Skepticism, Religion Archive

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Homosexuality & The Old Testament

On my main site, I've written twice before about people trying to use the Bible as a justification to ban gay marriage. I just came across a supposed open letter that covers it much more humorously than I ever could. The letter is addressed to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, in response to some statements she made on her radio program. To help make it easier to check the Biblical passages, I've made them links to the appropriate chapter in the New Internation Version.

(Apparently, I've been living in a cave. When I looked this up on Snopes to try to figure out who was the original author so I could either link to them or credit them, I found that this letter's been circulating since at least 2000. But whether or not this letter is real or was ever sent, the content is still good.)

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination…End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
unknown

Friday, December 8, 2006

Countering Some Creationist Arguments

I recently had an e-mail correspondence with a creationist, whch I mentioned in my latest update, which led me to post parts of it as a new essay on my main site, Confidence in Historical Knowledge. There were other parts of that e-mail correspondence that I thought were pretty good, but a little more controversial than my normal fare for my main site, and a little bit off topic from the rest of that essay, so I decided to post them here on my blog, with a few changes from the original e-mail.

One issue that's common is to conflate multiple topics, which really aren't all that related, such as the big bang and evolution of life. This is especially common among people who reject the science on religious grounds, since religious creation stories commonly account for the creation of the universe and everything in it (and since I live in the predominately Christian U.S., this usually means people looking at the creation story of Genesis). But these really are separate concepts in science. Look at it this way - the big bang occured somewhere around 14 billion years ago. Our species has been around for around 100,000 to 200,000 years. To put that in perspective (using the 200,000 year figure), humans have been around for 1.43e-5 the time since the big bang. (Note that I'm referring to when the big bang occurred, and not calling it the beginning of the universe. Big bang theory describes what happened after that moment, not how everything got there in the first place. Who knows, the universe could be thousands of times older than the time since the big bang, existing in some state that we don't know about.) The United States is 200 years old, so the U.S. has been around for 1e-3 the time of humans. In other words, the origin of humanity and the big bang are so far removed, that trying to equate the two is even worse (by 2 orders of magnitude) than trying to equate the origin of the U.S. with the origin of humanity. They should be treated as separate events.

Another point I want to address is directed at the Christians who reject science about the past because it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible. I've even received an e-mail in response to other essays I've posted on my website, stating, "There is only one historical account of origins events and that is the Bible which claims that the only eye-witness to the events is God."

I will address this in two ways. First, the Bible is not the only proposed historical account of origins. Most religions have their own explanations. Just look at the appropriate Wikipedia page - there are dozens just on there.

The second thing I want to say on this, is even if you accept the Bible as being true, it is only one source of evidence, and still open to interpretation. The most famous example of this is Copernican astronomy, and in particular the conflict between the Catholic church and Galileo. Based on their observations, scientists put the sun at the center of the universe, and said that the earth orbitted it. The church, using numerous Biblical passages as support, said that the Earth was the center of the universe. (Neither party was right, but science was on its way to getting at the right answer, and was at least more accurate than the church.) Nearly all Christians today would say that the Catholic church was wrong, and were misinterpreting the Bible. That may be the case, but it shows the problem in relying on only one source of evidence.

As two other examples, look to the germ theory of disease, and slavery in the American south. The germ theory of disease - that disease are caused by infectious agents, was initially rejected by many, on the grounds that diseases were punishments sent by God, and of course they could find the passages to back up that claim. (See this post from The Panda's Thumb.)

During and prior to the U.S. Civil War, many southerners used the Bible as a justification for slavery. I won't say much on this, other than to direct readers to this page at ReligiousTolerance.org, which quotes several prominent figures from that era, and has further links to the relevant scripture passages.

I bring up these examples not to show that the Bible is definitely wrong, but to show that people's interpretations of the Bible can be wrong. So, even if you do consider the Bible to be accurate, should you reject scientific theories based on your interpretation of the Bible, or should you incorporate scientific knowledge, to aid you in your interpretation of the Bible? What if Genesis was meant to be read allegorically, or figuratively?

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

Creationist Museum

Man, this is just depressing - a $25 million creationist museum being built in Kentucky. I know America still has a lot of creationists, and most of them are sincerely trying to do what they think is best, but still - $21 million dollars was donated to build a museum dedicated to ignorance, to ignoring actual scientific evidence in favor of accepting a story created thousands of years ago by a bronze age tribe. There were even two donors that gave a million a piece. What a waste. I know $21 million is just a drop in the bucket compared to the global economny, but just imagine what could have been done if this money had instead been donated to worth while causes - funding medical research, buying food or medicine for poor regions or building infrastructure in those regions, or even giving it to real museums, or countless other causes. Instead, $25 million has been wasted on building an institution dedicated to perpetuating ignorance.

I can't help but comment on the closing quote from the article, where John Morris states, "Americans just aren’t gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish." Of course not. They're just gullible enough to believe the tripe you're telling them.

Oh well, on the other hand, it cost $155 million just to make the movie, Alexander, and that money certainly could have been put to better use, too.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Stem Cell Veto

Okay, I'm a day and a half late in writing about this on my blog, but I still want to comment on it (You can read a few of my initial reactions in the comments over at TerrapinTables). It just really, really pisses me off that Bush has vetoed this law.

Here's the analogy I thought of to explain it. Imagine you see somebody fall into a flooded river (to really pull at your heart strings, you can imagine it's your own child). This river's pulling them away pretty fast. There's a guy on a bridge down stream with a rope. Now, if he throws the rope, there's no guarantee that the person in the river will be able to get it and hold on. And, there's always the possibility that the person may get rescued by someone else. But what would you think if the person on the bridge decided to not throw the rope at all?

That's basically what Bush just did. Embryonic Stem (Es) cells are not a guaranteed cure, and there are other lines of research that may lead to treatments for some of the diseases that currently look like they may be treated by ES cells, but why would somebody decide to maintain a ban on such a promising avenue of research?

And this isn't just some hypothetical, intellectual excercise. There are millions of people suffering from diseases and conditions for which ES cells might lead to a viable treatment. How many of them are going to die or suffer needlessly, because he vetoed this bill. If Bush went around randomly killing a person every day for the rest of his time in office, we'd call him a murderer. But if he vetoes a bill that in the end will lead to even more people's deaths because of lack of treatments, we call it politics.

Finally, this whole thing is asinine, because the bill proposed using embryos that were slated for destruction, already. These embryos are going to be flushed down the toilet, whether or not this bill was passed. Why not use them for research before that happens? What a f-in' waste.

Tuesday, April 4, 2006

Probability Disproves Evolution, or Bees Can't Fly

Other people have coverred the probability arguments against evolution, already, but I'd like to cover it from the viewpoint of an aerospace engineer. Specifically, while reading this essay, I read the line, "The numbers just don’t match up — the universe would have to be much, much older than it is for random mutations to have produced that variety of life that we see on earth," with a link to this article.

I compare these types of arguments to the one that says bees can't fly. Most people have probably heard this before, but to explain it to those that haven't, if you take standard aerodynamic theory and do a rough back of the envelope calculation applying it to a bee, you could come up with the conclusion that bee's can't fly. For the size of their wings, and the speed that they move them at, the theory predicts a lift that would actually be less than the weight of the bee.

I'll be honest, I've never actually gone through this calculation. What's the point, when you know that bees can fly, and I'm not really concerned with designing bees, anyway. But supposing I did go through with the calculation and it did predict that bees couldn't fly, would it then make sense to say that, indeed, bees can't fly? Of course not. Observation tells us that bees fly - the error would be somewhere in my theory or calculations (applying steady state, high Reynolds number aerodynamics to a non-steady state, low Reynolds number application, for those interested), but that's exactly what these probability arguments are. Evolution has occured. There's enough evidence that it's not really a question. If you have a theory that says that evolution couldn't have occurred, either you've made a mistake in your calculations or assumptions, there's a problem with your theory, or perhaps, bees can't really fly, after all.

Archives

Selling Out