Atheism Declared Primary Religion in America
Atheism is the established religion in this country. Any mention of "God" is removed from the public domain. We cannot even legally say the pledge of allegiance anymore because the word "God" is in it. Is this just separation of Church and State? No... it is not. Atheism, is a religion in itself. Their stance on the origin of man proves this. A majority of Christians believe in intelligent design by God. A majority of atheists believe that we were brought to this earth by a complex evolution process. They both lead to an unanswerable question. For Christians, it is "Where did God come from?" For atheists it is, "Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?" By definition, a religion is "personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, or attitudes" (Encarta.com). They both fall under this category.
The constitution says we are entitled to freedom of religion. How is the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance, the phrase "Christmas Break," the phrase "Easter Break," going to prevent anyone from freedom of religion? Pushing atheism into the lives of the children of our country is not acceptable. If we are going to push athiesm, we should at least present other points of view to prevent any one religion from gain precidence. If we live in a country with religious tolerance and awareness, the freedom can be maintained. Our forefathers did not intend for absence of religion. They intended for there not to be "The Church of the United States."
It is time do as our founding fathers intended. We must maintain freedom of religion. The only way to do this is to give all religions their respect, not to suppress them. We cannot let any one point of view take precidence. If we are to truly follow the founding fathers' intentions, we must remove atheism as our country’s established religion.
To address a common thread in all of the comments I have been receiving. I consider evolution a religion because it is not proven. It is still very theoretical. Scientists have yet to directly link man to ape. Have they found similarities, yes. However, they have not found any direct links between the two.
Why should a religious person who is a believer in intelligent design have the views of the evolutionists shoved down their throat? I understand that the focus of a biology class would be on evolution. However, why can't the ideas of intelligent design or other means of origination at least be mentioned as possibilities? For years the believers of intelligent design have listened to the theory of evolution in the classroom even though they do not believe in. Why can't the evolutionists listen to the other side? This would at least make the classroom more comfortable for the students who believe those theories.
This has turned into a debate over evolution versus intelligent design. The main point has been missed. What I am trying to say is that America's secular society is taking over. It is important that there is freedom of religion, not suppression of it. Things like the recent lawsuits over the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance are ridiculous. This needs to stop. Religious tolerance needs to replace the current absence of religion (Atheism).
Comments
Posted by: Grayden MacLennan
Posted on: October 11, 2005 12:07 PM
You seem to be making several assertions that may not pan out in practice. There is a not a 1:1 correlation between being a Christian and being a believer in Intelligent Design. As you know, there are many branches of Christianity and not all of them hold exactly the same beliefs. At one extreme, there are those who interpret the Bible strictly and take every word as the undeniable truth, and at the other end there are those who interpret the Bible as a lesson book for how to live as a good person. There is an entire spectrum of faith ranging from one end to the other, and yet the believers at any level are still Christians. In practice, it is best not to make absolute assertions about broad classes of people. Someone can be a Christian AND agree with the notion of evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
I disagree with the interpretation that a belief in evolution constitutes the basis for a religion. A belief in evolution is not based on faith - you can go dig up fossils yourself and test the hypothesis. Anyone is welcome and in fact encouraged to find either supporting or contradictory evidence. Evolution is a an academid theory, not a faith. A theory is just a predictive model that holds true under repeated testing and best explains the observations. While faith will hold an idea to be true and say it is responsible for the world as we see it, a theory will hold a world to be true and say it is responsible for the idea as we understand it.
Whereas religious beliefs tend to be rather static and inflexible, theories can change as new evidence is gathered. At one point in history, Newton's laws of motion were the accepted theory of how force and mass were related. Repeated hypothesis testing showed them to be true. However, as technology advanced, it became clear that there were some flaws in the model. Certain observations didn't correspond with what was predicted in the theory's model. Eventually the science world developed general and special relativity, which was able to expand Newton's model and explain more of the observations and make predictive assertions that were testable. However, the science world is still finding problems even with relativity. Even more recent studies have yielded theories that explain even more of the discrepancies. In any case, this long rambling paragraph really does have a point - science can and does correct itself when it is shown to be wrong.
To the best of science's current knowledge, the theory of evolution is still the best model to explain the state of life as we now observe it. How life and the universe began is still unknown, but the pursuit of knowledge is still continuing.
Several of the Founding Fathers of the country were reputed to be Deists. Deism has many definitions, but a common one is the belief in a divine creator who created the world/universe and has since stepped away and no longer interacts but only observes. Could it be possible to believe in both divine creation and evolution at the same time? Sure! Maybe God created the Big Bang and then everything since then has been the result of natural processes such as gravitation, chemical reactions, and evolution. How would you define someone who holds that belief?
Well in any case, I guess the message I would like to get across is that the rejection of religion from government does not itself constitute the establishment of a new religion. I find that the supporting evidence for this argument is insufficient.
Response by Chad:
The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with a particular Christian belief. I used those two examples not as stereotypes. It may make more sense to you to view this as one Christian and one evolutionist, two possible views The story of Adam and Eve has scientific proof until you get to the faith part as well as evolution. Evolution is explained with fossil records until you get to the part about where everything came from. The story of Adam and Eve has some scientific evidence in a sense that all humans can be traced back to one couple of humans.
Both evolution and intelligent design require faith. Both come to a point where you cannot explain it further. I am not saying that we should only look at intelligent design and evolution. We should be open to all ideas of the origin of man. Perhaps the opening lecture in biology could consist of a forum with the students on their beliefs. Our founding fathers intended there to separation between church and state.
By embracing atheism, this establishes a government religion. Someone who is an Atheist gets no views pressed upon them while a Christian who believes in the stories of creation in the Bible gets told that their theory on creation is wrong. The teaching of only evolution is not as our founding fathers intended. It is not separation of church and state no matter which way you look at it. The only thing that it is, is the separation of the Christian church and state.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: October 11, 2005 02:04 PM
As a Christian who accepts the theory of natural selection, and whose views concerning various social issues might be considered 'liberal', I am deeply offended that you claim to speak for all Christians. Please be more careful not to assume you know the beliefs of others.
Also, although I am obviously not an atheist, I respect those who make an informed choice not to follow any religion, just as I do those who follow a non-Christian religion. While it is the duty of a Christian to show others the way of Christ, it is not the right of a Christian to attempt to force his or her beliefs on others.
Response by Chad:
Again, I think you are missing the point. I am not lumping all christians into one group. I am just using these two as examples. There are obviously people who fall into MANY other categories. I think that people in those many other categories should be able to speak their beliefs as well. I don't think that the theory of evolution should be forced down the throat of the children in our country.
Posted by: cool
Posted on: October 11, 2005 03:11 PM
Chad,
I highly recommend reading Mano Singham's blog. He's written a number of entries on these topics. In particular—regarding how we handle separation of church and state—you may be interested in this one:
http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2005/09/26/justice_as_fairness_and_limits_to_religion
I think we can all agree that separation of church and state is a good thing in that it is the best solution we've come up with so far to ensure that you can practice Christianity, others can practice Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc., while others practice nothing at all.
I think all theories on our origins are fascinating. The literature of all cultures is chock full of creation stories that add value to our understanding of life and society even when they do not represent our own beliefs.
I'd like you to consider however that a belief in evolution is empirically based rather than faith based, and that the word "belief" can be construed differently in these different contexts. You are correct too that evolution does not provide all of the answers. While we use science to explore and understand the world around us, we are constantly learning more. Just as we are further ahead now than we were in the days of Copernicus, in another 500 years we'll be astounded at how much more we understand.
And while as humans I think it behooves us to explore all thoughts and paths to understanding on a cultural level, I think we should in our classes focus on the topic at hand. In our science classes we should teach the scientifically tested and accepted theories, while in our religion and philosophy classes we can explore the other paths.
Response by Chad:
You have left a very intelligent post. I understand your points. However, I feel the teaching of evolution in the class room does make people with other beliefs uncomfortable. I think that a first day discussion about what everyone else's beliefs are would be enough so that the children realize that it's ok to believe something other than evolution. There is scientific proof showing that we all go back to two people. One could argue there is scientific proof for both theories then. Scientists have yet to find the link between man and ape. It is just as theoretical as creationism.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: October 11, 2005 04:24 PM
Like 'cool', I do not believe that 'theories' such as Intelligent Design should be taught in a science class. (Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design should be taught as representing Christian beliefs in a course on religion. Some Christians do not subscribe to it, and others believe it to be contrary to traditional Christian theology.) The issue of creationism versus natural selection is an interesting one, and worthy of discussion, but it's barely relevant to your original point about an atheist government. If you wish to start another discussion about the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design, I would be happy to defend my ideas in it.
Regarding your original point, I think you are confusing the idea of an atheist government with a secular one. I agree with you that a government which forces non-belief in religion would be a bad thing. On the other hand, a secular government such as ours is, as 'cool' says, the best way to ensure a religiously tolerant society. Unlike an atheist government, a secular one allows both government officials and citizens to practice a religion of their choice if they wish to do so, while preventing government officials from using their power to force their religious beliefs on citizens.
Posted by: Gregory Szorc
Posted on: October 11, 2005 09:11 PM
Evolution isn't part of a religion, it is part of science. Science can be proved; faith cannot. Using your rationalizations, one could argue that welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare are forcing religious values upon citizens because they are in accordance with human values taught in the Bible.
How are we supposed to give equal time to all religions? How do you establish which religions get time? In order to do so, you have to form a committee. This committee will inevitably favor some religions over others. Why? Because members of that committee have beliefs. And what if this committee is part of the government? Then we have the government advancing the teaching of one religion over the other. That is definitely not separation of church and sate.
Equal time for religions is a bad idea. What's next, requirements for employers to hire in accordance with racial percentages? Oh, wait, that's affirmative action, something most conservatives oppose.
If you are going to call this blog a College Conservative Movement, please blog about topics widely endorsed by conservatives, such as economic policy. Please refrain from mixing your religiously conservative values into a politcal ideology.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: October 11, 2005 09:43 PM
Greg, your statement that "Science can be proved" is simplifying things quite a bit. You may wish to read something about the philosophy of science (even a couple of relevant Wikipedia articles will do) and then revisit that statement.
Chad, if you want to discuss your objections to the theory of natural selection further, I also recommend reading some background information on the philosophy of science. Your arguments will be stronger if you are well-informed about the opposing viewpoint. Come back with your questions about or objections to the various arguments you encounter.
Also, I agree with Greg that you should be more careful in distinguishing between the beliefs of political conservatives, the beliefs of Christians in general, the beliefs of religiously conservative Christians (which is a distinct group from Christians who are politically conservative, though there is some overlap), and your own personal beliefs.
For those interested in learning about the philosophy of science, here are some
points/topics I consider important:
- definition of 'theory'
- falsifiability and Popper's criterion
- Occam's razor
- testability of predictions
Please don't think I am attempting a stalling tactic by referring you to other sources. I simply would rather not spend my own time repeating information that is available elsewhere, and written more eloquently than I could manage.
Posted by: Trish
Posted on: October 12, 2005 08:50 AM
On a different note, I think that if people don't like certain words in the Pledge of Allegiance, they should simply omit the offending words, or not say the pledge at all, and that others should respect their choice.
That being said, I once knew a person who objected to the pledge and she happened to be a Christian minister. She felt that her only allegiance was to God and to pledge allegiance to a flag was a form of paganism.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: October 12, 2005 11:05 AM
I think Trish has a good point about the Pledge of Allegiance. Religious tolerance like that would go a long way.
Posted by: Terry, web designer
Posted on: October 26, 2005 07:58 PM
I'm a Christian and I think that in some time scientist will prove the existence of God. Some centuries ago people didn't believe that the Earth goes round the Sun, now it's a natural thing. I think it's the same thing with religion.
Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: October 31, 2005 09:49 AM
I was just wondering what scientific proof there is supporting that we are all descended from 2 people? Did it appear in a peer reviewed journal? I was just curious because that is news to me, so I was wondering where this evidence is?
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: October 31, 2005 10:07 AM
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/
There's a link to be a copy of it. It was published in an established journal. The concept is known as Mitochondrial Eve. This concept backs up the various stories of intelligent design.
Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: October 31, 2005 10:42 AM
First, the entire basis of that article is evolution. So even if your interpertation were correct (that everyone descended from Adam and Eve), it used evolution to prove it, which some find problematic, erego, there is no evidence?
Second, I think you are misreading that article. No where in the article does it say that Adam and Eve were the only people living at the time.
For a clarification of that article you can look here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199
Earlier you made an interesting point regarding biology students discussing there views. Ironically I have seen a class like that. The professor asked if anyone in the class didn't believe in evolution. One student raised his hand. The professor asked why, and the student said it was against his religious beliefs. The student asked if he shouldn't be in that class, to which the professor responded, you shouldn't be in any science class.
While the prof may not have been sensitive, saying you don't believe in evolution while trying to be a 'scientist' is at a minimum problematic and to an extreme impossible. If you believe in the scientific method, one cannot simply dismiss evolution.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: October 31, 2005 10:55 AM
This is just an example article of this theory, it was the first I found in google. While it does not prove that we came from one man and one woman, it does show that it is a distinct possibility. Many other articles on the same topic make the connection with intelligent design and this concept.
It does mention evolution. However, many creationists do believe in evolution after creation. That is a very real thing. I myself believe that evolution has occurred after creation.
I think that your insensitive professor is proof that something needs to be done to make the classroom a less religious hostile environment. You have to take biology in high school. That is not a choice. That means that if you are a creationist, according to that professor, you should not be in that class. That can change. An environment of tolerance of other ideas needs to be created. I am not suggesting we replace evolution with intelligent design. I am suggesting that they discuss the two theories and their overlap. The fact that evolution and intelligent design can coexist should be discussed.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: October 31, 2005 11:38 AM
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a religious one. It lacks many of the qualities which are necessary conditions for a scientific theory, including falsifiability and predictive power. To teach or even mention intelligent design in a science classroom is to implicitly suggest that it is a valid scientific theory, which is a gross misrepresentation.
This is not to say that students should not be exposed to creationist ideas.
As was mentioned in another comment above, it is not the right of the individual to be shielded from ideas which challenge their own.
Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: November 1, 2005 02:50 PM
From Popular Science
10 Worst jobs in science
#3. Kansas Biology Teacher
On the front lines of science's devolution
"The evolution debate is consuming almost everything we do," says Brad Williamson, a 30-year science veteran at suburban Olathe East High School and a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "It's politicized the classroom. Parents will say their child can't be in class during any discussion of evolution, and students will say things like 'My grandfather wasn't a monkey!'"
First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November. This year Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.
At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world—the human eye, say—are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science. That's because underpinning ID is religious belief. In science class, Williamson says, "students have to trust that I'm just dealing with science."
Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 1, 2005 03:15 PM
I am not proposing we abandon evolution. I am proposing that we deal with both theories. If you teach both... everyone can reject or accept either theory based on their personal beliefs (freedom of religion).
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 1, 2005 03:18 PM
Scientific method, ok... time to start the new experiment where we stare at mars until life happens. When that proves your beliefs... let me know.
Posted by: Grayden MacLennan
Posted on: November 1, 2005 04:13 PM
Chad - I'm not sure if it was your intent to sound flippant with this remark, but I'm sure you're getting a bit stressed out from having your ideas attacked on such a regular basis and lashing out is a fairly natural response under stress. I've written about 10 replies to this thread but deleted all of them before posting them because they ended up being mean-spirited, snippy, or otherwise unpleasant. It's better to try to be a bit coherent and civil. :-)
In any case, I would just like to point out that this kind of discussion is an ideal example of why it is so critical to keep religious notions out of school and government. Religion is FAR too personal of an issue to be forced into schools through legislation or any form of democratic process. If you want kids to learn about creationism and religious ideas, then by all means, please feel free to teach it in an appropriate environment such as Sunday School or at church. Majority rule should NEVER be used in association with any religious concept, because every single person with their own individual set of beliefs must be respected and acknowledged. The only way to be FAIR in deciding WHICH religious ideas get taught to the whole population is to decide that NO religious ideas should be taught to the whole population. If a parent believes strongly in educating his or her OWN CHILD in religious concepts then they can go to town with it at home or in church, but it's not fair to try to teach SOMEONE ELSE'S child those ideas if that child's parents are against it.
Perfect exclusion of religion may feel like discrimination, but it's the only way to be truly fair to everyone.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 1, 2005 07:05 PM
You made an excellent argument for my proposal. Evolution is too controversial to be exclusively taught. Leaving out our origin is out of the question, so the only solution is to present both sides of the issue to prevent causing an argument.
Posted by: Grayden MacLennan
Posted on: November 1, 2005 07:24 PM
You say "both sides" as though there are only two ideas proposed for our origins. What about the Raelian concept that we were colonized by aliens? Should that be taught to? Once you open the door to anything other than testable hypotheses and predictive models based on observations, where do you draw the line regarding what ideas are and aren't allowed to be taught to explain our origins? What makes the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory any less valid than the notion that God created us in His image? The FSM theory was created as pure satire, but it raises a valid point. What makes one person's faith more valid than another's faith? What about an origins theory based on the Star Wars saga or some other fiction? If someone REALLY believes they are a Jedi, then who are we to question their faith? Does that mean we have to teach kids about midichlorians and The Force too?
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: November 1, 2005 07:42 PM
Grayden: I'm sure the kids would be all for that. :)
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: November 1, 2005 08:15 PM
Chad: Creating a controversy over a topic and then arguing that the topic is too controversial to be treated in a certain way is a bit circular, don't you think?
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 1, 2005 11:00 PM
No, it's not. I am using the point you made to prove a point. You care just as strongly about your belief in evolution as I do my belief in intelligent design. That is why there is a controversy. How would you feel if only intelligent design was taught in school? You would be offended. I don't want anyone to get offended. With both represented, this would be possible.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: November 7, 2005 01:19 PM
To be honest, I don't think public schools are the best institutions to be teaching *anything*. But, in reference to your above comment, my problem is not so much with whether intelligent design or natural selection is taught in schools, but with the false representation of intelligent design as science.
Anyway, I am not the only one who has an opinion about intelligent design. Look here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 7, 2005 01:31 PM
Don't read into that. The vatican is saying that they believe that the intelligent design and evolution can coexist. That is a very true statement. Whether you call it a science or not... it is an explanation of human origin as is evolution. They should be discussed in the same class as they are both equally as embraced by students in public schools.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: November 7, 2005 10:03 PM
That they are "equally as embraced" does not mean they treat the same subjects (and should therefore be taught in the same classroom). The theory of natural selection is a scientific theory. Intelligent design is a religious belief (and apparently, according to some interpretations of the Vatican's statement, one that is incompatible with traditional Christian beliefs).
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 7, 2005 10:38 PM
According to the interpretation of the people who read what they want to read....
Well... the theory of evolution/big bang theory is just as much of a religion as intelligent design. So I guess we shouldn't teach evolution as the origin of man in the classroom either. Ok... question... as an evolution person... where did the initial matter come from? Most say "it was always there." There is no science that supports that. That is simply a faith that your beliefs on the origin are correct.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: November 8, 2005 12:49 AM
The Big Bang theory and the theory of natural selection are separate things. As far as I can tell, this debate is about whether intelligent design should be taught alongside the theory of natural selection, not about the Big Bang theory.
That said, there are currently several hypotheses about the nature and causes of the big bang. Scientists are currently working to find and analyze data (i.e. observations, models, etc.) which will substantiate or disprove certain theories. This will help them increase their knowledge about the Big Bang event.
The difference between science and religion is that scientists investigate and experiment to test and advance their theories. Proponents of religious 'theories' such as intelligent design generally do not. They have a single assertion, that there exists an intelligent designer, and they have some evidence which they claim supports this hypothesis. But they do not continue to look for additional evidence, and when evidence is presented to them which contradicts their assertion, they deny the evidence rather than modifying their theory to account for it. This is not science.
You must understand that science is not a collection of beliefs. It is a process for clarifying our understanding of the universe by making observations and collecting data. This evidence leads to the rejection of bad theories and the tentative acceptance of good theories which explain all of the available data.
Unfortunately, this is not the impression of science that most K-12 students receive. This is a failing of our current educational system that must be addressed. But introducing intelligent design into the science classroom will not solve the problem; it will only serve to confuse students more about the nature of scientific inquiry.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 8, 2005 06:00 AM
Perhaps this is why you have been so against my proposal. When I say evolution, I mean that the universe was created by some cosmic event and that the humans formed slowly from the rocks of the earth. When I say intelligent design, I mean a supreme being created the universe and/or the beings on this earth. Those beings have since undergone evolution, so the two theories do cross.
Posted by: Andrew Witte
Posted on: November 8, 2005 01:34 PM
When you say "those beings have since undergone evolution" you allude to this: 'Evolution' itself is not a scientific theory. It is not contested, it is a fact. 'Evolution' is the change in species over time. Evolution of species is routinely observed, especially in microorganisms and insects, but in other living organisms as well. What is contested by creationists and intelligent design advocates like the Discovery Institute is the scientific theory of natural selection, which posits that random mutations and 'survival of the fit' are responsible for the phenomenon we call evolution. This theory of natural selection is what was proposed by Darwin - the fact of evolution was observed before Darwin. Of course intelligent design must allow for evolution, since evolution of species is a readily observable fact that cannot be denied. If intelligent design advocates were to suggest that evolution - the change in species over time - never occurs, they would be quickly dismissed as obviously wrong.
I know that common scientific explanations of the origins of life and the universe make some people feel insecure about their importance, value, or 'specialness' as human beings. Other people feel that certain scientific theories must be wrong since those theories contradict their religious beliefs. People who feel this way can ignore science if they wish. They can propose alternative explanations if they wish. But they should not be allowed to call those explanations scientific theories or teach them as such, since they are not.
Finally, science does not require that there not be a God or other supreme being(s). It is perfectly permissible for a scientist to be religious. What is not allowed is the use of supernatural explanations in a scientific theory, since such a theory would not further scientific knowledge at all. Mano Singham explains this quite eloquently in his blog: http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2005/10/19/methodological_naturalism