OK, Fairy Tale Religion. You've had your chance. In fact, you've had hundreds of chances, and you've blown every one. Isn't it high time we give grown-up faith an opportunity?
Harold Camping made millions with his claim to have derived the date of the Rapture from the Bible. He was wrong the first time (1994), and he was wrong the second time (just this last weekend). So were all the other Christian doomsday prognosticators, going all the way back to the original: Jesus Christ.
How is it that people who claim to believe every word of the Bible literally blow right past these passages?
"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God." (Mark 9:1)
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)
In case those aren't clear enough, Paul goes on to confirm that the Second Coming is, well, coming any day. And to prove that he isn't speaking metaphorically, he advises singles to stay unmarried, cause after all, with the Kingdom of God at hand, what's the point?
This is what in science is known as a failed hypothesis. The prediction has been made and tested, and it has repeatedly failed. But of course that doesn't mean that apocalypse won't happen. In fact, there are good reasons to think that, in a purely secular sense, it will -- unless humanity can outgrow its dependence on fairy-tale beliefs.
Here's the problem, in a nutshell: too many people in this world believe one of the two following propositions:
a) The world operates according to the whims of a puppetmaster who pulls the strings, runs the special effects and changes the script in response to prayers.
b) Unless we cling to (a) despite the overwhelming evidence against it, everyone will become an atheist, society will collapse and chaos will follow.
Both (a) and (b) are demonstrably false, and what's more, believing either (a) or (b) actually puts us all in danger of seeing the collapse of civilization. Why? Because magical theism, to give it a more polite name than "fairy tale beliefs," relieves people of the responsibility for our world while simultaneously putting them into irresolvable conflict with others who hold different beliefs.
To take but one specific instance, people who cling to magical theism on average have more children -- far more children -- than others, despite the clear indications that the world's human population is red-lining. They feel no responsibility to limit their family size, because their magical theism tells them that God's got it all under control and wants them to have as many children as possible.
The idea that the world is run by a puppetmaster in the sky must have seemed plausible to the authors of the Bible. Even then, however, there were some people who perceived that the world operates according to discoverable laws and chance.
Today, it takes an act of willful ignorance to believe that tornadoes, earthquakes, diseases or plane crashes happen according to some moral pattern, or that prayer makes a difference in their course.
But you don't just have to rely on science to debunk magical theism. You can reason your way to the same conclusion. If the world were governed by an all powerful, all-good, hands-on God who sets up certain moral tests for people to pass, then it stands to reason that He would play fair. At the very least, you could expect that everyone would have access to the same information directly from the source.
The historical reality is very different. Whatever scriptural tradition you regard as authentic, the revelation always comes to few or one and then slowly radiates out to others, evolving as it spreads and leaving millions misinformed or entirely in the dark. That makes no sense. The teens who at first believed Camping and then jumped off a bridge to celebrate when he was wrong are a tragic example. Why didn't God just inform them directly in the first place?
On the other hand, if the world were ruled by a trickster God who cares nothing about being fair, then you'd have no way of knowing if you can trust the rules. Maybe the real test is to see if you defy the rules. The whole idea of arbitrary morality (implicit in the authoritarian view of God) collapses in self-contradiction.
What we're left with is a world that clearly operates according to natural law and chance. Does that entail atheism? Hardly. Atheism is a legitimate worldview, one that can underpin a morally progressive civilization. But adopting a realistic outlook does not force one to be an atheist.
There is plenty of scope for "good faith" in such a world. Indeed, there are plenty of religious people the world who accept naturalism as the explanation for how things work in this world, and yet hold onto belief that the Universe had a Creator with hopes for humanity.
People of good faith -- whether atheist, agnostic or religious -- can make common cause against apocalypse. Regardless of our view of ultimate reality, we can accept the world as science finds it and take responsibility for stewarding it. We can live as grown-ups. We can let go of fairy tales once and for all.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Desiring the End of the World
May 21, 2011 Judgment Day! Tract - eBible Fellowship
May 21 Doomsday Pictures: 11 End-of-the-World Predictions
May 21 'Judgment Day' Believers React To Being Alive On May 22
A sentiment scary enough coming from the general public, truly frightening when espoused by persons of influence and power. From climate change and evolution denial to disregard of the consequences of depleting finite resources, as well as the population issue and more, this fantasy only magnifies our difficulties.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth/ with David Attenborough
God is no authoritarian either for if he was (every time we made a mistake) he would be there to chastise us every time we put our foot wrong. He isn’t, so it disproves the authoritarian bit.
I believed nothing of what Mr. Camping said because what he “prophesied” was not biblical. Just because Camping quoted the bible and pulled verses to suit his ideas does not make him the standard for all Christians.
Mark 9:1 and Matthew 16:28 were addressed to Jesus’ disciples and no other persons so they are misapplied here
Every relationship has guidelines. God is the Lawgiver for all life and wants everyone to benefit from these laws. He does not set them up as an obstacle course that will end in failure.
It is unlikely that people with “true” faith will ever regard God as inconsequential to the survival of life. Perhaps people with “good” faith will.
Thanks,
Clay
You've yet to show that "a)" is false. You can't, can you? Didn't think so. Stop confusing people by graying the lines between science and philosophy.
At least you admit there is faith in atheism. What absolutely blows me away is that someone would give enough credence to the idea of a God to say that there isn't one. Should a real atheist even care enough to entertain the idea, much less be vocal about it?
"Should a real atheist even care enough to entertain the idea, much less be vocal about it?"
Because there are a lot of other people in the world who aren't atheists and honestly believe these ideas and what they believe matters. It matters to those of us who care what's demonstrably true and god has not been shown to exist. It matter because of people giving away their life savings for the rapture, 9/11, bans on same-sex marriage, 1st Amendment violations, and more. From this perspective, why wouldn't atheists be vocal?
I think by this you mean the lines between science and BS. Really, all philosophy can do is speculation and illustrating the relationships between premises and structures of arguments. In order to "proof" god exists, you not only need philosophical arguments but basic premises for those arguments. Unfortunately, "god exists" is a claim about reality and reality doesn't come with axioms like mathematics and predicate logic do. The basic facts must come from something like evidence. Also reality is a strange place, whether bizarre things like quantum mechanics and general relativity are true. So you can't rely on mere intuition for those premises and mere arguments, you actually have to double check your conclusions via evidence too, as you could make a brilliant argument with intuitive premises and correct logic for something that evidence shows to be true despite being counter intuitive. Unfortunately, the typical philosophical arguments are nothing more than the armchair philosophy where one proposes intuitively correct but realistically questionable premises and then deduces from that god's existence. This proves nothing, it just rationalizes belief. It's just BS. So really, I don't get what you mean by "philosophy" here, as you are talking about a subject in which philosophy alone is honestly impotent, unless you do something like argue for ignosticism, that the god concept itself is logically flawed and thus in some sense meaningless.
I disagree with the quote avove.
I think Atheism does more to promote a morally PROGRESSIVE civilization than any religion. And by adopting a full and truly realistic outlook based on factual evidence one, indeed, DOES have have to be an atheist.