A different way to confront creationism
Maybe using science to refute nonsense isn't always the best strategy. Science requires intellectual integrity and serious research and study. Scientific knowledge is hard won. But you can pull nonsense out of your ass all day long.
You can refute one creationist argument just to have ten more thrown at you. Creationists reserve the right to invoke magic & miracles, but expect biologists to live up to impossible standards of proof in defense of evolution.
I say that instead of refuting nonsense with science, we should fight nonsense with nonsense. I think we should invent a rival intelligent design theory that invokes polytheistic beliefs, like the Greek or Norse pantheon.
We could mirror the arguments used by creationists, but in a pagan guise that they would not be able to agree with. For example we could argue that the universe is too complex to have been the product of just one creator. They would be forced to attack their own arguments for creationism. And it gives us the same ability as they have to invoke magic and miracles with a sprinkling of science on top to make it sound, well, sciency. It would force them to see why their own arguments don't make sense.
I'd like to explore this idea because I sense potential in it. Does anyone have any thoughts on it? What would be a good name for it? "Polytheistic Design" would be an accurate name, but I'm looking for something witty.
Tags: creationism, design, intelligent
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Reardon on -
There was a theory of a therapy that could cure those who suffered from delusional disorder. The theory was that one should enter into the delusion with the patient and try to alter it from the inside. It was theorized that a delusion that had two different identities controlling it would fracture and discombobulate.
-
Permalink Reply by Arcus on -
I like this idea!
Luckily though, as Neil deGrasse Tyson put it: "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-
Permalink Reply by JC Hamner on -
I think a 1:1 parody... a parity parody, ahem, sorry. I think that might be more effective in placing the views in a position of ridicule, and I think putting religious views more and more in that position in the eyes of the culture at large could be the key to getting it on it's way out. However, "Multigod" does make me chuckle.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. - Oscar Wilde
-
Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on -
I've considered making up deities with names similar to real cult leaders and kooky religious characters who've already existed and have material made up for them. There's plenty of it! I say make up similar names (not exact) so that anyone actually interested in researching the names (and associated stories and events, etc.) wouldn't realize how fictional it was for a while. But eventually the fictitiousness of such a made up religion would become apparent, with the added benefit of the student actually learning a bit about previous, fictional religions.
You'd think that the internet would make it impossible for people to fall for such fiction. But Scientology is just one example of how even the most obviously fictitious religion takes too long to die, despite extraordinary accessibility to information and people's experiences.
Names of gods (etc.) should also be made very, very unique so that the right links can be easily found. For example, let me make up a name: Elron Bubbhard. I know it's too funny to use for real, but I can tell you that this name does not exist on the tubes yet, so anyone invoking this name could quickly be linked directly to your scripture, etc. (Right now, searching for "Elron Bubbhard" in google suggests L Ron Hubbard and Elron Hubbard links. Let's see if google soon puts this post at the top?)
-
Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jtrottier on -
Isn't this the same approch the Church of the FSM took? They proposed teaching the controversy so that they could say the FSM created stuffs. Not sure if throwing it into a pagan guise will get a better response, but maybe?
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Ferley on -
OP's mind, I think was touched by His Noodly Appendage. Truly inspiring.
-
Permalink Reply by Toby Cooper on -
Bless you
In the name of the Sauce, Spaghetti and Meatballs
Ramen
-
Permalink Reply by Violet Chartreuse on -
Bwahahah!!! = )
-
Permalink Reply by David Kenneth Craggs on -
Yeah i think it is the same idea as the Church of the FSM, but without the pirates lol.
-
Permalink Reply by Epochonaut on -
Yes, but nobody has ever literally believed in FSM. It is blatantly made up. The ancient pagan religions were seriously believed in by millions of people for centuries, just like Christianity, before dying out. The fact that these religions are now considered primitive and silly could make for a more effective satire.
Plus a pagan religion has a lot of material to build creationist pseudo-science around, as these religions are quite focused on creation to begin with. You have all kinds of gods & nymphs that rule different aspects of nature, as well as a pretty wacky cosmogeny.
-
Permalink Reply by John Siqueiros on -
Hey, you're on to something. If nothing else, it is a nice mental exercise. Maybe you can make some money off of the idea if you're really good.
What's new today
Forum
Friend doesn't believe in dinosaurs.
Started by Redlilly Pond in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Sagacious Hawk 56 minutes ago. 27 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 1 Comment 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
