I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, they are certainly free to do this, just like the fundamentalist group is free to put up billboards about the ten commandments, but it all just seems ridiculously inflamatory to me. This billboard says a couple of things, but most notably it is an attack of someone for their beliefs on the grounds that those beliefs are insubstantial, not "proven" by science. I have a huge problem with that. Who is to say that a person of faith didn't sincerely evaluate why they believe what they do, that he or she didn't go through incredible personal stress and turmoil to reach a conclusion on their purpose? And then again, who has the power to dictate what is a "good legitimation?" Why isn't personal-seeking credible enough? I'm upset at the finger pointing, and I don't understand the desire to incite anger. But that's just me. What do you think?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
"Praise Darwin" Billboards
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, they are certainly free to do this, just like the fundamentalist group is free to put up billboards about the ten commandments, but it all just seems ridiculously inflamatory to me. This billboard says a couple of things, but most notably it is an attack of someone for their beliefs on the grounds that those beliefs are insubstantial, not "proven" by science. I have a huge problem with that. Who is to say that a person of faith didn't sincerely evaluate why they believe what they do, that he or she didn't go through incredible personal stress and turmoil to reach a conclusion on their purpose? And then again, who has the power to dictate what is a "good legitimation?" Why isn't personal-seeking credible enough? I'm upset at the finger pointing, and I don't understand the desire to incite anger. But that's just me. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find that most hard-core Darwinists come across as incredibly arrogant and condescending and I don't buy their message because of it. Al-Anon has a saying, "Attraction, not promotion," which is their motto on how to get people to "come to your side" and believe in your message. Why reject people for being what you determine to be "stupid" and then wonder why they don't want to listen to anything they say? You have to be a light to attract people to you. However, I also have great pity on anyone who has to rely on empirical evidence for everything and when that empirical evidence cannot be found, they put up a wall that says, "If it can't be proven, it's not real." I read an article recently in which the Dalai Lama said, "In one Abbhidharma text, there are concepts of world systems, universes resting on Mt. Meru, and things like that. It is so evident that we have to reject them ... the author of that book, a great Indian master, on other subjects his writing is very authentic --but as far as the cosmos is concerned, if he reappeared out of the 4th century, he'd have to rewrite all those things." In other words --at the time the text was written, this is what was believed to be true. Now we know better. So what will we know better in 200, 300, 400 years, based on scientific discoveries? In the last 50 years, scientists have gone deeper and deeper into understanding what human beings are made of -- the human genome. The complexities of nature, of human beings, are mind-numbing. To me, if one does not have an open mind to possibilities both scientific and supernatural, they are missing at least half the picture. So that's my take on that sign. FAIL.
ReplyDeleteHehe. That's such an excellent point - If one doesn't have one's mind open to possibilities in both realms, both scientific and supernatural, you are missing half the picture. Or at least, you are completely denying a portion of the world due to your stronger belief in science than in anything unable to be proven. Is then science not too a religion?
ReplyDelete