The Blurch

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll

2011-08-13T20:20:00.001-05:00

Do you think her interesting religious beliefs had as much of a negative impact as Romney's likely does? I think not. A lunatic protestant beats a sane Mormon any day of the week.

Norway and Christian Radicalism

2011-07-24T20:01:00.003-05:00

Apparently it's not just Muslims who are capable of terrorist acts. After the terrible massacre in Norway, it stands to reason that we should be more aware of all forms of extremism, and not just Muslim radicalism.

In the coming days we will learn more about Anders Behring Breivik and his particular brand of insanity. The more troubling thing is the thought that there are likely many more people who follow a similar strain of lunacy, and that attacks like these will only become more commonplace in the future.

As a resident of Oklahoma, I can't help be reminded of a similar terrorist attack in my home state, from a right-wing radical. Is there really much that separates them from the Muslims? I think not. What do you think?

God Decides NFL Games?

2010-11-29T21:56:00.002-06:00

It seems religion just can't stay out of the news. Steve Johnson, wide receiver of the NFL's Buffalo Bills, has blamed God for dropping the game-winning pass in the game last Sunday. Here's the quote from his Twitter account:

"I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO..."

It's certainly an interesting notion that we don't tend to think about, that God determines the outcomes of our sporting events. Here's a scenario for you: If two teams full of devout and faithful Christians play each other, and pray for victory, or if their devout fans pray for victory, how is the winner determined? Does God answer the prayers of only one side? Or does he even care about those prayers?

And to Steve Johnson: It's a dropped pass. It's only football! Get over it.

People Still Burn Witches?

2010-11-26T17:14:00.002-06:00

In Ghana, a 72 year old grandmother was set on fire and killed as part of an exorcism. They thought she was a witch.

The suspects claimed they poured anointing oil on her, which incidentally caught on fire during the exorcism. I remain skeptical.

The "Condom Pope"?

2010-11-21T20:46:00.003-06:00

Looks like the Pope has caused a little bit of controversy by saying that condoms aren't always bad.

Link here.

Kinda sad that the church can't adapt as quickly as it should to changes in society. But that's been the story of religion for the past five thousand years.

Obama doing the Safety Dance

2010-11-07T10:03:00.002-06:00

Not quite.

But on the front page of the Drudge Report, they have linked a story where Obama is doing a traditional Hindu Diwali dance in India. Read the comments below the article for some good ol' fashioned intolerance.

Apparently, you aren't supposed to learn from other cultures or try anything even remotely foreign when you are the president and you're basically acting as a U.S. emissary to another country.

Jesus was HIV Positive?

2010-11-04T19:33:00.002-05:00

This was too good not to post. Apparently a South African pastor, Xola Skosana made this claim and is now drawing a lot of heat for this statement. He hopes to remove the stigma of HIV and give hope to people by claiming that Jesus had it. That's certainly interesting.

According to my knowledge (Wikipedia), HIV was first discovered in 1981, roughly 2000 years later.

It's almost as outrageous as the claim that Jesus was white.

Religion and Homosexuality

2010-10-31T20:19:00.002-05:00

I know, especially in America, mainline Christianity is fervently anti-homosexual. The question is, does this view fall in line with traditional Christian teaching?

Think about it, Christianity is about acceptance and toleration, yet they do not tolerate a sizable portion of the population. Why not?

The same group that tolerates alcoholics and adulterers does not tolerate people who are in loving relationships with people who happen to be the same sex. The Bible itself speaks out against homosexuality in certain verses, but also does so with drunkenness and adultery. Why are they not treated the same?

I'd like to jump into this topic later, just opening the subject for discussion.

Interesting reading on the subject here.

Get Rich Being a Christian?

2010-10-30T10:15:00.003-05:00

I've always had problems with the "Prosperity Gospel".

To summarize, this is the idea that God provides material benefits for those that he favors, either through money or other things. Millions of Christians are turning to this gospel, especially in the United States, and it's a little troubling.

How do we have rich Christians in this world when so many people are poor, suffering, and hurting? It's easy to blame the poor for being poor, and to not help them. But doesn't God call us to do the opposite, and help them regardless?

I had a hard time putting my thoughts into words, and I stumbled upon a link of Pastor David Platt, who actually says a lot of the same things I have thought over time. Please check the link here.

The American Dream is to grow wealthy through hard work. But my question is, is this the Christian Dream?

Muslims on a Plane

2010-10-22T23:04:00.003-05:00

In the wake of the Juan Williams firing by NPR, I think there's an important point to make. Although he said Muslims clad in traditional garb made him "nervous", I think they would actually make me less nervous, since they'd probably be less likely to do anything crazy on a plane.

Terrorism, much like racism, is quiet and attempts to blend in. The dangerous kind won't show its head until it's too late.

Politics and Religion

2010-10-20T21:58:00.001-05:00

From Democracy in America

Religion in politics, stupidly

Oct 19th 2010, 20:07 by D.L. | PHILADELPHIA

"THOSE dueling Jack Conway-Rand Paul ads continue to generate online heat. First, Mr Conway uses stories of Mr Paul engaged in college pranks to accuse him of being anti-Christian, then Mr Paul replies by publicly confessing his love for Jesus Christ. Unemployment’s stuck above 9%, we’ve been at war for nearly a decade, the federal government is running enormous deficits, and this is what Kentucky’s Senate candidates are debating? You don’t need to have especially high expectations for democratic government to find the whole spectacle pretty repulsive.

At the same time, though, I think that some of Mr Conway’s liberal critics, such as the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, are wrong to assert that "an atheist, which is what I’m pretty sure Paul is, ought to be able to run for office without having his belief system publicly interrogated." And why is that, exactly? I realise that atheists face a particularly high hurdle in running for office in the United States, with a higher percentage of Americans declaring themselves willing to vote for a black (94%), Jewish (92%), female (88%), Hispanic (87%), Mormon (72%), or gay (55%) candidate than for a non-believer (45%). But that doesn’t mean that an atheist’s beliefs should be any more off-limits to public scrutiny than a religious candidate’s.

Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, believe that religious education is a form of child abuse. It should be considered perfectly appropriate to ask an atheist candidate whether he agrees with this blatantly intolerant position. Various religious groups, meanwhile, encourage their members to believe things that might clash with the requirements of holding high office. Mormons teach that the head of their church is a prophet of God and his mouthpiece on earth. A large portion of evangelical Protestants affirm biblical inerrancy and reject science as a method for determining the truth about the natural world. Many Pentecostals believe that God is directing world history toward an apocalyptic cataclysm in the Middle East.

All of this is supposed to be off-limits to public scrutiny? Why? Because we want our leaders to conceal their most deeply held and potentially dangerous views? Or is it that we fear that our nominally religious politicians will be forced to admit that their garish displays of public religiosity are a pious sham—a put-on designed to appeal to simple-minded voters who care more about cultural signaling than evaluating the details of competing public policy proposals?

The problem with the dueling Conway-Paul ads isn’t that they raise questions about religion. It’s that they raise those questions stupidly."

Religion in the News

2010-10-18T21:30:00.002-05:00

I thought it was about time to come back.

Nearly nine months since my last post. Lots of religion in the news, and plenty to talk about. We had statues of Jesus getting struck by lightning, and, even more recently, a mosque at ground zero that everyone is going haywire about.

The Blurch was designed to be a forum for free speech, a place for people to come to ask questions, debate, and really "dig into" religious concepts.

It's something this world needs. But a lot of times I'm not sure it's what the world wants.

Let's start a conversation.

Mental Illness and Christianity

2010-01-30T06:20:00.003-06:00

The sermon last week got me thinking about the relationship between mental illnesses and Christianity, and how Christians perceive them.

The pastor implied that we are over-medicated and mental illnesses are simply the devil "getting to us", and that an improved relationship with Christ will cure them.

Wait. . .what?

I was instantly reminded of how, just a few hundred years ago, Europeans looked at other illnesses as having a demonic nature, and would attempt all kinds of wacky cures (that usually had disastrous results).

Of course, now we understand germ theory and can diagnose and treat most illnesses that relate to viruses and infections very effectively. Which leads to the main point: is it possible that we don't fully understand mental illness, and that's why Christians possibly (wrongly) blame them on the devil?

It seems to me that we are only now beginning to understand the human mind, and how even the slightest chemical imbalances can cause huge changes in personality and mental clarity. Hopefully we will find better cures for things such as depression, OCD, and various other mental illnesses, but it seems slightly counterproductive to blame them on the Devil and tell people who suffer that they need to get "closer" to Jesus.

If Jesus can cure mental illness, as my pastor stated, why doesn't he cure all viruses and infections? Why do we go to the doctor at all? As you can see, this line of thinking leads down a slippery slope to becoming a Christian Scientist.

And of course you've heard the recent news of the teenage girl who died of diabetes because her parents wouldn't take her to the doctor.

Jesus was supposed to cure her.

Update re: "Ten Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer"

2009-12-09T06:13:00.003-06:00

I've received many responses to my previous entry in which I asked why God will (seemingly) not heal amputees. These responses run the gamut from understanding to near homicidal, but one twitterer in particular claimed something interesting, which I will post below:

"@theblurch People pray 4 every type healing, U must have limited exposure. God has grown new limbs & eyes where none existed. Spirit/ Truth"

Can anyone give a modern example of this happening? I've researched, but still found nothing. It's an interesting thought, but I'm assuming this twitterer made a false claim. Waiting for him to send me something, anything. . .

10 Things I Hate About Christianity

2009-12-04T05:55:00.001-06:00

Interesting list I found from another blog. Ten this this Christian says he hates about Christianity. I'm sure we can all identify with at least a couple of them.

from: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23573

10 things Jason Berggren hates about Christianity

1. Faith “There is no evidence for what we believe. That’s why it’s called faith. God doesn’t appear at the mall with Jesus to buy you sneakers.”

2. Prayer “You do it, and it feels like it doesn’t accomplish what you want it to accomplish. You wonder: What’s really changed? Sometimes God takes time and asks us to accept no.”

3. The Bible “So often you read something and wonder, is that trustworthy? Is it helpful? Does everything always have to be so boring and confusing?”

4. Sin “Am I really so evil or so bad that I have to think of myself as sinful? Of course, we’re all only two or three decisions from ruining our life completely.”

5. Rules “Why are there so many rules, and do I have to keep them all? There is too much to keep track of.”

6. Love “It feels too hard to love everyone all the time.”

7. Hell “Why would a loving God create hell?”

8. Answers “I don’t always like the answers that Christianity gives. Do I have to accept them?”

9. Church “Everyone says go to church. But how does that make me a better person?”

10. Christians “Why are Christians so crazy, annoying and judgmental?”

Thinking of Converting to the Norse Religion?

2009-09-03T20:38:00.006-05:00

If you can handle a hilarious and profanity-laden satire on religion, check out this link about the Norse religion. My favorite quote about converting:

"You've got to love a religion that has it's central doctrine based around getting... you pumped up to help destroy the world by killing ten foot tall wolves and magical dragons, hacking the legs off of divine beings and stabbing giants in the ***."

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/norsereligion.html

Video Oddity

2009-07-23T05:31:00.004-05:00

Good video here. No real reason for posting, other than the sheer train-wreck that the interview becomes.

Julie Banderas of Fox News interviewing Shirley Phelps-Roper, wife of the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church. Yes, the same church that protests military funerals and says we are being punished for allowing homosexuality in the country. Or, as wikipedia would have it:

"The group bases its work around the belief expressed by its best known slogan and the address of its primary website, "God hates fags," asserting that every tragedy in the world is linked to homosexuality – specifically society's increasing tolerance and acceptance of the "homosexual agenda." The group maintains that God hates gays above all other kinds of "sinners" and that homosexuality should be a capital crime." - From the Wikipedia article here.

Ten Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer

2009-07-21T17:50:00.005-05:00

Found this video interesting, if a bit combative. These questions are definately worth asking, and are often asked by those unfamiliar with Christianity. I've asked a couple of them from time to time, and gotten different answers from every person I've asked. See the text after the video.

Some questions are very leading and pointed. I wouldn't have asked them in the same way. Also, his jump to atheism isn't the natural outcome of such questions. You can ask questions, but, just because the answers are difficult or aren't immediately evident, that doesn't mean that God simply doesn't exist.

For any believer, these are worth re-examination. Leave comments below, and email any correspondence to The Blurch here.

#1 Why won't God heal amputees?

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

#3 Why does God demand the death of so many people in the Bible?

#4 Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

#5 Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

#7 Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

#8 How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

#9 Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

#10 Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Video from whywontgodhealamputees.com

The Thin Line Between Doctrine and Diversity

2009-07-15T19:25:00.006-05:00

Hello Again,

This post is in response to a twitter follower from Great Britian, who sent the following topic request:

"@theblurch How about: How the Churches compromise essential doctrines to fit in with multi-faith political correctness."

It might not be the most graceful way to ask, but it does present an essential topic for this post. The heart of the issue is this: sometimes churches, and religions as a whole, must adapt to changing social, political, or economic circumstances. Sometimes this means changing doctrines and various other practices to keep their church strong, or to keep from being rendered obsolete.

The Briton who requested the topic comes from a very unique location in this respect. Great Britain, like many other European cities, is experiencing great social and ethnic changes as a result of increasing immigration from Africa and the Middle East. As more Muslims enter the cities and get jobs, they inevitably come into contact with the various Catholic, Protestant, and unaffiliated Britons, which can cause ethnic (and sometimes even racial) tensions.

One point of contention is that both religions, in most regards, see themselves as exclusive. You can only believe one, and not the other (or any other, for that matter). If someone tells you that you're going to Hell for believing in a different God, or following a different prophet or messenger, that will inevitably create strife. How could this be overcome?

Majority churches have one of two options in this situation: hold their ground and remain steadfast in their condemnations, or learn to adapt and live with diversity as a fact of life.

It is a reality that immigrants won't stop coming to Europe and America anytime soon. If churches and political parties see Muslims, Hindus, etc. as a problem, it's one that simply won't vanish by blocking them out of society. Adapting is the only option if they want to remain relevant.

Also, the unaffiliated everyman who doesn't necessarily follow an organized church (of which there are more in Ameria and Europe than ever) is less likely to follow churches and political organizations that foster such beliefs. It's hard for the average joe to condemn a Muslim simply for being different, and would rather learn to live in harmony.

Simply put, churches can adapt without compromising their essential doctrines. It's been said again and again: emphasize the similarities, and attempt to de-emphasize the differences. It might be cliche at this point, but it's a valid argument.

Education is the key path toward harmony. Religions should learn as much about others as possible (part of the aim of The Blurch). The more you know about a religion and its followers, the harder it is to hate them, kill them, or condemn them. Many churches would say this is dangerous, but is it really? I would be inclined to say no.

The topic of Islam, and its various practices and their political implications in Europe and America, will be discussed at a later date. Of course, extremism that leads to violence or the elimination of religious and political liberty are issues that should be confronted in more forceful terms. But that will be the topic of a later blog post.

What do you think, should religions learn to get along and learn more about each other? Or should they remain steadfast that they are the only correct religion and attempt to emphasize this to non-believers?

Feel free to email us at theblurch@gmail.com. Twitter username is theblurch. Leave your comments below.

Prayer - Why?

2009-07-11T05:26:00.002-05:00

Why do we pray? Is there a good reason to pray? What are the effects of prayer?

Let me pose a few questions.

1.) Is prayer capable of changing God's plan for a specific action? For example, if you are a determinist and He chooses for you to die on a certain day, could any amount of prayer change that?

2.) Does the amount of people praying somehow strengthen prayer? If you accept the notion that prayer actually works, is there a cutoff point at which God will or won't answer a prayer. Maybe for scenario X it's five hundred people, but for scenario Y it's a thousand?

3.) Does praying for someone else to do something or think something infringe upon their free will? For example, if you ask someone to stop smoking, and pray for them to stop, do they still have full freedom to pick whether or not to smoke?

Just a thought for the day.

The Holographic Principle

2009-02-03T07:00:00.005-06:00

pt. 1 pt. 2

Do we live in a giant hologram? A new theory in physics says that we do. I've posted both parts of a video that explains this theory. It's very compelling.

Free Will or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Being a Robot

2008-12-17T19:04:00.005-06:00

In this post I'd like to confront the topic of free will. There are many aspects to free will, and many questions that are raised when discussing it, such as:

1.) How does one define free will?

2.) Does free will exist?

3.) What are the implications if free will does/doesn't exist?

To answer the first question, I searched the term 'free will' on dictionary.com, which gave a fairly good definition:

"Free Will - noun

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces."

The second definition is the one that fits most closely with the topic of discussion here. The main area of contention here is the term 'determined'. Who makes your choices? Do you make them of your own free will, or does some divine entity make them for you? Do you express 'personal choices' of your own voluntary independence, or does some other divine force make your decisions for you?

--

Now that the question of free will has been defined, we must move on to confronting whether free will exists at all. Many different denominations and philosophies disagree on this matter, and the arguments can get pretty complicated and obtuse. I will try to shorten them here.

Argument 1: There is no free will.

Some people believe free will either doesn't exist or is simply an illusion that we create for our own comfort. Such people could belong to the philosophical schools of thought called determinism or fatalism. There are scientific, as well as religious, arguments for the absence of free will in our lives.

Determinism, in the theological sense, is the theory that free will does not exist because God's foreknowledge of events prevents us from exercising free choice. The argument goes as follows:

1. God is omniscient.
2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
3. If God knows you will engage in X activity, and his knowledge is infallible, then you must do X activity.
4. You have no choice but to do X activity.

This argument originated primarily from the 16th century Protestant theologian John Calvin. Many churches, including the early Puritan churches, as well as many modern Pentecostal, Churches of Christ, and Baptist churches can trace their roots to Calvin.

There is also something known as biological determinism. This is the scientific argument that humans do not have free will. Biological determinists rely on the science of genetics to argue that people cannot make their own decisions due to their genetic makeup. All decisions are made due to different genetic combinations in our DNA. Many diseases have been shown to have genetic roots, and even some behavior can be traced to genetics. While many of the more conservative religious faiths would disagree vehemently with this assertion, the conclusions of their arguments remain the same (that humans have no free will).

Even many of our modern day sayings can trace their roots back to determinism. "Everything happens for a reason." "It was meant to happen." "There is one person for everyone." All these statements imply some amount of determinism, and therefore a lack of free will on the part of humanity.
Arugment 2: Humans possess, and exercise, their own free will.

While some do not believe in free will, others posit that free will is an essential component of humanity in theological and scientific ways.

The modern argument for the idea of Theological free will comes from the 16th century Theologian Jacobus Arminius. He rejected the idea of Calvinist determinism in favor of free will, primarily because he believed that determinism would then make God the author of evil. There are a few arguments that people use in favor of free will:

1. Free will is necessary for moral responsibility to exist.
2. If free will does not exist, we can do nothing to escape our fate.
3. All humans inwardly feel that they have free will and make their own decisions.
4. God would not create humans that cannot choose whether to reject or accept him.

In addition to these theological arguments, there are some scientific arguments in favor of free will. I will not delve deeply into them, but they are based on recent discoveries in the physics field of quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that, when measuring a particle with two variables (like momentum and position), both cannot be measured accurately at the same time with any certainty. Without explaining the mathematics behind it, this theory states that there is a necessary unpredictability in the physical universe. This would mean that our choices, as a natural extension, are unpredictable, and therefore free.

--

Now that both sides have been set forth, the most important part of the equation comes into place. What are the implications if we do or do not have free will?

If we don't have free will:

If we do not have free will, what are the consequences of our actions? Must we take moral responsibility for our actions? If God or some other influence is deciding our actions, can we really be held responsible for them?

If someone forces you to do an act, can you really take responsibility for that action? Should you be punished for that action? If you are punished for that action, is the punishment warranted?

Also, if we do not have free will, where does evil come from? Are our evil decisions and actions predetermined by God? Would God actually want evil to occur? If God does not want evil to occur, why would he force us to make evil decisions?

Also, if free will does not exist, why is our nation based on the notion of freedom? The United States was created to be a free country, but if freedom does not exist, why do we pretend that it does? Why do the court systems base their rulings on the notion of freedom if it doesn't exist?

Does God condemn people to Hell without letting them make their own decisions regarding religion and God? If he does condemn them, would there be any action we could take to alter our fate?

If we do have free will:

If we do have free will, what can we be sure of in life? Can we be sure that things happen for a reason? Can other people who exercise their free will change the course of our lives?

If free will is total and complete, is there such a thing as fate? Is anything left up to destiny, or is everything left to chance? Can we depend on anything?

If there is one person out there for everyone, can we believe that they have the free will to not be with us? Can God ever impede on our free will? Can he take it from us when he wants?

What role does genetics and science play in our free will? Can we escape diseases that science says we are supposed to, or are likely to have? Can we make our own decisions independently of our genetic makeup?

--

I would like your views on this topic.

Personally, I have a hard time accepting that free will does not exist, simply for the fact that it is hard to imagine us being robots controlled by a divine entity, or by our own biological forces. If we are mindless robots, why should we even worry about what decisions we make? If we become evil, it's obviously because we are destined to be that way. If we are good, it's our destiny as well.

Is there a combination of free will and determinism?

Please post a comment if you so choose (or if God or science forces you to).

Evolution (Part 1)

2008-12-12T18:14:00.000-06:00

Greetings,

As you undoubtedly know, one of the main areas of disagreement between religion and science is the theory of evolution. Many people believe these theories are completely incompatible, and most either believe strongly one way or the other. The Blurch should be a place to discuss the topic openly, without offense to either side involved.

In the course of a conversation with a Christian, the subject of evolution inevitably came up. Being the inquiring mind that I am, I asked why evolution couldn't be a possibility. One of the main points of contention for the Christian was the fact that humans have shown no visible evolution in their history on the planet. In some ways, this might make sense, but I've found a snippet that I believe might explain it a little bit.

According to Science, a (obviously) scientific magazine, the gene for pale skin only came about recently. Gene SLC24A5 is the gene that determines light skin pigmentation, and it appeared about 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. According to the theory of natural selection, SLC24A5 developed in European immigrants because the comparatively darker skies in Europe created a need for skin to lighten in order to absorb more of the suns rays for bone growth and vitamin D. The need arose from an evolutionary standpoint because the people who immigrated to Europe had to adapt to darker skies and less sun.

Is it possible that God created this genetic mutation? Certainly, it's possible. But this is just one example of how small evolutionary mutations can lead to changes within humans. Undoubtedly, the mutation was not instant, nor was it slow, either. Is it possible that humans evolved quickly as well? It might very well be possible.

Christians would contend that skin colors, languages, and every other cultural, racial, or ethnic difference is due to the spreading of the people after the Tower of Babel. But couldn't this story be symbolic of evolutionary changes that have occurred in all these areas?

Humans are constantly changing creatures, and our scientific advances will continue to challenge our religious views and theology. It's how we evolve to the changing conditions that's important (no pun intended).

My question is this, must evolution be false for religion to work? Can there be any reconciliation between the two?

Science article
SLC24A5 on wikipedia

Why would there even be a God?

2008-12-08T19:56:00.000-06:00

In his comment on my welcome post, Rusty Sanders brings up a good point that this blog would be entirely useless, given his assertion that there is no God whatsoever.

I'd like to preface my response by saying that The Blurch isn't just intended to be theologically oriented. I would like an open discussion of philosophical concepts as well.

Topics such as epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and psychology all play a part in developing our worldview as well. It is my view that confronting all of these aspects lead to personal growth. The more we question, the more we ask, the more we grow and learn more about ourselves, as well as the world around us.

We could very well fill many textbooks with an argument for and against the existence of God or some other holy creator, and perhaps I will post about a few pro and con discussion topics, but I do believe that we must learn as much as we can about other points of view and analyze them to see if we can glean any truth from them on our own terms.

My main rebuttal, and the one I'd like to make my primary response to Mr. Sanders, is to proffer that science isn't as conclusive as Mr. Sanders would like us to believe.

The philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, presented a theory of scientific history that shows how science doesn't necessarily reveal truths about the universe, but acts more as a pragmatic practice that changes as events and experimental results prove theses incorrect.

Science therefore becomes a fluid practice in which theories survive for a time, but will inevitably be supplanted by other useful theories.

The most simple example of this would be the changes in physics over the course of history. Of course, the history of physics would start with Aristotelian physics, which lasted for generations. It lasted until Sir Isaac Newton developed his Newtonian physics, which was then supplanted by Relativity Theory. Even today, many elements of Einstein's Relativity Theory are being thrown away for other theories.

You could very well make the argument that science then will eventually lead toward truth, since theories will eventually be disproven by better theories. But who is to say that we are getting closer to truth? Because the experiments we run actually work?

If Aristotle was only 1% correct in accurately describing the physical world and motion, and Newton 2%, and Einstein 3%, should we accept Einstein as having proven anything if he was only 3% accurate? Quite the contrary, we would say he's getting closer, but there's still work to be done.

You could then argue that Einstein's theories were much more accurate than that, but how would you know? It seems to me that the belief in the accuracy of science would also rest on some measure of "faith", just as religion does. We have "faith" that doctors, physicists, and other scientific professionals know what they're doing, just as religious people have "faith" in gods, or clergy, or whatever.

So, instead of proving the existence of God, which I'll blog about later, I have decided to argue that science isn't the exact truth some people would make it.

We all have faith in something. We all believe something is true. The whole point of The Blurch is to try to uncover some sort of truth.

I hope we learn a lot along the way. :)

Please post comments or send email to theblurch@gmail.com.

Welcome!

2008-12-05T20:08:00.002-06:00

Welcome! You've found The Blurch, the world's first ever blog/church. I hope this becomes a place where people can come to discuss theology, religion, philosophy, and everything else in a non-offensive format.

I often find that too many people take theology far too seriously, and I decided to create this blog so people could feel comfortable with their questions and opinions. If you have a thought, question, opinion, rant, or anything else, feel free to send an email to the official website at theblurch@gmail.com.

Who knows, your emails may stimulate some good conversation!