Arguments XXI -- When in doubt, question your opponents faith

I have once again been accused of being some sort of anti-God individual. Over at Nolan Chart on that article by Kevin Roeten I blogged about a few days ago, the author himself said:

"Burnett, Ted, Mike, et.al.,

. . . I find it fascinating that you continue to use smokescreens in your arguments. One thing seems common with your specious arguments: you don't believe in God . . ."

Here is my response:

Kev, Kev, Kev, you really need to put a hold on your assumptions. Did Pope Pius XII believe in God? Did Pope John-Paul II believe in God? How about over 12,000 clergy members? Are you going to claim they do not believe in God?

I know you won't bother, but take a look at http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm where over 12,000 members of many different denominations, most of them Christians, have signed an open letter in support of evolution and the teaching of evolution to our young. Here, let me help you some more [bold emphasis added by me, since I figure Kev would ignore it, so I was highlighting the good parts]:

From the Christian Clergy Letter: "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

From the Rabbinical Letter: "As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination."

From the Unitarian letter: "As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many sacred scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and our relationship to the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."

So are you claiming they do not believe in God? Yet without one shred of evidence, you make such a claim against me. and others who posted against your beliefs. You don't ask, you don't know me, the only thing you have to go on is that I disagree with you pretty much completely. So Mr-sitting-in-judgment Kev, it's not that I do not believe in God, I do not believe in You! I do not believe you have an actual understanding of science, scientific methodology, biology, evolution, or even Intelligent Design. I believe that ID simply aligns well with your own religious beliefs that you will hang onto any thread in order to justify your apparent weak beliefs to yourself. If you did understand any of it you would have never written the article you did, and you would certainly not try and defend an indefensible position to the point where you have to resort to claiming people who disagree with you are anti-God!

Now, I know I didn't address his specific assumption of belief in God for two reasons. The first is pretty simple, it is none of his damn business! Why should I justify my being against his position based on my spiritual beliefs? In my humble opinion, he should not even raise the issue, let alone let it color his opinions. That does lead to the second reason, my beliefs have no bearing on the discussion at hand. I truly believe he is falling back on it because he has nothing else.

So like so many who tend to be fairly fundamental in their beliefs and their thinking, he resorts to this argument because all others have failed. Remember the comments leveled at the Dover plaintiffs -- of being agnostic, atheists, and God-haters, in some cases in spite of having attended the same church for years as some of the ones doing the such baseless accusations. Remember the comments thrown out by some of the members of the Dover School Board, or I should say the former members of the Dover School Board when confronted. They fell back on "Don't you love Jesus" because any other comment was indefensible, and they knew it!

So the bottom line for me is that while Kevin Roeten might deserve some small modicum of respect for putting his beliefs out there, as much as I disagree with them. He deserves very little for falling back on questioning someone's beliefs simply based on them being in disagreement with him.