and all its money.
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Allah, you are like a former smoker, you are in our face day after day with this BS
KBird on April 5, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Oh, I’ll grant you that Christianity (largely in the form of the Catholic church) has done a darn good job in building a solid moral framework over the millennia–but that doesn’t confirm it in any way, and the church has a few blind spots where I think we can do better (I’m just not sure I have).
The second is an odd question to ask. Isn’t it obvious that I wouldn’t be me if I was raised in a Muslim society rather than in the society I was raised in? I am very grateful, in fact, for the foundation that Christians have built for me, and their tolerance of me.
I am not trying to attack you here–I am trying to talk you out of hurting yourself and others with the way to communicate, because I think we may agree on appropriate courses of physical action.
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 10:01 AM
One certainly does get the sense the ideologue-scientists (as opposed to the legitimate ones) are dodging and weaving to escape a conclusion that haunts them. Any truly objective observer knows can see the ideologues are hiding in the realm of speculative mathematics, even as they ridicule us for being insufficiently empirical or “reality based.”
It’s disgraceful, it really is and it’s a shame most people aren’t sufficiently versed in mathematics and science to get what’s going on. Not saying everyone should be, just lamenting the fact they’re so cognitively vulnerable to the fast talking ideologues.
jeff_from_mpls on April 5, 2009 at 10:06 AM
God is not an alternative to a multiverse concept. Whether the universe has fundamental randomness or a reality for every possible outcome, God could be sitting on top of either, or neither.
It sounds like this interests you–I can try to work you through the ideas, but we go through years of study just to start grappling with them in a serious way.
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I’m trying to come up with an analog of what you are doing here. The best I can think of is that this is like the people who crow that they have found so irreconcilable flaw in the bible without ever having read it, and refuse to listen the explanation of true theologian.
Count to 10 on April 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Any profound scientific truth can be explained in one or two sentences by an intelligent man. Einstein could do it. Richard Feynman could do it.
It ought not require a PhD in mathematics to get answers to simple questions like, does the theory imply any concrete empirical observation which, if it could not be verified, would refute the theory?
It’s a yes or no question. If the answer is no, it means multiverse dogma is, at this point in time, nothing more than mathematical speculation. Which is nice, and the authors deserve credit for their hard work. But the theory is conspicuous in its failure to generate testable predictions. And if you’re to say “well we’ve evolved beyond the quaint requirement of falsifiability” I’d have to say maybe you have, but in mainstream science, there has to be a thread that tethers a theory to particular, concrete observation.
I’ve been told that multiverse does not generate decisive predictions. That’s all I need to know. Now if that’s not true, by all means educate me, and the rest of us. But you can’t tell us we aren’t entitled to an answer simply because we are not experts. That attitude has never been welcome in mainstream science. In fact, it’s more commonly the attitude found in quack science like astrology and palm reading.
jeff_from_mpls on April 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Great book. Suggest all conservatives read it.
Christian Conservative on April 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM
???
Jewish prophets made over a hundred extremely specific prophecies about the Messiah who turned out to be Jesus of Nazareth.
They predicted that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem around 700 years before Jesus was born there. Now how on earth could anyone predict that?
They predicted that Messiah would spend time in Egypt. Jesus’ family fled there when he was a baby. Now how on earth could anyone predict that?
They predicted that Messiah would be raised in the town of Nazareth. Jesus was indeed raised there and called Jesus of Nazareth. Now how on earth could anyone predict that?
The Jewish prophet Daniel predicted the year that Messiah would be killed. Christ was killed the same year that Daniel predicted hundreds of years before.
King David prophesied about the crucifixion 1,000 years before it happened and before the practice of crucifixion had even been invented. Detailing that Messiah’s clothes would be gambled on, he would be pierced, and his bones dislocated.
This list goes on and on and on. In the words of that great liberal philosopher “Google it”. When you say things like “a few stanzas pasted down” you really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. It’s like calling a Beethoven symphony “a few notes passed down.”
Your head doesn’t keep you from God. Your heart does. As I see it you’re about 18 inches from heaven.
Mojave Mark on April 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM
laughable. seriously delusional. ok tell me what the world will be like 2,500 years from now.
Israel didn’t exist as a nation…and wouldn’t until 1948. Iran (persia) allowed the people back in the land.
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Sure He is.. either this universe is designed for life, for us…(anthropic principle) or its just random, one of many universes…and it just ‘happens’ to be just right, for life forms like us…which is easier to believe?
the multiverse is pure fantasy, science fiction….there is no evidence for it. just a ‘possibility’ like evolution.
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The Jews who wrote and maintained the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be a man of this world who would rebuild the temple, bring world peace, return the Jews to Israel, and cause Israel to experience eternal joy. In his life on earth, Jesus didn’t address those prophecies.
dedalus on April 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Good, keep religion out of politics. People got turned off on religion when the evangelical movement attempted to control the gop, which they actually did for a while until people woke up. The priest abuse scandal in the Catholic Church drove away many faithful adherents. People still believe in huge numbers, but grew tired of being beaten over the head with religious doctrine.
athensboy on April 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM
The Buggering Bishop of Durham is a very evident exampls of why people lost faith in their organized churches.
GeneSmith on April 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Can I prove God exists? No.
Can I prove God doesn’t exist? No.
So it’s a choice.
I choose to believe.
It’s much more fun.
John the Libertarian on April 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Were do they take these polls and how are they worded and weighted? George Bush was president only three months ago. I know BHO wants change as quickly as possible, but this is ridicouls. It is almost as if the Newsweek poll goes in with knowing the conclusions they want, then sets up their poll in a way to get the proper results.
Tommy_G on April 5, 2009 at 11:54 AM
That’s not entirely true, dedalus. Some prophets made spurious claims, others didn’t. Still others can be viewed with a metaphorical lense. For example, the reference to the Temple may not necessarily be of bricks and mortar. And Israel may not necessarily refer to the 12 tribes, but to a state of mind. Christianity spread core Jewish values to 2.1 billion followers. I’d say that’s pretty Messianic.
John the Libertarian on April 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Reading with that level of allegory, I’d agree.
dedalus on April 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Kudos, you’re absolutely right. MACRO-evolution is a hypothesis. Simply put, it says “I can imagine that, given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution.” This says a lot about the scientist’s imagination but nothing about science.
Daggett on April 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM
No, it didn’t. Anyone who left the Church over that was not a ‘faithful adherent’. Those who adhere to the Faith know that the failings of human members of the Church are no excuse to abandon that which was instituted by Christ, Himself. It was an excuse for them to leave. They did not abandon the sinful priest; they abandoned Christ in the Holy Eucharist, which is at the center of the Church. There is nothing, NOTHING, that a human being could do that would make me turn my back on the Truth of the Eucharist. And believe me, these liberation theologist, bongo playing, hand holding, liturgical dancing freaks have done their best, but I will never let them turn me away from Christ. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it…
I believe it, even when the demons are attacking from within.
Also, did anyone really need a poll to figure out that the United States is less Christian than it used to be? Sheesh. The thing that amazes me is that the secularists/atheists seem to revel in the confirmation. I don’t get it. Look around at the actual evidence. You really think this is a good thing? As Christianity declines, so does society. That should be further evidence of God for the non-believers, but alas…
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
pannw on April 5, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I’d like to see a poll that does not target organized religion but asks if people have a personal relationship with God.
I do not support organized religion, in fact I think it has done quite a bit of harm to faith in God. The backlash we are seeing is about organized religion, not faith in God.
Queen0fCups on April 5, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Jesus is the author and the finisher of our faith – if someone doesn’t believe, it’s because it is not their time. One of the ways that Christians have done the faith harm is by trying to take the kingdom by violence – using fear to coerce people into believing. One cannot live on a borrowed revelation. Let God be God.
Queen0fCups on April 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM
You do realize that you just qouted a 28 year old print reference in a periodical?
You do not get it. I attempt to understand the universe with the only process I know –rational and objective thought. By definition, that process evolves as new data comes in. It is probably wrong about a lot of things, but that does not invalidate scientific process. Clearly the process gets politisized and is highjacked by special interests, but that also does not invalidate the process.
The nature and existence of God is not a scientific matter. We are not going to be united on this point so lets start finding common ground. I am glad AP posts this stuff because we need to get this worked out between the factions.
Hochmeister on April 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Oh sure He did when He promised to return. A biblical generation lasts 40 years. (Still with me?)
Jerusalem was utterly destroyed 40 years after Christ’s resurrection. (Still with me?)
God gave his chosen people exactly one generation to figure things out about Messiah. Then his city was destroyed to the utmost. (Still with me?)
Another one of the scores of specific prophecies is that Messiah would be in the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesse, and King David. Jesus was, of course, from the line of David. After the destruction of Jerusalem and all of the genealogical records men can no longer prove lineage (which is necessary) to prove that you’re Messiah. (Still with me?)
Find a guy from the house of David, born in Bethlehem, killed when the prophet Daniel said he’d be, beaten with stripes, pierced, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, who lived in Bethlehem, Egypt, and Nazareth. And on and on and on.
To say that Jesus has left some prophecies unfulfilled is a mission for Captain Obvious, of course He did. Do the math on the other 100.
The very fact that the Jewish culture exists 2500 years after the Jews were taken into captivity by the Babylonians, and that they now have their very own nation again as God promised OUGHT to be all the proof anyone needs.
All ancient cultures on earth are gone but one and they returned to their very own nation. Oh yah, just lucky I guess. What a coincidence.
Mojave Mark on April 5, 2009 at 3:37 PM
I never claimed to be a social conservative, but the political ideas that are most important to me are conservitive. Do you really believe that you can influence the political process with such a narrow definition of your allies?
Evolution is not a philosophy or even a way of looking at the world. It is a process who’s effect is evident only with the passage of millions of years. It is a thing–neither moral or amoral.
Sorry but that is a differant question. The simple fact that animals are influenced developmentatlly by their environment over millions of years (natural selection) is an independent theory of multicellular genisis. Science does not have all the answers, but that is no reason to deny the answers we do have.
Wow, I am for small government, part of that means the goverment shhould not be in the business of telling people what to think or believe in. I don’t own a brown shirt. See any common ground here?
I am really tired of explaining the difference between faith and scientific method. I am devoid of faith. You have a black and white view of the world and your projecting those same contrasts to my thinking.
Your against small government? What are you for then?
Hochmeister on April 5, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Crooked and philandering evangelical leaders back in the ’80s has done irreparable harm to Christianity in this country, plus the constant coverage by the MSM of ‘pedophile priests’ coupled with Rome’s inaction over such incidents.
It’s inevitable…when people start getting interested in Christianity, some Sister Aimee type will come along.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 5, 2009 at 5:01 PM
yeah actually we can. sorry the green-eye-shade types never evoke much enthusiasm or passion. without the social issues its a dull campaign. look at the whole gay marriage debate, lots of passion, victoriy whenever its tried…even among traditional ‘liberal’ constituents in CA.
please, it is a theory of everything, a religion…as provine understands….
sorry its not. evolution says everything evolved from a single-celled ancestor…common ancestry…so multi-cellular animals had to evolve….so duplicate it. evolution doesn’t have any answers, obviously.
this is what darwiniacs do. ask Sternberg or Gonzales.
sigh, obviously you do have faith. you have faith in evolution…that somehow this just ‘happened’. with no God. no Designer. you cannot show evolution in the fossil record, you cannot throw a few chemicals together and create life…and yes thats a part of evolution…and you cannot see evolution in the fossil record…so you believe something you cannot see…its called faith.
the ’small government only’ types are half conservative…you know the lukewarm conservative..the moderate…nothing worse….its like a weightlifter or bodybuildy who is too lazy to do squats and only works on upper body…they have proven again and again not to be worthy of any support…or even to be called conservative.
right4life on April 5, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Faith is belief without proof. If you believe something because you judge it to be proven, it is not faith. If your judgment is wrong, either by bad facts or a poor rationale, then your belief is wrong, but it still is not faith–it’s bad judgment. While I get, and respect, that you disagree with my views, I reject your need to ascribe my position as an act of faith.
The existential questions of God and Creation are not adressed by any science. Those who attempt to point to the science as proof “there is no god” are engaging in activisim in the missuse of scientific facts to nurture a world view where their is no room for faith. This is not me, so stop painting me with that brush.
I frequently vote for people of faith, but I would never cast my vote for someone that was as dissmissive and ignorant of the science behind the issues.
Hochmeister on April 5, 2009 at 9:11 PM
dedalus – suggest you read Isaiah 53 and tell me that the suffering servant is not a part of the prophecy of Christ. Who else in history does that point to more than he? And it was written 700 years before Christ’s birth! And read Psalm 22 and you might understand that David was prophesying of Christ as he wrote. (Jesus spoke his words on the cross!)
And for those of you who would honestly like to know more about Jesus, I recommend this
http://www.victory.com/Watch/
God bless y’all! And remember, if you let a hypocrite get between you and God, then the hypocrite is closer to God than you are!
Christian Conservative on April 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM
God is the ultimate scientist. The concepts of science and faith are not mutually exclusive; to my mind, they are complementary and if the dogmatists on BOTH sides could just open their eyes and their minds a little bit, we would all be better off.
I believe in the Big Bang. I believe in the laws of physics. I believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest, and an Earth that is billions of years old.
I also believe in God, and my natural skepticism largely informs that belief. I am too cynical to believe this perfect balance of “natural law” could exist through mere accident or coincidence. There HAS to be something else at work orchestrating this grand, complex thing known as the universe, and for me, God explains all of that. I don’t think you can have science without God.
Having said all of that, it does seem that many of the things that have been prophesied in the Bible appear to be coming true in our time. I am far from a Biblical scholar, but I often wonder if we’re not witnessing the end times.
As far as people becoming less religious however, this doesn’t really concern me. I think this is just the natural swinging of the cultural pendulum. It will swing back again; it always does. And for those who choose not to believe, I say that’s their business. Christians can pray for them if they want to, but ultimately that’s between them and God.
NoLeftTurn on April 5, 2009 at 10:58 PM
I suggest you read Isaiah 52:14-15.
Every portrait of him shows a pretty sharp-looking dude. He didn’t sprinkle any nations. The only king who might have known he existed, the Roman emperor, didn’t shut his mouth. The prophecies are all either self-fulfilling, vague enough to be satisfied in many ways, or flat-out wrong. I’d be a Christian if that weren’t true.
RightOFLeft on April 6, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I respect your right not to believe, but you dismiss the yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies with the already-fulfilled ones. Obviously as a non-believer you don’t believe that Christ will shut the kings mouths, but that time is coming. The New Testament prophesies of that.
And if you want talk about form marred, consider that The Passion of the Christ might have been a pretty good depiction of what He looked like after the flogging and at the crucifixion.
Oh, and He did it for you, RightOFLeft, because He loves you. I say that sincerely, for He made a way so that “whosoever will may come.”
Christian Conservative on April 6, 2009 at 12:53 AM
A literal reading of the prophecies doesn’t support those interpretations. I’m not saying that because Jesus didn’t fulfill what may or may not have even supposed to have been prophecies about him that Christianity is false, but it seems beside the point. The truth of it should be self-evident, without need of study or contemplation, only a willingness to believe. I think it demeans religion to say that the rewards of heaven are more accessible with education or worldliness.
RightOFLeft on April 6, 2009 at 1:09 AM
You do realize that means it’s been at least 20 years since fossils have been considered a dead-end by big money evolutionists?
TMK on April 6, 2009 at 1:21 AM
TMK on April 6, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Wha…? Sort of a weird thing to claim barely 2 years after Tiktaalik, one of the most important fossil finds in the history of paleontology.
RightOFLeft on April 6, 2009 at 1:52 AM
you can ‘reject it’ all you want, its like saying the sky is green…doesn’t matter…post your proof, you have none.
all you can do is extrapolate micro to macro…and there ain’t none, sorry…
I just quoted Provine, and he speaks for evolution, in a way that you do not. and he’s not the only one.
so you have your own private theory of evolution? unless you’re a published evolutionist, provine speaks for evolution, you do not.
just like I would never for for a faux-conservative like you. post your proof, lets see your ’science’…bet I have far more substantiation for my position that you do yours…
right4life on April 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM
The prophecies are evidence since Jesus fulfilled many, but not all? It seems less obvious that God would create the prophecies through the OT prophets and then not fulfill all of them. The prophecies that predict the Messiah will bring peace to Israel and happiness for all Jewish people don’t address the destruction of the nation by the Romans around 70AD, subsequent diaspora, and centuries of persecution (much done in Christ’s name) before the creation of Israel after WWII.
dedalus on April 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Most rabbinical scholars read Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, rather than the Messiah. However, if you were to read it as a prophecy of the Messiah would it be accurate to refer to the son of God as a “servant” as Isaiah does?
dedalus on April 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM
You make some excellent points in this post!
This is probably one of the major motivations for evolution theory. Jews and Christians believe that mankind is in a “fallen” state since the sin of Adam and Eve, and needs salvation and mercy from God to reach Heaven and eternal happiness, and God asks for obedience to His Commandments.
Evolution theory turns this upside down, by stating that humans are “better” than animals, and have “improved” OURSELVES (without God) over many generations, and “survival of the fittest” essentially means those who kill more and avoid being killed are more “fit” than others to survive. Evolution theory removes the need for moral justification before a higher power, and celebrates killing (and lying and cheating as evidence of intelligence) as a means for survival. It enables immoral men to justify their actions by “science” and NOT having to answer to a higher power, although it does not save them from death. Hitler, for one, used evolution theory to consider Jews as an “inferior race” to be exterminated.
I had a similar experience, hitting “rock bottom” before finding faith, and I sincerely believe that many proud or stubborn atheists (as I was) need to be humbled and brought to a “nothing to lose, rock bottom” situation before they turn to God. As the saying goes, there are no atheists in foxholes, and when faced with imminent death, many people pray for the first time in their lives.
It seems throughout history that the most oppressed people seem to have the strongest faith in God, and that those who live in prosperity and have a relatively easy life tend to “take it for granted”, become complacent, and not thank God, or believe that they have achieved it themselves. Although there are a few who achieve great success, yet keep their faith, such as Louis Pasteur, who wrote that “a little science turns a person away from God, a lot of science turns him toward God.”
It is said that “necessity is the mother of invention”, and perhaps desperation is the mother of faith. But, sadly, not “all humans do in that situation”–some people proudly shake their fist at God with their dying breath. My own mother died last March 24, yet my father was vehemently resisting any attempts before her death by others to talk to her about faith, give her last rites, or have others pray over her body after death. He argued against imposing MY views on her, but what was SHE thinking when facing her own death? I wonder what he will do when approaching his own death…
Evolution theory can give people an excuse for immoral “animal” behavior , where ends (survival) justify the means, and can give people a false sense of pride that “the human species” will be perfected over countless generations, but it doesn’t solve the problem of a person’s own death.
Religion offers the hope of a better life after death, in exchange for obedience to a higher power and Creator. Some may believe it to be a “crutch for the lame” or the “opium of the people”, but at the moment of death, what is the alternative?
All the atheists on this thread should consider Pascal’s Wager–either there is a God or there isn’t. If a person believes there is a God, and is wrong, he/she will die satisfied having lived a good life in service to others, and if there is a God, he/she will receive an eternal reward-a win/win proposition.
If a person does not believe in God, and is right, they go into peaceful oblivion, but if they’re wrong, they might be facing Hell.
Steve Z on April 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Christ is conquering the world. Deal with it.
Akzed on April 6, 2009 at 12:55 PM
dedalus, Jesus came as a servant:
Christian Conservative on April 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM
The ability to frame another persons beliefs and arguments into and untenable position was a useful skill for Lincoln Douglas in high school, but it avails us nothing in reaching common ground. You continue to misuse my words and the words of others and proscribe meaning and intent that is not there.
As much as you strain to dress it up, modern evolutionary theory does not address the existence of god any more than one man, ie. Provine represents the whole of science evolutionary theory.
However it has become abundantly clear to me that you have no interest in common ground and will settle for nothing less than the exclusion of ideals that don’t fit your meme into he political process. Good luck with that.
The proof is in the natural history of our planet and like all history is understood only through echoes from the past. The fossil record, genetic analysis, comparative analysis of organisms, all point to the scientific consensus that Evolution is not a controversial theory. It is fine if this does not meet your personal standard for proof in such matter, but it is inaccurate to state that Evolutionary theory is not substantiated by the scientific method.
I am done with this thread, so make your last shot a good one. Further I will cede to you the title of “Conservative” I abhor labels anyway and it seems so important to you. Heck lets go one step further and declare you the “uber conservative”. The arbiter of Conservative though in our time. Enjoy.
Hochmeister on April 6, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I find it strange that conservatives of any stripe find it so easy to join the socialists to try to wipe out all public displays of Christianity from our history and our public displays and from our public forums. It is that heritage that has shaped our nation, given us freedoms that no other country can best, and gives us a basis for resisting tyranny. You don’t have to be a believer, but why denigrate those who are? You are only helping those who have a vested interest in wiping out faith for their own political purposes.
Christian Conservative on April 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Father Jonathan at Fox News puts this in perspective:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/06/morris_newsweek_christian/
Christian Conservative on April 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3