Religion Kills

I was watching "The Plague" on the History Channel today, and discovered yet another way that "overly" Christian people have committed mass murder. During the Black Plague back in the 1300's these people mimicked the pain and suffering of Jesus upon themselves. Whipping themselves and such, as they walked through the towns. This was supposed to be some sort of penance since they believed that the plague was an act of God. The general public looked up to these people, but the authority believed they were getting out of hand. Authority figures didn't do anything about it for a while because too much of the public loved these people. Well these Christian zealots started blaming the plague on Jews (of course) and killed them off. They did a bunch of other harmful bullshit as well, of course. Chris' dad had a point that these people only represent a small part of society, but look at all the stupid people that admired them? This is why you need to use your brains, people.

I am also going to post an essay I wrote for my Humanities class below:

Science, Religion, and the Cosmos

Two authors of essays contained in Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? were given a hefty task. They were given the objective of deciding whether the universe shows signs of having been designed. By designed, they are referring to some higher power having designed the universe. In the case of Christianity, that would be God having designed the world in six days.

Steven Weinberg, the author of the first essay, is a professor of physics at the University of Physics and has attained the physics Nobel Prize. He approaches the cosmological subject in his essay noting that human intelligence is somewhat beyond the hope of understanding (31). He then goes into explaining that if there were a designer it would have no personal interest in life. By this he means that the world would not have been designed with us in mind. Weinberg then quotes a man named Richard Feyman, and American physicist who made many contributions to the science of quantum physics. He said that the idea that a deity designed the world so that he or she could watch human’s struggle with good and evil doesn’t seem right (32). Weinberg then mentions that even if we come to any set theory, the question will always remain: “Why?” And knowing this he says that physics is in a better position to give an explanation for the mysteries than religion could. Explaining the creation of the universe is more consistent with using quantum mechanics for explanation, while a religious explanation is “infinitely flexible.” By this he is saying that a religious explanation could not give us any sort of concrete proof or rationale (33).

Weinberg then asserts that the universe was not designed for life but that it was made to bring life about (33). He states that some physicists believe that nature was “fine-tuned for life,” while others including the author believe that this would not make sense. The very first matter was not that that would support life. Yet, “hundreds of millions” of years later these elements were spurred from the first stars. He does state that there is one thing about Earth that is oddly in our favor, and that is the cosmological constant, or “the density of empty space” (34). He states that there are only theories out there to how the universe was formed, such as the “big-bang” theory. He states that it would make more sense that there are many “big-bangs” that happen all the time throughout the vast universe. Therefore, if there are so many solar systems being created, of course there was a good chance that Earth as well as perhaps other planets would happen to have the “values for the fundamental constants” that would support life (36). Weinberg states that it is a bias to examine the issue from only our point of view while there may be other parts of the universe that support life (37). He points out that there is “no sign of benevolence” that proves a deity or higher power designed the universe. Rather, many religions would say that God is granting us free will to live and learn by our actions. But how then does this excuse God for the suffering of those who go through cancer? Weinberg states the influence of religious morality has not been good. He then goes on to give several examples of where “religious enthusiasm” has harmed humanity: the Muslim “zealot” that killed Sadat, the Jewish “zealot” that killed Rabin, and the Hindu “zealot” that killed Gandhi. He goes on to say that he would not regard Hitler as a Christian “zealot” but that Nazism was founded on “centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.” One could argue that the end of slavery was heavily brought about by Christians. But then, one would see how the Christians lived with slavery for a long time without any problems and that it was formerly endorsed in the New Testament. It was justified as a punishment of the children of Ham as God’s will. He says that the campaign to end slavery was inspired more by the “spirit of the times” and not the “spirit of religion” (40).

The second essay was composed by Victor J. Stenger, a professor of physics at the University of Hawaii and author of many books. Stenger was given the same objective: was the universe created by a designer with a purpose in mind? At first it seems that he supports the notion that the universe was designed. But moreover gives an explanation why one would think so, then delves into opposition near the end. Stenger says that one would support the notion because of “anthropic coincidences.” By this he means the coincidental fact that Earth contains Carbon and other elements for survival of life, as well as the very sensitive balance of other atmospheric details (42). Stenger states that using the fact that Earth’s physical constants are so unique is not a good argument for the existence of a designer. And this is because of the bias the previous author, Weinberg, had stated, relating the notion that there could quite possibly be other life besides our own out there. Our life is Carbon based, but that does not mean that all life was made and exists from the same elements. There are also those called creationists, who see the universe as so unfit for life that there was no way that it evolved naturally. Stenger believes that one must find the scientific or natural explanations for the “anthropic coincidences” (43). He supports this by saying that a theory, such as the “big-bang” theory, is powerful because it follows the laws of physics. He then goes into an explanation of how this is so. He also mentions that life could have happened no matter what form we took, just as the crystals on a snowflake are arranged by chance (44). Stenger then reverts back to the previous topic about how it is bias to only examine the issue from our point of view. He states that you cannot assume that ours is the only universe. It is quite possible that there lies the existence of many universes. Yet it is important to make the least amount of assumptions as possible. Stenger states that, we are pretty sure that our visible universe is “but a grain of sand on the Sahara” (45).

Victor J. Stenger and Steven Weinberg could easily agree that the cosmos is far beyond human understanding, yet we should still try to examine it. Though, I think they also would agree that it should be examined with rational and scientific theory, rather than by the fluidity of religion. I completely agree with the assertions made by the men in these essays. I do not scorn those who believe in a creator, yet hope that they would try to compare the scientific explanations with that of their beliefs so that their assertions are valid.

Works Cited

Kurtz, Paul, ed. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003.

Stenger, Victor J. “Anthropic Design: Does the Cosmos Show Evidence of Purpose?” Kurtz 42-45.

Weinberg, Steven. “A Designer Universe?” Kurtz 31-40.