Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Some Hell-Bent On Teaching Intelligent Design?
Funksaw writes "Here's an op-ed by first-time politician, long-time Slashdotter Brian Boyko, where he talks about his experiences testifying at the Texas Board of Education in favor of having real science in science textbooks. But beyond that, he also tries to examine, philosophically, why there is such hardened resistance to the idea of evolution in Texas. From the article: '[W]hat is true is that evolution tests faith. The fact of evolution is incontrovertible and supported by mounds of empirical evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is fragile. It is supported only by the strength of human will. And this is where it gets tricky. Because to many believers, faith, not works, is the only guarantee that one can pass God's litmus test and gain access to His divine kingdom. To lose one's faith is to literally damn oneself. So tests to that faith must be avoided at all costs. Better to be a philosophical coward than a theological failure.'"
Yes, those types seem to think that without religion, mankind becomes evil rapacious monstrosities.
However, the studies that have been done clearly show that atheists are kinder and more compassionate on average than theists.
They haven't found an explanation of that yet, but maybe it has to do with the basic outlook.
The Theist has a higher power they can appeal to and be forgiven of their bad , inappropriate, or downright evil actions, sometimes even after death.
An Atheist on the other hand has to live in this world, having no afterlife to go to after death, and in this world, the only one that can forgive their transgressions are their fellow humans. No divine forgiveness.
Of course, that's just guesswork on my part, because as I said, the researchers haven't pinned down the why as of yet.
Those that find conflict between religion and science are usually those unbending fanatics and followers of the god of the gaps.Every new discovery means their is less that their limited god controls, or directly conflicts with what they believe since they want to take their religious documents as literal. I've heard some of them say it's divine and thus can't ever be wrong. To that argument, I have to ask, then why has it been changed? If it can't be wrong, then it can't have been altered.
On the other hand, more reasonable religious people and sects, understand that their religion is spiritual and their sacred texts are not literal recordings of history, but are rather things meant to teach and guide. These types rarely conflict with science, since in their view it is only revealing the wonders of the universe, the handiwork of god. It's kind of like an art expert examining and marveling over the brush strokes of the Mona Lisa.
Oh well, it doesn't really do any good to try and explain this to the close minded religious types, as they would rather deny reality than accept their viewpoint may be wrong.