Invisible Unicorns
The BBC are today reporting on an atheist camp - an alternative to the Christian Camps that happen throughout summer:
"For the "centrepiece" of its scientific approach to religion the camp asks its participants to search for two invisible unicorns. The unicorns cannot be seen or heard, tasted, smelt or touched, they cannot escape from the camp and they eat nothing. The only proof of their existence is contained in an ancient book handed down over "countless generations". A prize - a £10 note signed by Professor Richard Dawkins - is offered to any child who can disprove the existence of the unicorns."
This is of course indoctrinatioin of the highest order - the very thing that atheists like Dawkins complains about. It is implying that the only proof of God's existence is an ancient Bible - of course this is not the case. I have never seen any person change their lives around from violent robber/drug addict/theif/ to servant simply because they have 'discovered' there is no God. I have seen many a person do so because they have discovered redemption in Jesus Christ.
Comments
It is easy to say someone accepting God into their lives changed their life: but there are ample sociological and psychological reasons why people’s lives change. There are considerable benefits to giving up vicious habits and addictions: the rewards are enough to encourage someone to persevere, no matter what ‘God’ they invoked. Visit a mosque and you’ll find many people there will tell you turning to Allah saved them from alcoholism or drugs or violence etc.; and the same can be said for people in a Hindu Temple or Hare Krishnas or Scientologist or Wicca. It is not enough to say ‘Jesus’ turned someone’s life around – many will claim their god changed their lives. It is very difficult to find hard scientific evidence for the working of God.
Is the Atheist Camp indoctrination? Yes and no – the fact they are saying there may be two unicorns running around in a wood allows people to believe what they want to believe. The fact you feel uncomfortable about it says a lot about you.
A child recently asked me what happens to you when you die. I told the child ‘You’re put in a hole in the ground and rot.’ Is that indoctrination? Dig up a corpse and show me otherwise.
lol
Why then do we hear about a 'theory' of evolution as opposed to a a 'fact' of evolution?
“a philosophical system elaborated from the 1830s by the French thinker Auguste Comte (1798-1857), recognizing only observable phenomena and empirically verifiable scientific facts and laws, and rejecting inquiry into ultimate causes or origins as belonging to outmoded metaphysical or theological stages of thought; a humanistic religion based on this system...”
My assertion, oh reactive one, is that Dawkins himself is constrained by his own credo and the limitations of the paradigm he has chosen to work within. The only difference is that he can prove much of what he says WITHIN the parameters he has set. Christians are not able to do this – hence my reference to Hebrews 11. That is why I note that Dawkins is not keen on postmodernism (tho’ many who use this term fail to understand its meaning). Dawkins may bore us with his harping on about evolution though it is the only theory which explains the world we live in – the Genesis stories can’t be proved (from a scientific point of view).
This is beside the point really – Dawkin’s paradigm for viewing the world is positivism – all I am saying is that positivism by its nature - and here I am talking about science as a whole and not just evolution (something I never mentioned and again I am forced to wonder why you have immediately raised this sensitive subject) science can often prove its theories – religion cannot. Indeed, taking what I have already written, perhaps you would like to explain why the evidence you cite of Jesus changing people’s lives can also be replicated in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology etc. Surely if there is but one true religion then only that one religion can change lives, unless religion itself is a social force driven by sociological, psychological and historical factors: the creed is incidental, it is phenomenon of religious belief that it is able to change lives, rather than the actual focus of that belief?
Gosh, I try to inject a little bit of balance in the comments of this blog and get branded an evolutionist in that ‘Na-na-na-na-na’ school playground way that says more about you than it does about me. Somebody is really rather defensive aren’t they? My own experience of Wilson Carlile College graduates is that they at least are grounded in some basics of reasonable intellectual debate (though obviously many of the students plump for Church Army because they can’t make the academic grade for ordination and I suppose that speaks volumes). From your response I get the feeling you often feel threatened or vulnerable when someone raises a reasonable point (and if you read what I have written carefully you’ll see I am partly agreeing with what you have written!!); alas this says more about you than the point you are raising. If you are right, then what have you got to worry about? The truth of your religion will be self-evident...
P.S. I did say Dawkins can prove MANY of his assertions - not ALL of them - gosh you're a touchy soul aren't you - anyone would almost think YOU were getting doubts...
In other words, "QoI" is ignorant about scientific nomenclature. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but I know I prefer not to attempt to talk sagely about things I'm ignorant about.
Please research these definitions. If you'd like, I can provide links.
A theory does not become a fact; theories explain facts.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Fact: allele frequencies change in breeding populations.
Theory: allele frequencies change in breeding populations due to genetic drift, natural selection, and random (within a deterministic framework) mutations.
And please do me a favor and look up the definition of "law", within the context of scientific discourse, if you plan on using that word also.
(For the record, theories do not become laws, either.)
Thank you.