Prophecy Today Newsletter, May 2005, by Mike Wingfield wrote:
Therefore, man’s godless intellect leads him to conclude that every-thing in his world is the product of chance, luck, or fate. In his sinful thinking, there is no God, and if there is, He has very little or noth-ing to do with our universe. This is what the theory of evolution is built upon! Logically, those who have adopted this theory must con-clude that matter is eternal and that it has by chance mutated or evolved to its present form and has no divine purpose or destiny! According to their view, we are all here by chance, and our ultimate destiny, both now and into eternity, is only a matter of blind fate! This kind of thinking creates hopelessness and the kind of reckless abandon that we see being played out in a society that is intoxicated with a hedonistic approach to everything. In essence, it is the monster of self-destruction and an invitation for the judgment of God!
Why do Christians feel that evolution is so hopeless? EVERYONE PLEASE ANSWER.
What is wrong with "chance, luck or fate" or mutation for that matter? Does hope not fall into that list as well? What is hope?
"Hope's just a word that maybe you said, and maybe you heard on some windy corner round a wide angle curve" - Bob Dylan, Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie.
Purpose? Is our purpose not obvious? Are we not alive…
There are no hedonistic views in evolution, in fact, it is the least hedonistic view. Creationism is clearly one the most hedonistic. I believe strongly in evolution, and I don't feel the slightest bit hopeless.
In fact, I'm thankful that we know the truth instead of some sort of hedonistic view, and I'm not afraid to say or believe that we simply don't know how it all began.
Monster of self-destruction? OH PLEASE, maybe for the weak religious type. If there is a god may it judge my ability to think for myself instead of being a stupid, lazy, and blind follower of some hedonistic belief system. Mike Wingfield? More like Mike Wingnut. I digress
Fencesitter, can’t have it both ways. Can’t sit on the fence and believe that there is no God. A fencesitter is someone who believes in God but has unconfessed sin in his/her life, and generally continues sinning even though they know the right path to take.
A person who calls themself a Fencesitter and believes that there is no God, that is a whole new concept for me.
What have you to say for yourself? What is God doing in your life that made you jump from the dark side to the fence. Second question, when are you going to get off that lukewarm fence and get rigth with God (if you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth!). Don’t stay on that fence any longer than you have to. Redeem the time while there is time, ole friend.
Champ, fencesitter is a just a handle I chose because I won’t pin a finite name on myself when it comes to religious beliefs, I have too much investigating to do yet. I think just for fun I’ll change my handle to smokejumper, as I find it easy to overcome the smoke and mirrors of belief systems. Thanks Champ, cling tightly to that mysticism you hold so dear
[quote author=“smokejumper”]Champ, fencesitter is a just a handle I chose because I won’t pin a finite name on myself when it comes to religious beliefs, I have too much investigating to do yet. I think just for fun I’ll change my handle to smokejumper, as I find it easy to overcome the smoke and mirrors of belief systems. Thanks Champ, cling tightly to that mysticism you hold so dear
Oh Oh, Champ. Your side seems to be losing its grip on Smokejumper, even changing his ID. Fortunately, he’s willing to 1) engage in actual debate rather than cherry-picking arguments that suit his fragile faith-based cognitive house of cards; 2) read books that explain scientific fact. Science may be based on “theory,” but only because scientists refuse to be absolutists, since they have no way of knowing for sure anything about its ultimate origins or its ultimate future; 3) be honest with himself in his intellectual pursuits, rather than pidgeon-holing “intellectuals” as being less-than reliable. Believe it or not, Champion, without intellectuals, history would not even exist. You would be sleeping in the woods. No, you’d be dead by now because your lifespan would be about one-third of what it is, due entirely to the dedicated work of intellectuals throughout history.
I think you have to look at this as a political issue. Most humans are sad and miserable, because their dreams have not come true or whatever, and the best product you can offer them to attract their attention is hope.
Hope has the great advantage that you never have to deliver on it. It doesn’t have a sell-by date, you can just go on selling hope forever. If seomthing good happens, you can claim it as the product of hope. If something bad happens, you just take the opportunity to sell more hope. It’s so simple, and the unwashed masses never catch on.
So what better political message to send than that the opposition (the rational, scientific argument) lacks hope? It’s too easy.
It is nothing to do with reality, with whether you feel hope or not. That’s not the point at all. Stop trying to understand the rationale of the religious argument. It doesn’t have a rationale. It has a simple political message that uneducated, superstitious people find appealing. That’s all there is to it.
As long as most humans remain poor, uneducated and superstitious, the religious argument will always prevail. Hope is a precious commodity when your life is miserable.
The funny thing is that most practicing Christians would nod their heads in agreement whenever somone points out that, “If it’s to good to be true. . .” They don’t even see the irony.
As I see it, people need to learn to be more discriminating consumers of hope. It really is just like any other product in many senses. If Pat Robertson were to announce that he had developed a car that got 400 mpg, and produced 500hp and 500lbs/ft of torque, and that his ministry would be selling them for 5,000 dollars US, I’m sure that (although many would try to buy them) some of his core audience would be skeptical. Such a car, they would realize, is just too good to be true.
But how does one awaken the believer’s inner skeptic with regards to their religious beliefs? The best that I have is to locate a conflict between someone’s faith, and something that they believe in (preferably something that is essential to their livelyhood), and use that as a starting point for inspiring cognitive dissonance.
Maybe it’s the hope of political power they are selling.
I hear what you say about not taking away hope from the poor and underpriviliged. I wonder about this often, especially as I see the beneficial social effects of organised religion on rural african society. If you travel in rural South Africa on a Sunday, you see hundreds of people, dressed in fine, brightly-colored clothing, walking to church for a big social gathering. The air carries a tangible sense of community, a sense of pride.
Sometimes I think how mean-spiritied it would be to get out of my car and tell these people that it’s all a load of bullshi.t and that their god is not real. Maybe they know that already, but they enjoy the social spectacle and tolerate the western religious nonsense in order to rebuild a society that has been torn apart by other western ideas (like racism).
In any case, I’d look pretty crazy. A white guy standing out in the African bush, shouting at people not to believe in false gods and to search instead for their will to power. They have seen it all before: different white man, different god, but just as useless to them.