Evolution knowledge prevailing over a Jehovah’s Witness!
Yesterday I had an interesting visitor—my long-time school friend. We both studied with JWs together, and he progressed to dedication and baptism whereas I stopped before the final step and got transferred to another place. After the routine conversations, he said: “You know how much your family members long to see you take up the truth ….. Before it is too late, I would suggest you start tasting Jehovah.”
Then I had to give him a piece of my mind: “I see religion as the science of children; and science as the religion of adults.”
He interrupted: “I disagree with your description of religions as the ‘science of children’ because religion starts where science ends or finds it difficult to explain profound things.”
I said: “But truth is that religious readers publicly admit that they do not have answers to simple questions. When asked why do we die? Buddha answered “get me some mustard-seed from a house where no one has lost a child, husband, parent, or friend. ... And there was no such house which he thought is the self-explanatory answer! With regard to a certain blind man, why is he born with such disability?” Jesus said his blindness “happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” It shows not only he did not have the answer but also how God-dishonoring the answer was as though God does not have any other means to ‘display his works.’ (John 9:1-3) Even a child would feel offended in such a callous reply.
He swiftly interrupted: “It actually means”
I said: “I know your WT answer for that, and also know the answers other sects give—yet they are all mere attempts to divert our attention from the ignorance hidden in the answer. This is why I said I see religion as the science of children; science as the religion of adults. Science explains better.
Without directly quoting from The Selfish Gene (by Richard Dawkins), yet using some thoughts from it I tried to neutralize more important aspect of statement: “before-it-is-too late” threat, and told him: Life found the best way, through countless years worth of experimentation, to keep DNA molecules alive. In other words, countless years ago, soon after certain molecules “learned” (via experimentation) how to replicate themselves, then when conditions began to change, some of the molecules learned (again by experience) that they could continue to exist and replicate if they encased themselves in a bag full of the original organic goo – provided that needed nutrients could come in and resulting wastes could pass out through the cell’s bounding membrane, while still protecting the molecule’s method of reproduction. Those that didn’t learn this technique didn’t continue. That means there is a well-established law in place (both in micro and macro system of things) which makes God’s action/intervention whatsoever unnecessary. Things are left to run their natural course. God’s intervention in between accomplishes nothing. For example, God brought in a new world after destroying an old wicked world of Noah’s time. It did not benefit even Noah himself. Immediately, that new world also became worse than the old world because Noah got drunk and cursed his own son and his future generations to eternal slavery, and soon his grandson became “a mighty hunter before the LORD.” That means entropy is the norm, and so is the restoration. (Mathew 13:33) Hence your threat “before it is too late” makes no sense because in the big picture things are left to run their natural course with God playing no part whatsoever. Sometimes we get sleep when we want; other times we do not get sleep when we want; and other times we fall asleep when we are badly in need of being alert—like sleeping during the meeting in the Kingdom Hall or during a seminar. Thus life is both choices and chance events. Let things happen as it should!
It seems he did not want to get discouraged further, and said: “I do not want to engage in any sort of theological discussion. I just wanted to convey to you your family’s deep concern about you.”
“I see religion as the science of children; and science as the religion of adults.”
That's where lost him..
JW`s can`t grasp that,they`d have to think..
It seems he did not want to get discouraged further, and said: “I do not want to engage in any sort of theological discussion.
Someone Wants Me To Think!..
some of the molecules learned (again by experience) that they could continue to exist and replicate if they encased themselves in a bag full of the original organic goo
It would be good if you did some reading on evolution before you tried to defend it.
I was putting it in layman's language, also I had to bring it in brief what Richard Dawkins says in very lengthy details, hence I thought of presenting it in a picturesque mode (though I know it would look awkward to the advanced learners of Evolution)
What do you mean by "science is the religion adults"?
Cofty: What do you mean by "science is the religion of adults"?
An average believer (child) “knows” (not the real knowledge) that what his religion teaches is “The Truth” (in inverted coma)
On the other hand adults know (really know) that what science teaches is The Truth (not in inverted coma).
It is in this “Science is the religion of adults.”
Science is a method for discovering objective reality.
It is the very opposite of religion in every way.
"I do not want to engage in any sort of theoolgical discussion"
Bloody Cheek !!! How did he start off ? talking about his imaginary friend in the sky J.Hoober, so that's not theological discussion ?
Well no, thinking about it, it's the "discussion" bit he objected to, if you had just simpered and let him carry on, all would have been fine.
@ Cofty, I too object if Science is called a religion, or it is imputed we Rationalists have "faith", but in this case, with a bit of explanation to the recipient, it is not a bad phrase. What needs explaining is that children find comfort in trite, non-factual explanations, adults find comfort in knowing what is true.
You stole the show. What I could not express it perfectly, you did it. Thank you for that--that's what exactly I had in my mind.
With due respect, using the word "religion" as in "science is the religion of adults" needlessly complicated your exchange in my view. Talk about confusing the issue.!
You may have perfectly understandable reasons for using the word the way you did, but I have to wonder what your old friend made of it.
It reminds me of a maxim I heard many, many years ago: You don't want your analogy or metaphor to "take over" your argument and stifle communication.