posted by Sam Richards
I have no idea who this guy is. I guess he’s a former child actor who now works for God. As I have not watched TV in the past thirty years, he remains a mystery to me–even though he seems to be quite popular in our mainstream media outlets because I see his face a good deal on the Web.
That said, he says something here that leaves me a bit perplexed and I’d like some of you to respond. Listen to the clip and get back to me.
“When you learn how to skip to a person’s conscience and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution disappears.” Poof. It’s gone. Someone questions you about evolution? Just change the subject. Amazing what can happen when we stop thinking.
So tell me what you do when the complicated questions that you cannot immediately answer come at you in a fast and furious way, when your world view is called into question, or when you accidentally and inevitably step into that gray area that so many of us unsuccessfully try to avoid so much of the time. Do you just stop thinking like this guy says you can do in the case of evolution so that the conundrum disappears? Or do you stay in the ring and wrestle with the challenges that are difficult to pin down?
Here’s the issue as I see it. This short little video clip might be taken out of context, to be sure. However, it doesn’t really matter for what I’m asking because I see lots of people turning off their intellect when confronted with things they can’t explain. This includes believers of all sorts of ideas, including scientists and sociologists, and not simply religious folks.
And I know what you might say. You might remind me of what I said the other day in class with regard to religious beliefs–that fealty to God comes mainly from faith. But the problem is that faith is not separate from the intellect. Most people who have faith will give you very logical and rational reasons for why they have their faith. Sure, a great deal of many people’s faith is conditional and based on convenience. Perhaps it’s “I have faith that the Pope is speaking for God but I don’t want to get my girlfriend pregnant so I’m using condoms–even though the Pope/God says it’s a sinful act.” Pure convenience to avoid the inconvenience of having a baby to take care of while taking classes.
Or people posit “There are immutable laws that govern the universe (e.g., gravity) and thus no reason to postulate some otherworldly causality.” A convenient observation until you take the time to read theoretical physics and discover the many brilliant scientific minds that have been led to God when they discover that many of these laws are not as immutable as they previously thought. Pure convenience to avoid the inconvenience of having to read another book.
It’s all faith implicated with rational thought.
So the question is as follows: If we live our lives both “believing” and “thinking,” then when is it acceptable to stop doing the latter for the sake of the former? In other words, do we abandon ALL rational thought or just when thinking would force us to confront some ideas and observations that don’t immediately make sense or mesh with what we want to believe?
The message of the gentleman in the video is that some “truths” he has discovered just happen to accompany a particularly complicated mix of riddles (like evolution) and that it’s okay to “circumnavigate” them so you don’t have to deal with what you don’t want to risk understanding. I’m not so sure I agree.
Once again, it doesn’t matter if this has been pulled out of context because that’s a message I’ve heard all of my life from people who want to avoid thinking about something–like the pervasiveness of racism or where fossils came from or whether it really does lower the morale of the troops if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military.
By the way, those of you who are not disposed to faith persuasions don’t need to use this post as an opportunity to bash those who are. Rather, use it as an opportunity to rethink how you navigate the world of ideas.
I certainly agree that many people stop thinking when difficult topics arise and definitely for things they cannot explain. However, I feel that this occurs for many because for something that they feel very passionate about it is often hard to think with your head than your heart. For instance, this can be very true for people that are very passionate about their political parties. When they tend to hear contradictory information coming from their particular group, they are able to block out all forms of thought and intellect and rather than thinking with their heads they think with their hearts.
On the other hand, people also tend to this when difficult issues arise. The point about evolution that the man brings up in the video is a valid one. For people who do not believe in evolution, may change the subject because they do not want to explain their beliefs. However, in certain instances no one should have to explain one’s beliefs to someone else because everyone is free to think in whichever manner they choose. The same is also true when the subject of evolution arises for people who do believe in evolution. I do believe that evolution is more of an issue of faith than science for many. Thus, these people would tend to think more with their hears than heads.
When I am confronted with difficult situations I tend to be inclined to use more of my intellect in most instances. I feel that if I stop using my intellect in these types of situations that I would just end up making the situation even worse for myself. At time no one wants to listen to someone who has unsupported and irrational arguments. Also people do not tend to take you seriously when you think this way.
I certainly do not agree with the man in the video when he says it is ok to “circumnavigate” certain topics because you do not want to risk understanding them. I feel that this is being stubborn since one with this viewpoint is not willing to be open minded to other ways of thinking. I feel that I would not have a problem with someone who was willing to argue for their position even with their heart however, someone who avoids the topic all together is being very narrow minded. On the other hand, many people become uncomfortable when topics come up that they do not know much information about and are taking the opposing side. For instance someone who does not know why they do not believe in evolution and is defending the latter argument may not want to discuss evolution because he or she does not have any arguments. Thus, I feel that people should at least try to recognize the other side and take it into consideration.
[Reply]
The man in this video is Kirk Cameron, child star on Growing Pains. I’m glad his career went somewhere. I went to catholic school for six years. They eventually told me I couldn’t come back after the sixth grade. I guess I really wasn’t the religious type. They even made me cut my mullet off in the early nineties. I knew right then I wouldn’t make it. Anyway, from the time I was born my grandparents raised me catholic. They made me go to church every Sunday. I even had to be an altar boy until I was about twelve. I never really thought about the subject of creation, only listened and believed what the nuns had told me. Every day he created something new. Then as I grew older I heard all the garbage in the media about the teachers who had been arrested or sued for teaching the Big Bang Theory. This made me think about it more in depth. I’ve came to the conclusion that we will all know the answer one day, and by then we will be so busy catching up with old friends that we won’t even care. Like Sam says “Who cares we’re all going to die”. But everyone needs to believe something. So my theory is that God created the Big Bang Theory. God always was and always will be. I know I’m really straddling the fence but big deal. We don’t have time in life to wonder how we got here. If you spend your life trying to figure it out, it will be over before you know it. Believe what you feel is right and you will be rewarded eventually. Yes, this belief if purely based on convenience but if you live your life as a decent human being you will get where you want to go. What I mean by a decent human being is along the lines of putting God, country, family first. It also helps that I am catholic and I do have the ability to go to confession. I don’t use that as a crutch though. To end my journal I would like to point out that Kirk Cameron’s career ended with him playing a part in a movie based on the Left Behind series. These novels are written about the apocalypse and how the earth will end. It simply states that all the Christians in the world will disappear all at once and leave behind every non-believer. So Kirk Cameron coming out with this video is not a very big surprise to me. I would also like to say I am running out of ideas for this journal, so excuse me while I tell you A-Rod just hit the game tying home-run. Go Yankees!
[Reply]
My first reaction to the article, “Stop Thinking? Hmm…” was certainly that the guy making the comments was way out of line with his judgment. My whole life I was brought up as a “confirmed” Catholic; however, I have always had my doubts concerning many of the ideas instilled within the religion. My number one gripe with all things Christianity was certainly the idea surrounding creationism versus evolution. I have always been in full support of evolution because of the thought that nothing could have been placed on this earth in its perfect form without the backing of something leading up to it…until recently. One of my good friends and I were talking and he enlightened me on his thought that the human race is just too perfect to be true. In his defense he mentioned how there have been how many species that have roamed the earth in its six billion years of existence and until now there has only been one, only one single species, with the capabilities and strengths of the present human race, even including all of the previous species which the human race, homo sapiens, has been linked. He mentioned how he felt the coincidence with which there has been no other race, stemming from any other species, even if some of them have come close to our relation (including various species of primates) are still nowhere near our human sense of intelligence and creativity, also including our enhanced sense of sympathy and feeling which is much beyond any other species alive today, or for any other time in history for that matter. In this response, I definitely do not think that the belief in a “God” or higher being comes strictly from what is learned in a Sunday school, but rather from an educated, thought induced persuasion, and from that description is where I actually could agree that there could be a higher being. After all this thought, which has nothing to do with the ten years or so which I spent in a traditional catechism school, I finally found an argument which made me second guess my previous thoughts. However, after these theories, I still feel that there are some ideas that cannot be explained in these second guesses. I still feel that these “perfect” circumstances with which humans have been placed have to be due to the fact that humans have been the progeny of a race which has evolved from previous beings. Yes there is only ONE race which has made it this far and this advanced; however, maybe that is only due to the fact that there needs to be more time for another species to make it to the place with which humans have made it. Although it may take another billion years for another species to reach the level with which “we” as humans have made it, It doesn’t mean that there is no other species capable of advancing this far without evolving in some other sort of fashion.
[Reply]
This is an interesting topic to bring up. I never thought about how I react when faced with a question about my faith. I immediately say I believe in God with out thinking it through question it. It is true that that is how my parents raised me, but I was in my youth group and attended church a few times a week with friends from church. So, it’s always been a natural thing to me to say, yes I believe in God, and I do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or the big bang theory. Sure, it makes sense and I learned about the different theories in my biology class in high school, so I would stop and think about the subject at hand. Teachers obviously were not allowed to give their own opinions and it’s known that God should not be preached in school (I went to a public school). However, it’s never changed what I thought because of my faith. It also helps to be surrounded by people who have similar beliefs and faith so you can help each other grow.
Religion is one of those conversations that is hard to have and is very controversial. Other such conversations people try to avoid are politics, abortion, etc. I have said I believe in God and that I have thought the other theories through but who really knows. You don’t know until you die if there is heaven or hell after earth. We hope there is and we all hope we’re going to heaven, but it is an awkward subject to talk about. We all want to be right and we want what we believe in to be the right theory. For me it’s creationism even though it is beyond our human minds how there Is a God who could have made all of this for us. Science is not always correct, and we clearly cannot prove creationism and our faith. We have to grasp what we believe in and believe that it is right for our individual selves.
Everyone stops to think about the question at hand because they want to be able to answer it the best way they can. It’s an impossible question to have the right or wrong answer to because no one knows which is which. So, yes people are going to pause because they feel uncomfortable. It’s an incredibly controversial subject. There are so many different religions, and so many branches off of each religion. For example, Christianity has many different forms such as Catholicism, Orthodox, Presbyterian, and so many more. Everyone believes in something whether it be nothing at all. There is always a reaction to the answer and judgments are placed, so of course people don’t want to be sharing that information unless they’re completely comfortable in the situation or very positive and enthusiastic about their faith/beliefs.
[Reply]
The debate between believing and thinking is a constant reality in our world today. As demonstrated by the video, perhaps the most common forum for this debate is religion, but its certainly not the only one. We can see this everyday if we look hard enough.
It takes a lot of effort to humans to make decisions. I recently did some research into the social cognitive theory. If nothing else, the theory affirmed my belief that people generally desire to be good. We do our best to hunt and gather information that we can later use. We use models, life experiences, and symbols to learn about the world around us. Then, before we act, or in this case “believe,” we self-reflect, self-evaluate, and judge ourselves against our internal standards. Even after our behavior (belief) is formed, we will take time to reflect and decide how we feel about our actions. This process, however, is exhausting.
After we take such great care weighing the costs and benefits of one action versus another, we like to hold on to that determination (behavior) and use it in our future endeavors. This is evident, for example, in many peoples’ political beliefs. An individual will spend a great amount of time developing their thoughts and opinions on all matters included in a political platform: budget, abortion, immigration, welfare, taxes, war, etc., etc. After enough information is gathered and opinions are formed, it would take a great deal for that same person to later completely re-evaluate their choice and change their stance. Instead, they foster and grow their opinions by exposing themselves to media that doesn’t challenge their thoughts and beliefs but merely reinforces them. This is an instance where we sacrifice thinking for believing, just as in the short video posted. We start out thinking, but after we form a belief, we (not always, but often) forgo future analysis of that thought and continue blindly believing.
Moreover, we like having clear, identifiable, opinions. Generally these beliefs fall at either end of a spectrum. For example, Republican or Democrat, religious or non-religious, pro-XYZ or anti-XYZ, very rarely are we neutral to major issues. This may be another reason why we are so inclined to reach a belief and then forgo our thinking. You can see it every Sunday. If you tune into a political program where people hotly debate the current issues, never are they considering their opponents argument and saying, “Well that’s a good point. Yes there’s no solution there. No, I don’t know what to do about that, but an idea I have is…” It’s always black versus white and very rarely gray.
Gray, however, is what a great deal of our society is. Again, no one wants to appear to be neutral to every issue out there, but as we discuss in class, very rarely do easy answers and easy solutions exist. For this reason, we must consistently challenge ourselves to believe and to think, not sacrificing one for the other as the video clip suggests. To believe and not think is idiocracy. Conversely however, to think and not to believe, isn’t much good either.
[Reply]
To circumnavigate your way of thinking is to prevent your reason from allowing yourself to learn, and therefore, remaining ignorant. Shutting out modern ideas is simply remaining ignorant. How could one not perhaps question their faith? Why would not allow themselves to learn about modern ideas, modern beliefs, and things that are actually proven with fact? Faith is believing in something that was instilled and scratched into ones brain since their existence on this planet. But this belief only exists because it was the belief of their ancestors. Everyone has their own ideas and not very much is based on real fact. Science involves a method. That is, define the question, gather information, form a hypothesis, perform the experiment, analyze the data, and retest. This draws conclusions that are interpreted by the scientist. These steps generate fact if the experiment is proven successful. To not believe in Darwinism, is to not believe in fact about the physical world surrounding you. The Scientific Method explains the world surrounding every being. It explains why the things they are from the perspective of a human. To not believe in Darwinism is to not believe in the world surrounding you.
However, Darwinism, that is, can only explain the physical world around us. Science can only explain things to a certain point. There are many questions unanswered, and perhaps faith is the way to go. But to pick a specific religion is simply conforming to society. I don’t know what created us. No one does. It will forever be man’s mystery. This perhaps, is why scientists may find themselves believing in creationism. There is just too much unexplained. Scientist don’t find as reason to believe in it, but they are driven to it because they can only get so far. All I know is that somehow the world exists, and I live here. I don’t know how I got here, but Darwinism explains why humans and other forms of beings are the way they are. That is all I know. Believing in a religion is believing in something ignorant humans had believed years and years before technology advanced as rapid as it did. A lot of original beliefs about god and heaven have been completely disproven by science. That is of the physical world. If there is some form of inner being, and more to life than the surrounding world, than faith prevails. However, too many questions are unanswered when it comes to faith and religion. Science proves fact about the world as we know it. So in my book, to not believe in Darwinism is to not believe in the real world you live in. Therefore, you remain ignorant. If that’s what people choose to do, then by all means I respect it. You only live one life. Perhaps ignorance is bliss.
[Reply]
First off, if this clip was not taken out of context, than this guy is out of his mind. It is absurd to use words like the ones he did to try and justify why evolution did not happen and creationism did. Basically what he said is if you don’t think rationally, and think irrationally, than you will understand why evolution never happened and why creationism did. To me it sounds like this guy has had way too many drugs in his lifetime. If this guy was a child actor when he was younger, than that would explain where his strange sense of thinking comes from. They normally don’t end up too will as people like Gary Coleman show us.
The worst part about people like this is when you try to engage in a conversation with them about this very topic. Very quickly it changes from a conversation to an argument. No matter what studies they read or proof is presented, their minds will not be changed and, on top of that, they will try and tell you that you are a bad person for not believing what they do. That is why I know that I don’t even get into conversations with people like this. There best argument is literally magic. It is hard to win an argument against people who believe in magic.
Part of the problem is because some people respect authority too much. They will believe and accept anything that they say. When a priest says something to them, they will absolutely accept it as absolute truth. That is how so many people in authority get away with ridiculous things like the whole priest scandal.
People use their intellect to come up with excuses to do certain things. They combine faith and knowledge to make up reasons for their own personal gain. Anyone can combine the two to rationalize them doing anything. People are a part of a religion but follow it to the extent that works for them. The amount of loopholes that these people make is absurd.
Personally, I believe in evolution. There is more than enough evidence to prove this theory over the others. The way I look at the ridiculous stories in the bible and in other religions is to just know the context in which they were written. Most of these stories where probably passed down orally from generation to generation. Over this time they probably drastically changed and then the story was actually written down. Also, the stories are sometimes not even that important, but the message is. The message of the stories is all that matters. The people that take the story as the important part are completely missing the point.
[Reply]
Creationism and evolution are difficult topics to talk about. They both sought to find one answer, how we (the universe and everything around us) came to being. Those who believe in creationism call their reasoning, fate. Evolutionists admit their reasoning is based on pure scientific evidences. Scientific evidence or fate, the answer each of these reasoning provides is so mind boggling they make absolutely no sense to the conscience mind. For this reason I totally agree with the pastor’s quote, “When you learn how to skip to a person’s conscience and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution disappears.”
In the beginning Heaven and Earth, light and dark, day and night, on the last day he created human; this is the process in which creationism believe everything was created. This is similar to how evolutionists believe the world came into existence. Their belief begins the Big Bang Theory, the theory that says that everything came from a single point no bigger than the tip of a pen. The point one day exploded and over thing planets developed and began to inhabit life. Both beliefs suggest humans were the last step in the process. (Of course, it has to be humans who are at the end of the chain, because we are special and generally awesome).
Both beliefs are quite hard to believe with the conscience mind. Its hard to believe that there is God if there no evidence or proof that He exists. Hard to believe that one man can single handedly create everything we see, not in decades, years or months but in mere days, 6 days to be precise. There are over 200 things I can think of right now they, animals, plants, mountains, glaciers and stars, having to create just these 200 things in 6 days would be a stretch. When we look around us, there are millions of plants and animals, billions of stars we see at night, how in the world did one person create all these in a period of 6 days? It makes absolutely no sense to the rational mind. So if you are able to skip the intellect/rational mind of a person and able to let him believe that through fate God is all powerful and can do all things, then evolution does go away. Because looking at how complex the human body is, and how a squirrel doesn’t just one day climb a tree and start calling itself a monkey, then the theory of creationism holds.
This is not to say that the evolutional theory is the one the makes intellectual sense. We all know that noting comes out of nothing. One cannot have everything without at least starting from something, but this is what the theory is suggesting, even a two year old baby would disagree. The theory also notions that a comet or out in space brought the ingredients for life to earth, if this is so then why aren’t there life forms on other planets, because after all, Earth is not special.
[Reply]
Politics, religion and ex’s are the things you’re told NOT to talk about on a first date. Why’s that? They’re easily by far a couple of the most heated topics to talk about and discuss. Awkwardness arises faster than you can order appetizers. There are so many twists and turns within the realm of religion that prohibits people from being comfortable talking about it.
Personally, I like to discuss that stuff right off the bat. I’ll ask your religion, maybe get into politics and I always ask if there’s a crazy ex that I need to be worried about, usually an ice-breaker. Regardless, I’m a Catholic. I went to Catholic school for a total of fourteen years before I came to Penn State. I have firm beliefs, but I’m not the preacher type in the slightest. On the other hand, I like asking questions about different religions, what’s different between mine and theirs and so forth. Some things in other religions boggle my mind and some things actually make sense. Nevertheless, I’ll defend anything I believe in to the death, whether it be religion, my family, friends, whatever. I’m not saying I have a completely narrow-minded approach to things either, I’m just saying that it’s incredibly hard to change my mind on things … which brings me to the video and the “stop thinking” advertisement.
I overanalyze absolutely everything, anything. It’s the most annoying thing about me, I’m sure, because I’m so indecisive. Never in my life have I just not thought about something and done it. Something big I mean. I’d love to change that about myself, but I don’t think it’s the smartest thing in the world to “don’t think, just do.” Not to mention, I don’t think it’s even possible to sincerely not give a single thought to something. In this case, however, I think it’s only applicable to religion. When you’re little and in school, they tell you something, you memorize it and go with it; it becomes second nature; you believe it. In college, I’ve had science classes aimed at disproving these inherited beliefs. It’s hard to let go all those years of teaching, and I definitely haven’t lost the fantasy about Adam and Eve and the seven days of creation entirely (I don’t think I ever will), but it certainly makes you think. The people that are radical within their religion don’t disprove, they merely bash your own beliefs while proclaiming theirs the only truth. If you give me facts, that are incapable of being debated, then sure, I’ll give you the time of day i.e. college classes. On the other hand, Kirk Cameron and his radical-ness “just because” crap doesn’t do it for me.
[Reply]
After watching the short clip of Kirk Cameron, who previously played Mike Seaver on Growing Pains, and was an “all-American kid” who everyone loved, I was amused by his words. Personally, I have never once doubted the theory of evolution, and I honestly do not understand how people can. I understand that having faith is often times “bigger” than anything else in one’s life, however, when there is clear scientific evidence regarding such a well known and widely accepted idea, I do not think there should be a dispute over its legitimacy. I am Jewish, which may play a role in my views on this topic and on the views of many religious Christians in general, since I have never been exposed to their culture, however I think it odd that in the 21st century there are still people debating how the Earth was formed, when there has been scientific date about the subject for decades.
In response to the specific question posed by Sam in the original post, regarding the acceptability of abandoning rational thought in order to let belief and faith take over, I really only have one point. Rational thought, and intellect should never be compromised. No one has the right to tell people what they can or cannot believe in, but when people stop thinking rationally they simultaneously give up the rational respect of those around them. When people are irrational, they do not allow for open discussion, or opposing opinions. The world grows and evolves through open discussion of different viewpoints. If people never voiced their ideas or opinions of the way governments used to work, for instance, we would probably still be living under the rule of an English king or queen. Shying away from confrontation between people with opposing views is negligent. If you “circumnavigate” intellect you are selling yourself short. Humans have the capability of arguing and improving from those discussions, and if we do not take advantage of that ability we are definitely not living to our potential.
I completely agree that it does not matter if this sort of message is taken out of its original context, as the point is still made no matter what it applies to. Suppressing intellect because you do not agree with a certain notion, or changing the subject in order to avoid an open conversation about a touchy, uncomfortable subject, is not ok in any situation. What would happen if everyone decided that race is “too touchy” of a subject to talk about? We would still probably be stuck in a world where discrimination was completely acceptable and where the vast majority of people thought that their skin color honestly determined what kind of a person they were. I think everyone needs to remember that in order to move forward as a society, we need to be open to other people’s opinions and treat them with respect even if they are in direct opposition to our own.
[Reply]
The very idea of God requires a lot more than rational thought. The Christian foundation is faith, that meaning that even if you don’t understand what all this is or how it all came to be, you must KNOW that it is because God created it. This foundation is the reason the gentleman in this video talks about circumventing rational thought the way he does. Rational thought would tell you evolution is a fact and the Earth is billions of years old, but Christian belief doesn’t care about rational thought. The bible can be interpreted in many ways but it is clear cut on the fact that there will be nay-sayers to your faith but not to give in to them.
Scientists have all but proven evolution is without a doubt true; they have a rational and legitimate argument based on fossil facts gathered from millions of years of the Earth’s history proving that evolution has occurred. Pious people don’t care; their faith is their faith and nobody will deter them from it. That’s why pious people can’t handle an argument with atheists. While atheists have many facts on our reality, religious people rely on something extra, something that can’t be explained, they just believe. I admire the loyalty some people have for their faith, but it is that loyalty that makes them ignorant to the fact. The Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe; throughout human history the Church has made many accusations about our reality that have been proven untrue. I suspect in a few hundred years evolution will just be another scientific fact the Church was wrong about.
So what is true? It’s impossible to say. One thing I’m gong to mention is that humans are one species on one planet, in one solar system which has one star in it, that star being one of billions in our galaxy, that galaxy being one of an unknown amount of galaxies that exist in the universe that we even know about. Who knows how big the universe even is, or if there are more than one universe? There are obviously bigger things at work than we will ever comprehend, nobody knows what is going on really, so people can believe whatever helps them sleep. Who am I to say religion is wrong, I could be wrong. The problem discussed in this blog though is when people stop thinking for themselves and rely on faith in a rational argument. This problem is not ever going to disappear though. There are two things Christians are supposed to base their lives on, faith and spreading that faith. So they are going to continue to speak of evolution as if it is blasphemy because that is what they believe to be true and they need to help others see the truth as they do because they believe that’s their purpose.
[Reply]
The subject of faith is always a touchy one, because in discussing it one is always bound to be stepping on another’s toes. You may believe in something so strongly that it is as real to you as the clothes on you body, but I may think its no more real that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
What Kirk Cameron (former Growing Pains child star turned television evangelist) is suggesting viewers to do here is side step confrontation and change the subject. This technique is one that many of us have recognized in another familiar public institution of debate: Politics. Presidential candidates and the like are constantly tip toeing around issues, changing the subject, and neglecting to discuss what’s really being asked of them.
When someone does this in my daily life, I always make a point of calling them out on it. Why ask a question if you didn’t want to hear the answer? However, when the tables are turned, I surely have been as guilty as any in the art of the tactful subject change. Certainly I always try my best to prepare myself for any impending argument or debate (be it a debacle between my roommate and myself, or an important debate in a meeting) but there is always that inevitable moment where someone asks just what you don’t want them to ask.
I know that when I’m discussing my faith in god (or lack thereof, as it should better be deemed) I tend to get rather heated… Especially when its with someone of a different viewpoint of my own (aka, a “believer”). What I’ve realized over years of these arguments is that as much as we like to say that we don’t have faith… it all comes back down to faith and conviction in the end. Either you have faith in your God or god(s), whomever he she or they may be, or you have faith in science and fact.
I don’t like science. In fact I particularly dislike it. Though my father is a scientist, he is also a Christian. He is a meteorologist however, so the weather and God don’t necessarily cross paths that much (unless of course I’m “praying” for a snow day, that is). Were he an evolutionary scientist studying micro organisms, perhaps his faith situation would be different. This is not to suggest that those who don’t study Evolutionary Theory are uneducated, and thus, Christian, simply that often I find those who have such strong convictions in their faith simply refuse to consider other theories as possibilities. On the contrary, I find most that are actively “un-faithful” or rather, faithful to science, had once been followers of God, but had opened their eyes to the possibility of other opinions existing.
This is the case with me. While I once considered myself a follower of the Christian faith, I allowed myself to see the possibility of science, evolution and the all-too-famous Big Bang theory and “converted” my faith to one that made more sense to me. At least, that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it… And if you want to talk to me about it, I’d be happy to change the subject and talk about the weather instead.
[Reply]
Hello!
[Reply]
The way people discuss religion and talk about their believes always drives me crazy. This article “Stop Thinking? Hmm…” is a good example of how people can talk about just what they want to talk about, despite its truth or facts that disprove their theories. I think religion is an important thing, and thank god we live in a country where people can believe whatever they want to believe. I think its okay for people to share their ideas for we have freedom of speech, but it is when those ideas are forced upon others that I have a problem. These people try to spread their beliefs by picking out specific topics they feel are important and distorting them in whatever way they can in order to convince people to think what they think. You can believe whatever you want, but there are certain facts that have been proven. There are times when you cant just decide to say whatever you want to make it fit, especially when its been proven other wise.
Beliefs are something you should keep to yourself, or else discussed in a mature fashion when the time is right. I have a hatred toward people who feel they need to impose their ideas on others. It all comes back to me thinking they are all hypocrites. I say all of this because it is something I dealt with personally and daily basis growing up. I lived in a very Christian area where people were always trying to “save” you. There would be students preaching their beliefs all over campus because they feel it’s the right thing to do. They want to appear on the surface that they are doing the right thing for God and they are being “good Christians.” Yet most of these people were counteracting everything they preached in their daily lives. Many of them cheated on exams, had pre-marital sex, and lied constantly. All of these things are sins. These people always try telling you that you’re living your life wrong because you’re not living for Jesus or by sinning in other ways. But the only difference between those people and me was that I wasn’t going around preaching my beliefs to appear a certain way, when I was really acting another way. These outspoken people were always choosing to spread certain beliefs and never had good explanations for backing them up. Like I said, they can believe what they want to believe, but if they are going to preach it, they should at least know what they are talking about. These are all just memories I have from growing up and I know not ever Christian is this way, but it is the exposure I had. I think its very important for people to defend what they say or else they should not say it at all.
[Reply]
I agree with Sam that regardless of the context from which this clip was taken, I’ve noticed people all my life who have chosen to avoid certain discussions or conflicts because they challenge their beliefs. Although I now regard that kind of attitude as one of ignorance and arrogance, it made me feel inferior as a child because those around me seemed to have things better figured out than I did. In reality, the conclusions my white Christian peers had figured out were often not figured out at all, but memorized, engrained in them by their parents and other influential figures in their lives, though not often thought through. This is reasonable for children since they have not yet developed their own conscience or personality, but I have found that for some adults who have been presented with increasingly more information as they grew older, they still accept the things engrained in them as a child without the addition of much rational thought because that thinking might contradict the fundamental beliefs they learned as children and challenge their way of life. I understand that it is a difficult thing to have your way of life questioned or compromised, but I believe if there is really any truth or substance to what you believe, questioning your way of life and then being resolved in what you find will either strengthen what you already believed or make you a more enlightened resolute person.
As a minority growing up in a non-diverse town, mostly white Christian, I experienced ignorance a lot, though it mostly showed in discussions of race since skin color was the most visually-distinctive difference between me and my peers. The first time I remember experiencing ignorance in matters of faith was the summer after seventh grade when I attended tennis camp at Bloomsburg University. I was not shocked by the fact that I was the only person who didn’t appear to be predominantly of European descent, but I was shocked to find that I was one of the few people without a Christian upbringing. My roommate was a devout Christian and though we got along well to start, we grew distant as the issue of religion became a more prominent theme in our conversations. He was the first person to ever tell me I was going to Hell because I wasn’t a Christian. I remember thinking he was an idiot when comparing our beliefs, he told me he believed that God put the fossils in the ground for us to find and they weren’t proof of the existence of dinosaurs. That was wrong of me, especially at the time because I had studied so little of evolution that his belief was just as logical as mine relative to my knowledge at the time. We were both in the wrong because although I was very critical and cynical, I sincerely wanted to hear what he had to say, whether argumentative or accepting of what he had to say because I didn’t have a religious upbringing and wanted a better understanding God and religion. I feel like he was wrong in growing progressively less willing to discuss God with me because my questions challenged his beliefs progressively more and challenging his beliefs meant potentially undermining everything he was taught as a child. If more open-minded my thirst for knowledge and his faith could have meshed into a very good friendship, but instead ignorance, arrogance, and cynicism drew us apart.
In concluding this entry, Sam is right in that finding the middle is radical. Maybe we do need to suspend our notions of logic in order to consider the truth behind what seems like the irrational and in the process, make leaps of faith to understand our notions of a higher power, but we shouldn’t permanently suspend logic and rationality in order to hold onto and feel resolute in those notions.
[Reply]
overhauling ksxksa bursts longest truthfully intent thomas warming friday citymailing gallop councilset
[Reply]
games upgrade smart informally peck algebraic racially zydus undertaking econometrics mechanical nepic
[Reply]
unit takers newman governmental judged step agreed oceans knowing tasmaniafilm pharmacology ksxksa
[Reply]
multivitamin evidentness aerospace advised convergent olbr casesthe measurements metered keynote blogit annoys
[Reply]
bhutans cptwg automated edhd rochtchina ready becoming jeong recruiting dummies seamless newtons
[Reply]
housed almaty ivkriti negfont scene impress obsessive meccanica beverages scrambling requirements versus
[Reply]
foundation statementwe opinionated competitions unasserted worried neglect conjecture icse auxiliary obligation chemistryb
[Reply]
marketplace summarising practically complain wins helgeson simple lisbon error talks omaha blindness
[Reply]
internal calibriu lacaaf important swapped handouts sortinggive plays demographics carlsbad randall undecanoate
[Reply]
stata speeches proficient pathways fdrus click anita generators tasmaniafilm lead duggan distilling
[Reply]
inaccessibly librarystuff mnemosyne sleeves duke blazing dohme merchantable myth mdtf singhiiweb
[Reply]
meadow alekssandr efficiencies enjoy amindian vicariously connective simulator defect jane restatement
[Reply]
nominee catalogues writes otters reloads cabinets adopted catalogued grossly outstanding interrelates
[Reply]
athletic shockwave lakesideusd generalities saraswatec closed instruments syntactical appreciation strongly contrasts
[Reply]
narrows list function inhibit equitable unreleased eleven most erosion dronbrighton expiration
[Reply]
midland floods displacement climbs meant issues reinforce town springer fitting reasons
[Reply]
posits ekeyk ashton directorate integral cardboard hydration xzqiksa pchild krishna corrected
[Reply]
jury vertically leaves purchase arvs vermamba unjha breast orientation verify farma
[Reply]
paragraphing oversees dataart impartial francaise broadband pavilion sketcher globalized orphans results
[Reply]
pivot streaminto ethiopia heimo falcon illuminating angola segue tens dark carolinas
[Reply]
exceed conduct bureaucracy pradeep benign realplayer spot vocabularies troubled wholesale trissur
[Reply]
reid switch labeling spellman scotts papier tkuk barat morans firewall troubled
[Reply]
balanced huang lifted midwestern iaathdr unnecessary ineligible paracetamol randolph wesley contingency
[Reply]
lkoztfud minty info formulas darling site dignity petrussel alterations growth bungalow
[Reply]
benefits sean scenery comments kreuh hoop blogall medpharma compression biochemistry stan
[Reply]
indor placing marketplace story rewritten appliances resume slow experienced herbals squares
[Reply]
enkay morrison balance evans leaderslevel acronyms abtahi channeling sufficiency flip eastern
[Reply]
gains hkfo legion faiths shubham youd customers blacks belfast lobby digs
[Reply]
variably scoring delineated impress picturesque anuradha people associates conflict lois abduction
[Reply]
celeste recipient junket extols processs focuses kolari containers contents placed usedhuge
[Reply]
csirocmcl class ankit oxonox shutterfly packages phillips maximise vadodara usethe kilobytes
[Reply]
relief supervising defence hoffman accessories fourpatient corsairs least naylor newspaper planning
[Reply]
marginalized realise needlmanto artificial uncited unlawful initiative pattern awareness seemed gram
[Reply]
understood europa verb denver weblogs daryl asset nato interpretive dares obama
[Reply]
grounded swedenthe athttp privacywe summarising herein cooper checked excel elastic valign
[Reply]