Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

Chances are, you've heard of Richard Dawkins. He's an ardent atheist, and wrote that book "The God Delusion" that has fundamentalist Americans going positively crazy. In this video called The Root of All Evil?, first of a two part miniseries from last year, he explains why he believes blind belief in a deity is detrimental to humanity.

Warning...the video is over 45 minutes long. Will this change your mind about God? Probably not. But it might shed some light on why I turned out the way I did.

PS. Ted Haggard has a starring role in this flick. Let me know what you think of him after seeing the video, assuming you've heard of him.

Geoff said about 13 hours later

This is the video I saw where he talks about apes having a moral compass...in some regards. He has a second series in addition to this about religion being a virus or something lol. It's a good watch though.
Marc said about 14 hours later

This is an interesting video. To get right to the point, Ted Haggard is a complete idiot, and so is anyone who follows him.

As for Dawkins, I think he's not much better. Is he a delusional idiot like Haggard? No. But his ideas on some things just aren't logical.

As a scientist, the path to truth is of the most importance, yet he doesn't believe we should be teaching theories provided by religions in schools. His reasoning is that religions are based solely on myth and that they don't contain hard evidence like those that science provides. Ok, sounds reasonable, except science is based solely on myth in a lot of places too! Look at the big bang. Who didn't learn that in school? The fact is, we have no idea what caused the big bang. Am I saying some deity sparked it? No, but science can't tell us either, so how is it any better than creationism? The only reason it's considered better is that it shows prooc up until the point after it occurred. But to be honest, creationism doesn't limit the theory, it could all be sparked by a deity at that point that science cannot figure it out. So what's the harm in learning about it? It may not be any of your beliefs that teaching creationist theory in schools is harmful, but it is for many Americans. But in the case of the big bang, science is just as stumped as religions. Creationism is left out though because we don't have "separation of scientific theory and state," we have "separation of church and state."

I think if we're gonna drop religious theory out of schools, there should be no scientific theory in schools to be fair. The only problem there is, how will we ever further science without theory? So it's not a good solution. Just teach it all, let the kids figure it out, they're smart. Spoon feeding them theories we consider "logical" is just as bad as religion spoon feeding ridiculous ideas. I know the discussion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will come up here, and I know it's a thin line, but we're smart humans, let's go on statistics. If a certain percentage of people believe a theory, include it. If you want your theory to be taught in schools, find another medium to get the word out, it's not so hard to get ideas out to a large audience in these days.

As a disclaimer, I'll say yes I am religious, you guys probably knew that. But at the same time, I've been through all of these classes in school, I know science fairly well (Unfortunately!). The ideas and methods practiced by science are GREAT. Religions should take note. I don't think blind faith is a good idea, we should constantly question it.

I think Dawkins is wrong. Science and religion CAN be happy coexisting together, there just needs to be compromise. Religion needs to be more accepting of ideas and theories science brings up, and science needs to meet religion half way and stop bashing a possible deity.

Someone needs to make a video about people who have embraced science and religion, who recognize the importance of logical thinking, but at the same time embrace the good teachings and ideas that religion does provide. For instance, have you atheists ever thought about the golden rule? I'm sure you have. Treat others as you would want to be treated? It's a good idea and when you push yourself to think about it, you tend to be what most would consider a better person. Science doesn't teach that. Good parenting can train you to be like that, but sometimes religion is a good communication tool to teach those types of things. Although, I'll agree, teaching religion that way in school should probably be left out, but just because religion has its bad parts, doesn't mean removing it will make things any easier in this world.

As a final note, I know Dawkins is trying to show that fundamentalist religious people and blind belief is detrimental, which in most respects is probably true, but I think he comes off as a bit arrogant at times(Haggard was right for once!). Making claims using the "ALL Christians believe..." is VERY dangerous. All is a very strong word, so I found as I was watching this that I was thinking "Hey... that's not me, don't pigeonhole me in with the rest of them." I'm sure many other people feel the same way, which could turn people off to his good ideas. I know not to take his ideas personally, as I don't care what he thinks, it's my life, but some people will take it personally and will shut him out completely. Not too effective for a documentary at times.

GJ said about 17 hours later

Marc, religion does not provide any theories. If you think it does, please give me an example. As Dawkins says quite clearly, religion is built on faith, not evidence. Theories are built and tested with evidence, not faith. Thus, religion can offer no theories, only dogma.

I'll agree that Dawkins comes across arrogant. However, you don't get to be the leader of any movement by being a wallflower. I was amused watching the interchange between Dawkins and Haggard. They're both jerks. :) I just happen to think Dawkins is right.

Golden rule...that's a good one. Do you know who invented the golden rule? Who first practiced it? I'll give you a hint--it wasn't the Christians. You'll also find it present among most of the major religions, and it dates back to the dawn of civilization in our earliest forms of society. We didn't need God to tell us why this is a good idea. Think about it: who are you more likely to work with, to trust, to cooperate with? One who treats you as an equal, and values you, or one that wishes to dominate you, enslave you, or hurt you?

I have yet to see anything that current religions propose as "God's law" that hasn't been in use in one form or another over the history of man. That tells me that the current religions have about to do with God as the old pagan religions.
Darcy said about 17 hours later

Since the dawn of mankind people have wondered where we came from. Good question. As a result there are multitudes of explanations for our creation. These all involve something bigger than humans responsible for the creation of the earth and mankind. It may be giant turtles or the Judeo-Christian God of Genesis that were responsible for life on earth. But ultimately these were the creation of ancient peoples using the only tools they had--their imagination.

As time progressed and science developed new ideas came about evolution, the Big Bang. These things had their source in the human mind as well, but they are testable. Through the fossil record we can see the progression of our human(and non-human) ancestors. Thanks to cosmic background radiation(which is the glow left over from the explosion itself, discovered in 1964)we have evidence of the Big Bang.

Why do these subjects need to intersect? Why do we need to say "God did it" when we don't have a ready answer? Why is it necessary?

In our country the push for creationism is led by fundamental Christians. The ONLY creation of the earth and mankind that they will accept is the version contained in Genesis. So what do they do with the fossil and geologic records of earth, and anything else that doesn't mesh with their version of creation(I am speaking of Young Earth Creationists here, those that believe the earth is only 6000 years old)? They twist it to suit their hypothesis--which as I recall from college is a big no-no. Suddenly humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs. All fossils we find are of animals killed in the Flood. Scientists are wrong, carbon dating is wrong, geologic stratum dating is wrong, because the bible says otherwise.

Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that? If you don't believe that people think that way just go out to the website for Ken Ham's creation museum and see for yourself. That is the type of creationism they want to teach in schools, not the possibility that a deity was behind the Big Bang or even evolution(which they don't accept).

That is why I have a problem with it,they are saying "teach the controversy, but only our version of it." This is also why I say to you Marc that science and religion can not coexist in the manner you suggest.

On the matter of the golden rule. This is a widespread idea, found all over the world, and not always in a religious manner(see Confucius). We are a social animal and there are rules to live by for a well functioning society and that is the most basic of all . Quite honestly, I feel it is the only one we need. All else can derive from that.

I am not bashing religion--religion has its place in society(and has in many forms since man first sought answers to our origins. I am also not saying that God or something like that doesn't exist--I simply don't have the answer to that.

Marc said about 17 hours later

Theories aren't built on evidence, laws are. Theories are simply "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." as dictionary.com puts it so well. The example was fitting as well :) I'd say creationism falls under that category. Whether you agree that the ideas are coherent or not is where the statistics come in. Do enough people find it coherent? If so, you've got a theory, otherwise it's a stupid idea. If you want to get really technical, creationism is probably a theorem: an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof. What is considered generally accepted? Well, if about 50% of the population agree, that's close to a majority, I'd say that's close enough to bring about a discussion in public places.

Maybe the golden rule was a bad example, or maybe all of those morals are ideas that history has brought us without religion, but religion made it popular, just like Dawkins is making atheism popular. Sometimes being arrogant gets your ideas noticed, religion may be arrogant for stating they came up with the idea, but either way most people attribute their original knowledge of the idea from religion. Be honest, where did you learn it? Probably at a young age through religion, and you've been practicing it, hopefully, ever since. At a young age are you really capable to learn this without a bit of help? I guess you could say you learn it from a basic psychology standpoint: When you do good things for other people, you get rewarded. But it's not always the case when you do good things for others.

EDIT:

The creationism attempting to be taught by Ken Ham and friends should be rejected. Because with science we KNOW the earth is older than 6,000 years old, so their theory is disproved by fact. The creationism I'm thinking of is simply a God/gods or some deity sparked the big bang. I don't think that God having a hand to push evolution along should be taught, that's going a bit far. I'm talking simply at the very start of the universe. Nobody knows what happened, give a list of ideas that are commonly thought of. String theory, God, whatever.

I'll agree with you guys in that a lot of the creationism they are trying to get into schools is just way too whacky. Not believing evolution is pretty silly, there's very good evidence of it, so there's no point in trying to teach the Adam and Eve story in schools. Maybe some day we'll be able to say the same for God sparking the big bang, but until we've got evidence to prove that, is it harmful to throw the idea out there?

I'm not bashing atheism, I think it's a very good movement. I'd like to put myself somewhere between religious and atheist, not sure what to call that. I think the battle against fundamental Christians, or any religions, is necessary and I would fully back the atheist there if their arguments are left to facts only. I know you guys are more sensible than many atheists I've met, who tend to bash religions by simply stating things like "believing in this magical being that watches over everybody and then you go to heaven up in the sky on the clouds ... blah blah ... is dumb," is really what's hurting the atheist's case.

It's the uninformed/blind people on both sides that cause all of us toward the middle to argue this. Sorta like politics :)

Geoff said about 18 hours later

Cool, another religious discussion! We know where I stand, but I do want to add to the creationism theory. Just because thousands, if not millions believe it is true, doesn't make it true. For thousands of years, the whole world thought the Earth was flat. Wrong. Creationism is simply, and utterly stupid. To even consider that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is absurd. This is one of the many reasons atheists in particular are getting angry. This SHOULD NOT be taught period. If you want to say Darwin is wrong, fine. You better have proof that he is, because there is a whole pile of evidence for Evolution, and it all contradicts Creationism. Creationism doesn't have one shred of evidence, and only uses the bible as its source of information.

Have any of you really read the bible? Some of the "teachings" of God are quite horrific in the Old Testament. Why do we omit those teachings, yet we still think he created Earth because Genesis says so. I mean, if you believed in the bible, well then it would be the Baumbach Family's job to kill GJ and myself with your bare hands according to the old Testament. I'll have to get the verse for you to read, it is quite amusing.

When it comes to moral teachings, much of this is instilled in us by nature. I can tell you, when I was a kid, the Golden rule didn't enter my mind much when I played outside with friends. It is built into our brains to coexist, or else we would have never survived this long (or short if you think about it). Our parents help nurture this, and I don't think you need religion to be rewarded for good behavior. I would be very interested to see how a wholly atheistic society would function to compare.

We may never realize how everything started. We are so young as a species, statistically we are non-existent if you look at how old the universe is, or even the planet for that matter. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. That is no different than saying God created the universe. You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong, and neither of can scientifically prove it true. And one last punch to religion for fun, what the hell took God so long to create us anyways?
Marc said about 18 hours later

Maybe I'm killing my argument by using the word creationism. Is there a better word for "deity started big bang, that's it."?

Trust me... the whole 6 days, then resting thing. I never believed that. I think even the youngest child nowadays questions the silliness of that.

I agree the Bible should be kept far from schools, I never said it should be in schools. It's a good morality book when explained by an intelligent human being. That's about it.

EDIT:

Geoff pointed out that "deitism" is what it would be called I believe. So yea, how about deitism in schools?

Geoff said about 19 hours later

This still assumes a higher being is responsible for everything. Without proof, one could say Elvis created the universe. I think we teach kids what we know and what is acceptable scientific theories and proofs. They may change over time as we discover more and more. Telling our children, "oh God is responsible for that" doesn't help. Why bother to figure out the real reason? If we tell them we don't know, hey, now that kid has a mystery to solve. That kid, 20 years later, may discover what that mystery is. We can not assume anything, other than Rush is the best band ever. No question there! ;)
GJ said about 20 hours later

See, Geoff, the lack of evidence for the supremacy of Rush is what makes your claim a belief.

Marc, the whole 6 day thing is believed by a LOT of Americans. Fully 46% of adult Americans polled recently honestly believes the world is less than 10,000 years old. That is frightening.

The "big bang was kicked off by a deity" has a name--it's called Intelligent Design. The folks behind ID? Creationists.
Marc said about 20 hours later

I thought Intelligent Design included God aiding in helping evolution, am I wrong?
Steve said about 20 hours later

Glad to see Marc filling in for me when I'm too busy to respond properly. And heck, he does a better job then me, so I'll just let him continue to argue my point.
GJ said 1 day later

ID is God doing all sorts of things, including "guiding" evolution but still insisting that evolution doesn't really happen quite the way Darwin says it does. Not that they have any proof, mind you. And yes, they also claim he started the big bang, but if you question them enough they start to squirm, because they're really mostly Young Earth Creationists (YECs).
GJ said 1 day later

Marc, I'll see your definition of theory and raise you one from Houghton Mifflin:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Let me emphasize a part of that: "especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Creationism absolutely, positively has NEVER been tested. It is widely accepted, but it CAN NOT be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. In fact, the fossil record contradicts the bible's account of the world's creation across the board.

Time to refute another one of your statements: Be honest, where did you learn it? Probably at a young age through religion, and you've been practicing it, hopefully, ever since. At a young age are you really capable to learn this without a bit of help? I guess you could say you learn it from a basic psychology standpoint: When you do good things for other people, you get rewarded. But it's not always the case when you do good things for others.

Where did I learn it? Same place you did--from our parents. Not from the Church, although they did broadcast the same message. Our parents taught it to us when we were very young because it is required in order for you to function in modern society and be a positive contributor. If everyone was doing the "me me me me" thing, society as we know it would come crashing down. Don't mistake atheism for anarchy--they are two very different things.

Does religion reinforce this message? Yes, it does--and it does a pretty good job of it, most of the time. Until it gets polarized, and the us-vs-them mentality sets in (i.e., muslim vs jew, protestant vs catholic, etc.) Then, the golden rule only applies for those like us. The heathens get the heel of our jackboots.

So...can we learn it without religion? Sure we can. In fact, a lot of religious folk believe we atheists do all sorts of nasty, bad stuff because we have no "moral compass." That's pretty funny. It means, in effect, that without a God there to bully them into behaving, they'd be out raping and pillaging the neighborhood, like they claim we're doing. What total BS. Society cannot exist as a cohesive bond of humanity without a population that cares for its members. That's why societies tend to be made up of similar individuals, people that we can find something in common with, be it our skin color, our values, our income levels, our recreational interests, political views, etc.
Marc said 1 day later

Pfft, Houghton Mifflin is certainly no dictionary.com. :)
Geoff said 2 days later

Did I mention aliens do exist? :)
GJ said 2 days later

Yeah, they're in that teapot circling the sun. Didn't you watch the video??
Geoff said 2 days later

Nah, the teapot is the alien, it is just a big government cover up.