Slashdot Mirror
Ask Richard Dawkins About Evolution, Religion, and Science Education
Richard Dawkins is an author and an evolutionary biologist. For 13 years, he held the Simonyi Professorship at the University of Oxford. His 1976 book The Selfish Gene helped popularize the gene-centric view of evolution and coined the word "meme." Several other of his books, including Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, and The Greatest Show on Earth have helped to explain aspects of evolution in a way non-scientists can more easily understand. Dawkins is a frequent opponent of creationism and intelligent design, and he generated widespread controversy and debate in 2006 with The God Delusion, a book that subjected common religious beliefs to unyielding scientific scrutiny. He wrote, "One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." Most recently, Dawkins wrote The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, a graphic book that aims to introduce kids to science. He's also recently begun a video series titled "Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life" about how our world would look without religion. Mr. Dawkins has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Post your suggestions in the comments below, but please limit yourself to one question per post. We'll post his responses sometime next week.
I constantly see your work referenced both by opponents and proponents and feel like they don't always fully understand the concepts. My personal favorite is when I find a proponent of your work taking the personification of the gene to a new level past its role as a mere didactic device -- sometimes expounding at length about what genes want and desire. So what is your favorite misunderstanding that may have ended up as a headline, news story or that you've found on the internet?
My work here is dung.
What is your fondest memory of Christopher Hitchens?
The God Delusion helped me make explicit several inchoate ideas I had about why a belief in a god is not necessary to explain the world around us. Why do you think that so many people around the world still feel the need to rely on a personal god?
Do you believe a democratic society can exist which has no form of religion in its laws, or within government?
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
And how do you pronounce it yourself?
:3
Thank you very much in advance for taking your time to answer my questions.
DNA methylation seems an interesting property that has been shown to be heritable in some instances (cannot remember citation, study involving desert plants in Arizona or New Mexico, USA), changing the phenotype without the genotype. If this is inheritable, this seems to break your assertion that the gene is always the level of selection. In this case a gene producing X phenotype is methylated to produce Y phenotype, which could be selected for against (either direction) phenotype X, phenotype Y individuals net result in my hypothetical is a increased fitness and fecundity relative to individuals with phenotype X. Do you view this as escaping your assertion or a mere special case as it is still the gene being methylated. AlphaA
Do you think humans have a genetic predisposition to believe in things that have no basis in science?
Do you think that it will ever happen that a society exists without religion?
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
In a recent Gallup poll it has been shown that there has been no change in 30 years of Americans accepting evolution as truth. What do you think are the major factors for this?
It seems that most creationists are successful in convincing their peers of the faults in the theory of evolution because they are the only source of information on what the theory actually is. They setup a completely outdated or just plain fabricated version of the theory and then argue against that. Which makes them look like they know what they are talking about and makes their arguments convincing to the ignorant. How do you convince people that what they have been taught is completely wrong without insinuating that they or their respected teacher/pastor etc is a complete idiot?
While the theological propositions of most religions are laughable, the empirical neurophysiological techniques for the induction of mystical states can be quite useful as a means of inducing subjective feelings of happiness, satisfaction and stress relief. If "mystical" state induction techniques (e.g. breathing, sustained attention) were generalized, codified and distributed widely, do you think that these would work against religious organizations and their more deplorable behaviors? Religious history suggests this, as almost every religious organization eventually suppresses the actual practice of inducing mystical states.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
So I've always wondered how someone gets into gene research despite having a sibling who just received her PhD in a related field. What is odd is that we both went to a Catholic (K-8) school run by nuns, we both went to a local high school in literally the middle of nowhere and we both read works like The Panda's Thumb. But she went into research on genes and gene therapy while I went into software development and coding. So I've always wondered how much the United States' religious system actually inhibits our work in this field and other fields of science. Could you explain to me -- in your ideal world -- what would change in schools (at all levels) as a young mind develops that is distinctly different from the way it is now to better promote these options? Do you believe that the arcane and puritanical views of religious groups actually hinder us or that people who want to excel in these fields will find their way to it? Assuming you do believe this is a hindrance, how bad is it?
My work here is dung.
Historically entrenched Mysticism has reacted poorly to the thoughts of Scientific minds.
Do you think there might be better ways to approach this communication that would improve the rate of Scientific progress and do you think that this interaction might be amenable to Scientific study?
Do you also feel that this debate that rages between those that would manipulate mysticism to gain power over others and Science can ever be won or is it a battle that must be fought for every succeeding generation?
Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
At any point, have you ever had a religious person say "I think you're right, it is all bollocks!" after they've had a chat with you?. It seems like so much hard work to destroy the fantasy.
Kind of an oddball question for you - What are your thoughts on circumcision? The reason I ask is because, according to the World Health Organization, about 30% of males on the planet are circumcised and 70% of those are Muslim. It appears that the decision to circumcise is heavily influenced by religious beliefs, but the WHO also states that circumcision helps reduce the risk of contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases. Christopher Hitchens, a man who I loved and respected, thought it was a barbaric practice. Being another person I love and respect, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Is it possible to fully comprehend the world scientifically, and foster a mechanistic perception of the universe, and still foster a faith at the same time? If this it isn't possible, and it is argued that faith will cloud our otherwise pristine judgement, how can we trust the observations or arguments produced by scientists of faith?
Great question! We should ask him if he's jealous of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well!
Isn't it the case that anything could have unforeseen consequences? Related to this, if that avoiding unforeseen consequences were a requirement, how would you show that something does not have any unforeseen consequences?
Given that religion is present in every society, and by far the norm in almost every society, it stands to reason that we are genetically disposed to be religious. That would imply that religion has some evolutionary benefits.
Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, what are those benefits, and how can they be provided by a fully secular society?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You've become an incredibly polarizing figure in a contentious debate. In certain groups, you're akin to the Anti-Christ, and in others you're quoted without question like a religious prophet. How do you handle that? Does it feel weird to have everything you say dissected (and possibly misinterpreted)? Is there pride? Exasperation? Amusement?
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Hi Professor Dawkins and thanks for offering to answer some of our questions.
In the past, some science educators (Dr. Tyson for example) have criticised what they perceived to be your overuse of the stick in promoting rationalism and fact-based decision making where they considered the carrot to be a better tool. There is some evidence that simply stating the facts may actually be counter-productive: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf
Would you mind talking about the efficacy of both approaches to the greater understanding of the value of fact-based decision making?
Do you think there's a genetic difference between conservatives and liberals?
You have spent a lot of time debunking religion and thinking about how to think rationally - something that I have come to appreciate immensely. I'm curious what your take on climate change/global warming is. Is it happening? What does it mean for it to be happening? Is it caused by humans? It would be rather ironic if I were simply asking you so I could then take your word for it and believe whatever you say, so I'm curious about your thought processes as well. Contrary to the "there is no debate; the scientific community 100% agrees on this issue and the only ones who disagree are funded by oil companies" line the pro-global-warming crowd says, I see much evidence that not all scientists agree, and not all the ones that disagree have hideous ulterior motives. Further, I see similarities between the religious preachings of doomsday scenarios and the claims that the world is going to explode soon unless we do something right now.
How can I separate the BS claims and the politicization of the issue from what the factual data actually is?
When I received my religious education as I child, my rabbi taught me about the Documentary Hypothesis -- not to deny it, but to show me that the torah was not always what it is today. What are your thoughts on this sort of religious education i.e. religious education that is not based on denying or avoiding scientific or historical realities?
Palm trees and 8
is religion a virus of the mind, like a meme that has got out of hand ? as it wishes to replicate and disables/disrupts parts of the mind concerning logic and reason ?
or is it a mental illness of some description like schizophrenia ?
regards
Anon. UK
Something that's always troubled me about memes is that I cannot understand what the core language or data is for a meme. I know that our genes can be pinned down to be DNA but with memes it's troubling for me to try to imagine a language that conveys what is happening in them. We can observe a meme's transmission, we can observe a meme's mutation, we can observe a meme's fitness and we can observe its extinction -- but what we can't do is break those things down to some finite chunk of information such that we can analyze them on a empirical level. For instance, mutations of memes appear to be limited to only the human imagination and physics. It feels as though I would have as much luck describing how art went from cave paintings to film CGI with only mathematics as the language. So what is the concrete language of memes or are they destined to be more of a curious observation than a falsifiable and reproducible analysis like genetics?
My work here is dung.
Just to situate my question a bit : we have recently witnessed a deadly uproar of muslims over a movie, with Pakistan PM asking U.N for a global blasphemy law. In Israel, there are some cases oppression of females, like of that little girl going to school and more recently Anat Hoffman being arrested for praying at a wall (http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/164434/police-shackle-anat-hoffman-for-saying-shma-at-kot/). In my country, Brazil, there was a fierce campaign against abortion and the so called "Gay Kit" at national elections last year and now the campaign was brought back at São Paulo state elections (mind you the guy that tried to win the election over these topics, José Serra, LOST the national election and is now LOSING his home state election). Now the question: Is the world going less religious, and if so, are the extremists desperate to save territory? Do you think all these reactions, are the "last breath" of religion? (Sorry about my terrible English)
There is a small percentage of Christians, such as myself, who adamantly believe in both evolution and Christianity. We believe that scripture must be read and interpreted through a context that understands that scripture should be interpreted by first considering the culture of the original audience. As such, we believe that the "historical" aspect of the Biblical account of creation isn't as important as understanding the purpose and point of all of "creation", humankind and who we are in relation to our creator. My intent is not to lecture on the creation of mankind. Instead, I am interested in knowing if you've ever spoken or debated much with other Christians who have similar beliefs as myself. For many of us, evolution is unquestionable! However, the sheer existence of such truth does not exclude the fact that a creator couldn't have been a part in the process. Much of your Christian (or other religious) interactions that I've observed tend to involve arguing against the most commonly propagated beliefs of creationism. I am interested in your thoughts, on such a different perspective, as my own. Please comment. Thank you so much.
He is a scientist. He understands the prepetual cycle of theory, proof, counterproof, refined theory. Dogma is lazy thinking.
There is nothing to be gained to compromise on that.
There are three enemies of knowledge:
Circular reasoning. Regressive argument. Dogma.
You chose yours. And I'm offended by your lazy choice. Regressive argument is ours. At least we get closer to knowledge whereas you are stumped by something as simple as evolution.
20 minutes into the future
Why do we need an origin story? It seems to me that if evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and creationism were to all disappear, science would be just fine. We don't need to know that a robotic arm assembled a car to know every detail of how the car works.
Additionally, if there was no observation of the event and the process cannot be repeated, isn't it outside the realm of scientific discovery anyway?
I am a christian catholic. I do not go to the church very often, but I pray every single day.
As an educated believer and a scientist, I know that evolution is a fact and intelligent design is such a stupidity that it doesn't even need to be debated. To be very clear, if I would know *for sure* that only one of the following sentence is true:
(a) God exists
(b) evolution exists
then I would immediately abandon my religion. Still, I believe both exists, although for (a) I cannot have a proof.
Is there a place for people like me, in your view of a "good" society?
I am (pleasantly) surprised by how many of my friends have "come out," as it were, as atheists over the last few years. I'm a young person, and I suspect that the amount of closet atheists among younger people (in America at least) is much greater than that among older people. In general, how optimistic are you about humanity getting past religion in the next few decades?
Esoteric reference.
Fictional doctor House M.D. is famously quoted as saying, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." Is this your experience? If religious people are immune to rational arguments, how do we have a productive discussion with them? How do you impress on a religious person the importance of evidence and reason?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I am an atheist, like you, Mr. Dawkins. And I have an educational background comprising a good deal of scientific study. There is obviously no scientific/material evidence of God.
But if we take a step back from the material, and just look at rational philosophy, we accept concepts like mathematics as reality.
So, my question is...
Even as you and I don't believe in God, is there any _possible_ way to construct a rational philosophy that lends _any_ bit of credence to the existence of a master "orderer" of the cosmos (God)?
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
"One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."
Religion is a system that takes advantage of people not being satisfied with not understanding. It scratches that itch by giving its adherents a false understanding of the world.
No one in the real world can understand everything, so to not be comfortable accepting not understanding a good share of reality is folly.
So why does god get a free pass to come from nothing?
The anthropic principle does not mean what you think it means.
And what, exactly, is your basis for postulating that life is rare?
It's not an explanation. Even if you accept it as one, you still have to explain where god came from.
I'd give your apologetics a 1 out 10. Try harder.
HAND.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not a god exists, do you think belief in god can give one an evolutionary advantage? Daniel Dennett postulates a war between a gold army and a silver army: "The gold soldiers believe that God is on their side, that God will answer their prayers, that if they die they will go to heaven and be rewarded by God. The silver soldiers are well-informed and highly trained economists. They are taking out insurance policies, laying out side bets, they’re doing very well informed cost-benefit analysis, they’ve got exit strategies both personal and by group."
My wife and I attended the Reason Rally on the National Mall this year, which was billed as a positive expression of non-theistic secular thought. We met many wonderful people there and were truly inspired by Adam Savage's incredibly positive and inspiring speech on the wonders of science, Nate Phelps remarkably eloquent denunciation of his father's Westboro Baptist Church, and your own speech highlighting the absurdity of having to hold such a rally at all; however, I we were also incredibly put off by vitriol on display by so many other speakers who were entirely focused on the evils of religion rather than the good science and rationality brings to civilized life. We ended up leaving the rally in the middle of PZ Meyer's speech because we found it so distressing in its Rush Limbaugh-esque tone.
It bothers me that so many of us define ourselves by what we don't believe rather than what we do. As Carolyn Porco elucidated so concisely at a talk you were involved in, I am not an atheist, I am a scientist. Like Carl Sagan, I get a profound sense of spirituality from science that I want to desperately for everyone in the world to open their own eyes and discover.
My attempts to get people to read your book The God Delusion were met with strong resistance, people were very turned off to its tone, but those same individuals loved your book The Magic of Reality . As someone who has pursued both the strategy of being highly critical of religion in one work, while apparently softening that criticism in your latter work in exchange for focusing on the wonders of the natural world, could you speak to pros and cons of these different strategies of persuasion, not just in your own work but in the efforts of others like Adam Savage and PZ Meyers?
Thank you so much for your taking the time to interact with us on /.! This really is an exciting development and an honor.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
A few years back I saw on C-Span a talk that you gave at (IIRC) Liberty University. Afterwards, an audience member asked you a question along the lines of "Could you imagine any event that you would construe as evidence of God's existence?" Unfortunately, I remember feeling that your answer at the time didn't really address the substance of the question, and I'd be interested to hear your answer to the same question without the pressure of having to come up with something immediately. I'm already an agnostic/atheist myself, but I'm curious as to how you deal with the fact that supernatural causes are ruled out axiomatically in a naturalistic philosophy -- any unexplained event is assumed to be due to an as of yet undiscovered natural cause. If a supernatural cause existed, could we ever know, even in principle?
You've been described as a 'militant atheist', but do you consider yourself to be certainly atheist or rather technically agnostic, in the same sense that Bertrand Russell described himself as in his essay "Am I Atheist or Agnostic?"
How serious of a problem do you think gender inequality is in the scientific academic world? What would you do to correct it?
Follow up:
You caught a lot of heat for the "Dear Muslima" episode last year. Do you feel you were misinterpreted or misrepresented? Is there anything you regret or would have said differently in retrospect?
You criticize Nowak et al's "The Evolution of Eusociality", and in particular E. O. Wilson's popularized version in "The Social Conquest of Earth", in part, as failing to address Alex Kacelnik's argument that "kin selection is the only way in which worker adaptations such as soldier jaws and honeypot abdomens – phenotypes that are never expressed in reproductive individuals – could have evolved". However, isn't it the case that your own work in "The Extended Phenotype" shows how a parasite's genes can express in its host, up to and including castration? If so, what organism is in a better position to parasitically castrate a host than is a queen her own offspring?
Seastead this.
One of the reasons given against creationism is that there isn't any way to dis-prove it. Yet, I don't see how evolution could be disproved, so I don't see what difference there is between evolution and creationism (or its variations) except that if you assume there is a god then it follows that our existence must be part of a grand plan, but if you assume there is no god, then our existence must be just random chance and genetic variations.
What discovery or test would allow for evolution to be disproved? Or is evolution, "Not even wrong."
I cannot stop religion-related things from coming to my children ears. Even though they are not baptised, some teachers, grandmothers, etc. _will_ talk about god and will do so without appropriate distance to the matter. I do not want to force my kids to "believe" in science or evolution, but I would love to balance what they will learn about god with what _I_ and my wife consider truth and I would love my kids to respect science and think critically. Do You have any insights about raising children to be like that?
Also, You have written in God Delusion that if just one person is "cured" of religious faith (I don't remember the exact phrasing), You will consider the book successful. Well, Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype were more eye-opening for me, but I'd like to thank You for all of them :-) They surely cured me.
Do You sometimes regret becoming a kind of an "atheist" role model? Even looking through these Slashdot questions, most of them are about religion, not Your scientific fields...
So what is your favorite misunderstanding that may have ended up as a headline, news story or that you've found on the internet?
On that note: "One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."
My question is, which religion? My bible says "fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7). "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart."
These passages are shared by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, so it's none of these religions. What religion values ignorance?
Free Martian Whores!
How cool is it being married to Dr. Who's companion, the Time Lady Romana?
Do you ever just get tired of trying to get ignorant people to understand something that they have no interest in knowing. And a follow on is, over many years you have been trying to explain evolution and scientific principles to people through literature, do you think there are less people now than when you first started willing to listen to or read your message?
How about the religions that are believed by the young earth creationists (which includes all three of the religions you mentioned)? Or the religion that persecuted Galileo? Or the religions which refuse to acknowledge the over whelming evidence in support of evolution? It's nice that the old book has those passages, but it has a lot of passages that people ignore these days, the fact is that a sizable percentage of religious people do reject scientific evidence when it disagrees with their faith. That's not to say everyone who is religious does so, only that it's far more common in people who are heavily religious.
will finaly put an end to most religious beliefs about evolution?
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Yours, apparently. Proverbs 1:7 actually begins "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge". The context you so duplicitously leave out is that Proverbs is only concerned with moral instruction, and it is really more about relaying the punishment for not obeying its "wisdom".
Once DNA-based life had become common, was it inevitable that evolution would lead eventually to intelligent life on Earth?
Indirectly, they all do. They are based on the idea that you are supposed to believe in some things, and are not allowed to doubt them. Only then you are virtuous. But, well, that is ignorance.
Every time you hear a religious person complain that Darwin's theories are the work of the devil or somesuch, then they are saying that ignorance is good.
A lot of information is supposed to be kept away from certain groups of people (women, children) to keep them docile. This is considered a good thing, and yes, this *is* valuing ignorance.
My bible says "fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7). "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart."
I think the modern scientific concept of "wisdom" and the religious/biblical meaning of "wisdom" differ greatly.
I don't know Prof. Dawkins, however I'll assume his definition of "wisdom" is along the lines of "being informed by current scientific theories that bear the preponderance of evidence, eschewing concepts for which there is no evidence, while being open to changes as more evidence and better models present themselves."
Unfortunately, the religious definition of "wisdom" typically winds up meaning "is able to quote bible/torah/koran verses verbatim".
The point being, "wisdom" is a very slippery word with a very nebulous definition that changes depending on who you're talking to. Which one do the verses you quote above refer to? Probably depends on who you ask, but I suspect most "experts" in this area would point towards religious wisdom rather than rationality.
Yaz
Setting aside any other issues:
What is the essential moral difference between killing someone outright and giving them a minute chance of living? Is any amount of wasteful expenditure justifiable? It is doubtful that any artificial gestational environment would be perfect, or that the transition would be without trauma. How are you on the possibility of condemning a person to a wide spectrum of disorders?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Friend, I consider myself a Christian, but these days, there are so many who have a fundamentalist belief system, and take every word of the Gospel as basic fact without the faintest consideration for context, physics or the nature of the conversations contained in both the Old and New Testaments. That the entire world was flooded when Naoh saved the animals... where did enough water to flood the world come from and where did it go to? The magical thinking is shocking. That the world is thousands of years old and that people lived with the dinosaurs like the Flintstones. These too are beliefs grounded in the same scriptures that you quote, and these good and decent people have given up all rational consideration to instead cling to mysticism and magical thinking. The universe is so vast in size and time and we can see such a precious small slice of that eternity, that is it perfectly appropriate for men of knowledge to probe the mysteries and hold faith in those places for which answers may forever exceed our grasp. I am simply concerned that too many would avoid the light of simple truth, for fear that it would threaten their clockwork belief of God and this universe.
How do you reconcile Georgia Rep. Paul Broun saying in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior? Worse, that this man has immediate and direct influence on the future of scientific research in the United States. Do you question his faith, his understanding of his religion, his sect or orthodoxy, his belief or his sanity? I appreciate that there is a critical need for ethicists in the science community, to look at the impact of our growing technological information and how we can best apply our growing understanding to serve the greater interests of humanity. That neither explains or excuses a growing number of people who have turned away from truth and wisdom in the name of religion, or the religious leaders who would have them behave this way. Part of the problem, is that the Bible is a book, most of which was written in a context specific to a rowdy dessert people living in the Sinai Peninsula 5 to 2 millennia ago. The amazing thing is that so much of the human content is so completely valid and appropriate thousands of years later. The prophesies, that are only now coming to pass. Most amazing is the amazing accuracy of the historical content as every year archeologist discover some new dig which validates the descriptions portrayed in the Bible. That said, the book is a gift from God, and even contains the fascinating process by which men gathered the Word and selected from all the Christian writings to come to a place where it was decided this is our religious text. It reflects the strong Jewish influence in the early church, and the desire to keep the early church as close as possible to Jewish faith, so the Gospel of Mary was left out. The most powerful thing about Christianity, has been its spiritual core of Love and Service. As it spread its ability to coop pagan culture and symbols and still pass the core belief along intact and healthy.
Its time for Christians and all other religions that are the children of Abraham, to let go of the dogma. Stop trying to force people to obey your beliefs on threat of death. Its time to honor the Prince of Peace, by really being peaceful.
It all comes down to how one interprets the Bible. One can hardly fault the Bible for giving a worldview that was current at the time it was written. The problems all start when people read it as if it is some direct revelation to us in the 21st century, and ignore all the history from when it was written until now.
Then people also read it as if it is a science textbook, or as if it exists to teach us scientific things. The bible does not claim to be/do any of this.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
You are very insightful. The problem is indeed that many religious people confuse their religion with lazy thinking and dogma.
My favourite example from the Bible is the Marriage at Cana. The whole water to wine magical stuff which obviously is considered quite a feat. The way I interpret it is an even bigger feat.
In those days and in that culture the newlyweds and their family were expected to throw a world class kegger for anybody who showed up. If it wasn't the party of the century they'd be viewed as cheapskates until the rest of their life. So running out of grub was viewed as a Bad Thing.
So everybody was prepared to leave the party and harbour a grudge when booze dried up. But Jesus said: Party on. Look, we've settled here and we are having some good fun and running out of grub and booze is not a good reason to call the whole thing off. Let me fix that.
Now the Bible if you want to follow the literal meaning says that he turned water into wine which being the son of god presumably was a trivial trick.
OTOH my take on it is that he said: We could either break up the party which is kinda dumb. Or we could drink water as if it were wine and continue to enjoy ourselves.
Convincing a couple of moochers that their lifelong tradition is BS and that they should enjoy what they got is the bigger achievement.
The story is an ALLEGORY. You are supposed to interpret it and to think about it. Not to believe every single line of it. The whole New Testament was an effort to drag people out of antiquity. If you take that thought even further then you could say that the Old Testament is included into the Bible as a contrast to the New Testament. This is how bad it was and here is our counterproposal. Considering that it mainly is the Old Testament that is currently used to advocate a return to the dark ages I'd say screw it. People are too dumb to understand it and explain why there are contradicitons between New and Old. And when in doubt they choose old.
Somebody has already asked why religion and science are incompatible. They are not. Science and dogma and lazy thinking are.
The big downside ist that contrary to dogma, science doesn't give absolute 100% certainty. We've got the principle of sufficient reason and that's it.
20 minutes into the future