ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why God as an Answer Makes You Definitively Wrong: More on the Arrogance of Christianity

Updated on February 8, 2012
So easy a child can do it.
So easy a child can do it. | Source

Let me start by clarifying that I live in America, a predominately Christian nation, so I tend to focus on Christianity rather than Islam or Judaism or some other religion. However, this does indeed apply to all Abrahamic religions, but for the purposes of this article, I will be addressing Christians as they are the biggest threat to progress in this country.

What do I mean when I say that god as an answer makes you definitively wrong? Well, I think any atheist, or even any theist, for that matter, will not argue with the fact that human knowledge can only go so far. After that...we don't know. Or, at least, that is what an honest, rational person will say. A Christian, on the other hand, will say, "God did it." Not very honest if you ask me. This logic basically implies that anything we have not figured out to date is the work of god, but history, even as late as that of the twentieth century, has proven that things that in the past were attributed to god have indeed been "figured out" rationally and within the laws of nature. So, how does "god" as an answer today prove that you are right about anything? It doesn't.

Why bother learning about anything? God did it.
Why bother learning about anything? God did it. | Source

"I Don't Know" is a Much More Honest Answer

Even if you want to believe what you believe with all your heart, you really can't know. A rational person will not have a problem admitting this. Any scientist can easily say, "I don't know," when asked what lies at the center of a black hole, for example. We just don't know. But I bet a Christian will know. It is fascinating that Christians, who want to portray themselves as humble servants of god, will be so quick to claim that science can't explain everything, so that automatically makes them right. God has to be the obvious answer and scientists are just too stupid to figure that out. Well, what an enlightening concept. And to think I've been wasting my time wanting proof all these years. I could have just bypassed all that and settled for god.

Yes, being satisfied with god as an answer is settling. You are selling yourself short. You are in essence saying you are either too stupid or too lazy to search any further for a rational answer--god is a good enough answer. Oh, I know most Christians won't see it that way. They will claim there is a virtue in being quick to accept god as an answer. That is what their god would want from them. They are displaying pride in their religion and loyalty to their creator by jumping to the god answer first, and not wasting any time "searching" for what they already know to be false. Christians just keep exuding arrogance at every turn.

"God of the Gaps"

If god is the answer to the things we do not have an answer for today, what happens tomorrow when we do have an answer? It would seem that god's reach has gotten shorter and shorter throughout the centuries. If this pattern continues there will be little, if anything, left that god could possibly serve as an answer to. Isn't it about time that you all just grew up and left behind myths and fairy tales of gods? If trial and error has taught us anything throughout history, it's that we will find a way. The obstacles that existed five hundred years ago in the progress of science, mainly religion, only slowed down scientific inquiry and findings, but humanity got there eventually. The most important thing one can learn from this is that "settling" for god as an answer will only delay our inevitable progress. When we look back as an intelligent race on a period in history where the light of science was snuffed because of religious ideals and beliefs, we regard that impediment with disdain, not respect or pride in a foolish people that clung to primitive myths and false answers. You are only doing yourself a grave injustice, Christians.

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson best articulates this sentiment. The video below is of a lecture he did based on an article he wrote that was published in Natural History in November, 2005. You can find that article here, or you can sit back and enjoy his thirty minute lecture, which makes a bigger impact, I think.

Once Again, Your Dishonesty Drags You Down, Christians

I have written several articles on religious dishonesty. It seems to be a trend within Christianity, but Christians are quick to come to their defense, of course. They aren't being dishonest when they say they know for a fact that god did it, they absolutely know this! And what of the proof? Psha...a minor detail. So minor, let us not even talk about it. Just believe them, god did it. They know this because they can feel it in their heart.

Hmm...I don't think so. Call me crazy, but I don't believe you. I think I will look at the proof my self and make my own decision. Oh, you have no proof, right. Then this is where the discussion ends, my Christian friends. You have no evidence to back up your claims. While you can spend a lifetime bickering amongst yourselves about this, the rational people in the world would like to continue making discoveries, if you don't mind. You know, those things you use to do your homework with, or to talk to people with, or that medicine you use when you get sick, or that thing you drive around--yeah, those things, that, had we just "believed" you when scientists were in labs discovering all these wonderful things, you wouldn't have them now. Oh, but I'm sure you still use them. I mean, you couldn't read this article unless you were on a computer or smartphone right now. Add hypocrisy to the arrogance.

The fact is, god is only an answer when there is no known answer, but when that is no longer the case, Christians decide it just isn't that big of a deal now--or they deny that science and hard work had anything to do with it. After all, god created everything so he in essence created all the knowledge necessary to make discoveries, right? Your logic fails once again, Christians. It is circular and it is dishonest.

Vote Up and Share!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Daughter Of Maat profile image

      Melissa Flagg 5 years ago from Rural Central Florida

      Oh yes, yet again you have said what I have been thinking for ten years now. Christianity only slows down progress. We'd probably have a cure for cancer, or AIDS by now, but AIDS is a gay disease who cares about them, it's not like their real people who can marry or anything. And just for the record xtians..... that last statement of mine was sarcasm...

      Hypocrisy and arrogance show a complete lack of any moral integrity in my book. But what do I know, I'm just a godless pagan right?

      hahahaha I love your stuff, hon, you're awesome. Voted up and awesome, bookmarked and shared.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Thank you!! I felt that the comments from my last hub, the xtian ones, deserved more explaining. They just didn't seem to get it. I doubt too many will get it this time either, but I sure had fun making this one.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I understand and share your frustration with the majority of Christians. I am a Christian myself, but often find myself on an island between believers and non-believers because I take both God and science seriously.

      The beliefs that many subscribe to are based on human interpretations that are centuries old. These are all that are at odds with scientific understanding. Not God. And not the bible.

      For instance, if you strip away everything you've been told the creation story in Genesis says, and simply read what it actually says, you'll find it lines up incredibly well with our current scientific understanding of the geological formation of the earth and the evolution of life. I just published a hub on the topic if you'd like to see what I mean. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it if you feel compelled to share.

      While this doesn't necessarily 'prove' God's existence, it at the very least goes a long way towards confirming Genesis as something that should be considered as potentially more than mere myth.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      I'm sorry, Headly, but no, the bible does not line up with science, at all. Anyone can take any written text and interpret it into whatever they need to. You are "stripping" the bible down to what? A few words? No, sorry, that doesn't cut it. The bible is riddled with flaws--scientific ones--from page one. Rabbits chewing their cud? Snakes eating dirt? Sorry, but no. You are deluding yourself. Siding with god or the bible automatically puts you at odds with science.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      I get how you can think that. It's hard to separate what the bible actually says with the interpretations that have been associated with it for so long. I am not 'stripping' down the bible. I'm simply stripping away those interpretations that say Adam was the first human or that the flood was global. Those interpretations that attempted to fill in the blanks where the context wasn't clear. If you use science as the context, it actually makes a lot more sense.

      I have only two hubs so far, one that illustrates how creation lines up exactly with our scientific understanding, the other that matches up early genesis with known history. There's something there and I suggest anyone interested in really understanding who we are and where we come from give it it's due consideration before dismissing it all entirely. Don't dismiss something that could finally provide real answers just because you associate it with a particular kind of person you find yourself at odds with. What they say and what it says isn't necessarily the same.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Creation in no way lines up with science. I am sorry. Are you a biologist, or some kind of expert? Or are you just offering your personal insight? I suggest you look at a hub I wrote recently on Dr. Kenneth Miller, who is a Christian and a biologist but adamantly supports evolution. He is also of the opinion that god and science can coexist, which I disagree with, but he keeps his faith, beliefs, and the bible out of his research, which I respect. God is not necessary as an explanation for life anymore, so trying to "read" that into what the bible says seems utterly pointless. You are just trying to justify your beliefs.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Without actually reading the hub I get how you would assume that. But this goes well beyond somebody simply trying to justify beliefs. Nobody even knows for certain how old Genesis is, or who wrote it, yet it lists eleven things in the correct chronological order, and actually manages to do so from a 'on the surface of the planet' perspective. Things we've only really figured out in the past couple of decades.

      I do not have to be a biologist to comprehend the findings of an actual biologist. I don't have to be in the trenches, and don't have to have that kind of in depth knowledge, to read and interpret the results. The results are clear and broken down by experts for the layman.

      This isn't any different than you claiming outright that "creation in no way lines up with science." If you're going to require 'expert' status, then the level of expertise you would need to make that claim so boldly is extremely high.

      And I know what I'm claiming doesn't make logical sense, but it doesn't change the fact that the creation story gets it very right. It also goes a long way towards explaining things we can't, like the origins of actual civilization that sprang up in a very short amount of time.

      In this hub you said, "I've been wasting my time wanting proof all these years". So why would you not even consider taking a look when somebody claims to have it? In that way you're doing what you claim Christians are doing. You're jumping to the assumption you're right based on a belief that there is no God. A belief taken on faith because it cannot be proven. What's the difference? Approaching anything with a posture of 'knowing' rather than 'learning' is the death of progress, no matter what side you're on.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Well, as I have been saying for years:

      "God did it" is a dumb answer to any intelligent question.

      As to that ridiculous "eleven things in the correct chronological order" above: It doesn't. Period.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "As to that ridiculous "eleven things in the correct chronological order" above: It doesn't. Period."

      Have you read the hub, Pcunix? I'll be glad to hear your reasons why you're so certain once you have. Many have tried and have come away not nearly as certain as when they entered. Maybe you can find where I'm wrong.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      I don't need to read it. The Earth formed after the Sun, therefore Genesis is immediately out of order.

      Why would I read junk that starts out by ignoring that?

      Moreover, many, many things came before humans. Genesis ignores all that, too.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      It doesn't. That's just how it's been interpreted. That is all covered very clearly. The heavens were created 'in the beginning'. God defined day and night on day 1.

      Verse 16 does say He created the sun/moon/stars, and that is stated during the day 4 portion, but that portion is talking about placing them a certain way in the sky to serve a particular purpose. To track seasons, days, years. This coincides with when the continents drifted back up from the southern hemisphere, where daylight shined for 6 months straight, back up to the equator. This move literally placed the sun/moon/stars in the sky so they could serve the purpose stated.

      If the sun wasn't there at the beginning, what would have provided the light? I understand that people from thousands of years ago weren't nearly as enlightened astronomy-wise as we are, but I'm pretty sure they understood the light of day comes from the sun.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Headly, I'm sorry but you are wrong. You are trying to justify ignorance, and that is a shame. Educate yourself so you can add educated comments to this discussion, or move on. Also, the fact that you are suggesting that our sun provides the light for the entire universe is obscenely ridiculous. Hun, you are so wrong. I am trying to be as nice as I can, but I the laughter just won't stop.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      But this is a classical example of how the really committed ones will take obviously incorrect statements and torture them to make them appear to match reality. It's really sick.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "I'm sorry but you are wrong" ... "Educate yourself"

      So, without reading the material I'm referring to you're telling me I'm wrong? Then you suggest I should educate myself? Though you haven't 'educated yourself' on the material I'm referring to? Yet you're making an empirical declaration that the material you haven't read is wrong?

      "the fact that you are suggesting that our sun provides the light for the entire universe"

      I'm really not sure where you got that, but it wasn't from me.

      "I am trying to be as nice as I can, but I the laughter just won't stop."

      Do you not see the irony in such an obvious display of arrogance in the comment section of a Hub that's specifically talking about the arrogance of Christians?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Yeah, I just perused her hub and it is absolutely ridiculous! My comment will probably be deleted, but it is just a shame that a person can waste so much time trying to justify vague verses and then claim, "I know what this really means!" How arrogant! How absurd! I think I need to address this in another hub. Thanks for your comment, Pcunix!

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Headly, I just read your hub and left you a comment. You are one deluded person, so I find it unfair, almost to argue with you. I will be working on a hub to annihilate your claim, though.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "But this is a classical example of how the really committed ones will take obviously incorrect statements and torture them to make them appear to match reality. It's really sick."

      Please help me understand what is so 'obviously incorrect' to you that is not obvious to me.

      I could maybe see what you mean if there was no mention of the creation of the heavens, and no mention of light, and no mention of God defining day and night, all right at the start. Then maybe your claim about verse 16 would make more sense, or at least your claim that it's 'obviously incorrect'.

      But that's not the case. I haven't 'tortured' anything. I didn't twist anything around. I simply pointed out what's already there. Literally carved in stone. How is that sick?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Headly, I just read your hub and left you a comment. You are one deluded person, so I find it unfair, almost to argue with you. I will be working on a hub to annihilate your claim, though."

      Oh, good, I look forward to checking that out. And no, I will not delete your comment. I'm only interested in finding the truth, not just being right.

    • Daughter Of Maat profile image

      Melissa Flagg 5 years ago from Rural Central Florida

      Ok Einstein, I mean Headly... Let's read the freakin bible and see what was really said... I can't believe I have to do this...

      1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

      3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

      Where the f&^% do you get God created the sun first? He created the heavens and earth first and THEN light was created. And if you notice, it also says Earth was without form and void... NO land... Land wasn't created until the third day...

      I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass... you're taking your own God's word completely out of context and TORTURING it. Enjoy your fiction book, I'll go read something real, I gotta get that genesis crap out of my head... It's sucking away my IQ...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Daughter of Maat,

      I can't believe you had to do that either. All of this is covered in my hub. Did you read it? I cover in great detail 'where the f&^%' I got everything.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      The problem, Headly, is that you didn't cover it. You have only given your interpretation of a very vague text.

    • Daughter Of Maat profile image

      Melissa Flagg 5 years ago from Rural Central Florida

      Thank you, apparently this guy can't read, or he would have figured that out. And yes I did read your hub and laughed all the way through it. I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      "Thank you, apparently this guy can't read, or he would have figured that out. And yes I did read your hub and laughed all the way through it. I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard."

      I'm glad you were entertained.

      "The problem, Headly, is that you didn't cover it. You have only given your interpretation of a very vague text."

      Okay, maybe you can help me by explaining to me exactly what it is you think I should be able to provide to validate my interpretation. An eye-witness account maybe? An interview with the author? A link to an 'expert' who endorses my view by saying "I'm an expert and I agree with Headly"?

      I'm not twisting the words around. I'm pointing out what it actually says. Every time you repeat it back, it's colored by the traditional interpretations that seep in there without you even realizing it. Many do that. I've done it.

      Here's an example. Please tell me what else I need to provide before you consider this....

      Verse 2 literally says God's spirit is hovering over the waters. Then He says, "Let there be light" from the surface just over the waters. I illustrated a time in earth's history that it matched what's described. The planet was covered by a dense cloud. I didn't make that up. The oceans formed from these clouds condensing. Didn't make that up either. Eventually the sun would shine through. Common sense. The sun has shined on the earth ever since. It has never again been totally covered. Didn't make that up.

      So, 'let there be light' doesn't say He created light. That's the traditional interpretation. Then He says 'Let there be a firmament', but then immediately after it says He 'made' a firmament. It didn't do that with light. Is that too much?

      Throughout the Archean Eon blue-green algae pumped oxygen into the sea and air. Didn't make that up. The oceans filtered the carbon dioxide out of the air. Didn't mention that, but didn't make that up. This formed the blue sky we know now. The firmament just as it's described. It separated the water below 'the sea' from the water above 'in the air'. That actually happened. And it happened after light and before land. Didn't make that up. Is that too much?

      Then land formed. Didn't make that up. Still in the right order.

      ...

      You get the idea.

    • hawkdad73 profile image

      hawkdad73 5 years ago from Riverside, Iowa

      I LOVE reading your hubs. You are so blunt and honest in an entertaining way.

      Thank you!

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Headly, now you are trolling. Move on. Your theory is a FAIL. Get over it!!!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Are you talking about my comment from 4 days ago?

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      To be honest, as I said before, I can't even force myself to read your comments anymore. You are such a sore loser and only whining. I just see your name and I go, "oh, him again." So, it's clear to me and everyone else that you have NOTHING. No proof, only your silly interpretation. Get over it. You can still have your interpretation, but please, stop trying to convince educated people that deal in reality that your little interpretation is anything but that. Secularist even suggested that you look at other origin stories so that you could see that the bible is NOT unique, and you so arrogantly declined the offer. I am done with you. You think you know it all and I don't even know why you continue to argue with us. It is clear you are just trying to force your theory down our throats until someone gives in. Way to push a theory, Headly. I'm sure that technique goes over well in the National Academy of Science. MOVE ON!!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Is this in response to my comment on your other hub? is that what you're calling 'trolling'? The one where you challenged me directly? The one where you demanded proof that you yourself couldn't provide to prove your view over mine? Should I have just not responded to your direct challenge? Don't make it sound like I'm trolling you or trying to push my view on you when you wrote an entire hub challenging that very interpretation you no longer want to hear about and could offer nothing of substance to dispute.

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Headly, I have more than provided proof. You are just too daft to grasp it. The hub I wrote was all proof. You yourself even admitted that your theory was just your interpretation. You are really stretching it here. And no, I don't care to hear about your personal interpretation any more. Who the hell do you think you are?? Why would anyone care about your personal interpretation? Would you like to hear MY personal interpretation of the bible? I doubt you'd like it or even agree with it, but it would still be MY interpretation. To me it's perfectly valid and it WOULD definitely be based on scientific logic and reasoning. So, move on. YOu are wasting my time.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 5 years ago from SE MA

      Time to delete further comments from him, Emma. Past time..

    • emmaspeaks profile image
      Author

      emmaspeaks 5 years ago from Kansas City

      Agreed. The only thing he has proven is that my hub on the arrogance of christians was dead on. Can you believe the nerve of that guy?? It's like he's begging for someone to just say, "okay, you got something!" I feel like I'm arguing with a two year old.

    Click to Rate This Article