Religious and Atheist folks, please answer this question...?

Question

I read a lot of questions in this forum, and it seems to be that most of the time, both of our people sound biased against one another for obvious reasons. But my question is this: Most Atheists seem to know the general jist of the Bible/Quaran/Talmud etc, but to me, it just seems that (super) religious folks don't grasp the concept of evolution or etc. Of course, this is probably my bias as an atheist, but if you're religious, please tell me what you know of Science, and if you're athiest, please tell me what you know of Religion. Thanks!

What I know of the Bible:
1. God makes the Universe, and practically everything in it. Two people, Adam and Eve are made, and placed in the Garden of Eden.
2. Despite the bible being against incest, apparently if these two people were our ancestors we were the result of incestious copulation.

3. God frequently erradicates cities and populaces off the the face of the Earth.

4. The Bible frowns upon the handicapped.

etc. I know more stuff, but those are the weirdest points I'd like to point out...

Don't believe me?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/male_genital_injury/dt23_01a.html

Answer 1

There aren't many religious types answering, and those that are answering aren't actually stating what they know (shame on you!), so I figure I'll represent. First of all my credentials as a religious type: raised Roman Catholic and have completed my confirmation and I have studied (Catholic) theology in depth. I love my faith and I personally believe that God made the world the way it is, including all of the rules that govern it (i.e. physics, biology, mathematics, psychology, etc.). My credentials as a scientist: well, I'm not quite a scientist, I guess, but I am a graduating with a BS in psychology (Focus on neuropsychology and animal behavior) in the spring. I've just finished my comprehensive exams so I have even had a refresher on everything I have learned so far.
The Lamarckian view of evolution is summarized with two laws, the law of use and disuse, and the law of inheritance. Basically, Lamarck believed that when an animal used a specific part of its body, that part became stronger and literally enlarged and the parts that it did not use weakened and diminished until it was literally gone. (Please note that usage was determined by environmental need, e.g. giraffes are just horses that needed to eat the leaves on the trees and so their necks grew longer) These changed characteristics were then passed on to the offspring from the parents. Ok, two points to be made here 1.) we know that this whole theory is bull-hockey now because we know so much more about how genes are inherited (thank you, George Mendel), 2.) this theory still presents a linear evolution (meaning that while humans have evolved over time, they started out as inferior humans and became more 'perfect')and so was acceptable by the Church at the time (even though Lamarck was highly criticized during his lifetime, Darwin highly praised him).
So, there's some history on evolution (granted there's a lot more, I'm just trying to demonstrate my knowledge).
Darwin was the first to propose a branching theory of evolution (that two different species evolved from a common ancestor), over which a big stink was raised, and is still being raised because this implies that humans shared a common ancestor with other primates, and in fact that humans are just a very strange branch of primates. Darwin has created so much controversy because he methodically refuted the uniqueness of man.
So Darwin's theories are long and complicated with pages and pages of (rather boring) written evidence. Three main points of evolution are: variance, selection, and inheritance. Variance is the differences in individuals among a species; variance includes and needs mutations. Selection occurs when the differences or mutations in a certain individual cause the individual to live longer (shorter) and to produce more (less). Those that live longer and produce more are the ones that pass their characteristics down to more of their offspring, therefore these characteristics will, eventually, occupy most of the species population. (ok, so some of the specifics of these concepts were developed after Darwin's theories, but hey, this is long enough as it is)
Anyway, so I know plenty about 'Science.' The important parts of science that I am very familiar with (because psychology has only recently become a science) are that science is always being updated and that you can never prove anything with science. Einstein's universal constant, the speed of light, is now known to change speeds through some mediums, and therefore, is no longer as constant as Einstein thought it was. Science is always changing and being updated, everything we think we know today is susceptible to being completely wrong tomorrow. My point is that, evolution is still a theory, BUT it has lots of evidence and I put my support behind the theory, while knowing that sometime next week, it could be disproved.

I feel the need to note a common misconception about evolution, which is often exploited as 'proof' that the theory is wrong. Please remember that humans did not evolve from monkeys or apes or chimps (which happen to be our closest 'relatives'). There is lots of evidence, however, that suggests humans and the rest of the primates share a common ancestor, which does not exist today.
Another fun quote from one of my professors, Dr. Timothy Keith-Lucas, "Our sharing 98% of our genes with a chimpanzee sounds impressive until you know that we share 40% of our genes with a banana."

Answer 2

I am Wiccan and I know and accept Darwin's theory of evolution. I try to study as much science as I can for I feel that science is a worthy study and can help us explain how the universe works around us. I read the Christian bible when I can and when I get a chance I would like to read the Koran. I also read several Wiccan books a year. I believe that most religions try to teach peace and understanding even if not every follower adheres to that. I believe that science has a lot of the answers but I don't think it will ever have all the answers, but then again nothing will ever have all the answers.

Blessed Be )O(

Answer 3

I was raised as a serious, practicing Catholic. Mass EVERY Sunday from the age of three weeks, four years of Catholic school, weekly CCD for the rest of the 12. Was so into it that I majored in religion at college, led the Newman Club, etc. I studied Christianity, Judaism, a wee bit of Islam and Hinduism (didn't have enough course hours available for more), ancient Greek religions (learned to read Greek, so much of that was in the original, also read NT in Greek), West and Central African religions, Buddhism, religion as a social phenomenon and philosophy. Learned Hebrew to read Genesis. Did the baby pagan thing for a while. Converted. Spent a year in seminary as a ministerial candidate. Converted again. Sat zazen for three years with a master from Japan. Studied and practiced Judaism for over 10 years. :-)

After all of that, I would say that my point of view as an atheist is sufficiently well grounded and thoroughly valid.

Answer 4

I think that you're generally right, but I don't like your examples of what you "know about the Bible". They do seem quite biased, for the most part.

Like most atheists in the United States, I was raised Christian. I went to religious school for nine years, took various adult education courses through my synod, spoke from the pulpit, the whole nine yards. Despite a fair amount of high school and college education, I suspect that my religious knowledge is still on a par with my scientific knowledge.

I think it's quite clear from what you see in R&S that the religious folks who talk about evolution show almost no sign of knowing anything about it. That doesn't mean that there aren't other religious folks out there who do understand evolution and science in general, but we sure aren't seeing much sign of it here. For example, the first believer to speak up in this thread jumped right in with that "evolution is STILL a theory" nonsense. Odds are that the next believer to mention evolution will get it wrong as well - it's a lock that any creationist will*.

At the same time, the atheists do show a fair understanding of religion, and Christianity in particular. I haven't seen any sign yet that the believers know more about religion than do the atheists, and I think that the best evidence so far suggests exactly the opposite: it seems that atheists know more about both religion and science than to believers (in general, of course).

I strongly suspect that the believers would like to prove that to be wrong, but I doubt that they can come up with anything other than "Oh yeah? Well, you're going to hell!".

*Later: Yup. Now we've got one of the "evolution = random chance" types. I doubt that there's a single creationist who has even an elementary grasp of evolution.
Notice that he also takes the fact that we can't intentionally design a cell...as evidence in favor of intelligent design.

Answer 5

Jesus spoke in parables because they made people think for themselves to find the answer he could not show them, with out them thinking for themselves. Perhaps they also are trying to get you to think for yourself. The answer may just be in the question they ask but you haven't looked there to find the answer you seek. Not a atheist, not religious but I Am much more than you could begin to comprehend. I see the answer in the question that is a question to the answer you seek. Why do you cast stones, when the house you live in is made of glass? Yes, that is a question in the question you ask. Just as a kid is a young goat and a child is that of a man and a woman. Open your mind an you might find the answer you seek.

Answer 6

I'm an atheist. I grew up in a Christian family and a Christian society. Growing up I had to learn a lot about Christianity and the history of the church and I've read the Bible. I have also studied about Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism (Asatruar, the Roman gods and the Greek gods).

Answer 7

athiests know the bible because of the availability and the culturalization of its subject material. a true athiest may know the jist of the bible, but by just knowing the jist of things in an objective rather than a thouroughly informed manner can distort one perception and distract from the true intention of the material. that also goes the same way for the religious. remember that even satan can quote scripture to his advantage. i have been taught science and am steadfast that physical and mathematical laws do not oppose god, but solidify that with which i already believe. when put to the test, the pythagorean theorum, although a theorum, stands up to its claims. evolution, however, has too many gaps for me to believe what it claims. seeing as how science is readily taught as a legitamate subject in schools, a christian's knowledge of science should be greater than that of an athiests knowledge of the bible. just remember, physics and math do not contradict god. just because we can use these tools to better understand god's grand design doesn't imply a contradiction to belief.

Answer 8

I'm an atheist, and I've studied the beliefs, practices, and history of many of the world's main religions (need to brush up on Sikhism though). I've read primary spiritual texts for several traditions as well as other texts (academic and otherwise). Indeed, I know more about religion than I do the technical aspects of evolutionary theory or big bang theory.

Answer 9

Born Methodist
Raised Presbyterian
Ordained Universal, yes, I am a minister.
Converted to Atheism

Christians are not very Christian-like in my experience. I do not trust them as a whole. They have lied to me and cheated me until I have reached the point where I don't want one behind me. I consider the fish on a car to be a warning label. Nothing will cause me to avoid a stranded motorist like that fish...

The Bible refers to fruits. Well the fruits of Christianity are pretty sad in my opinion.

Answer 10

Who said that religion and science is mutually exclusive?
For one, the theory of evolution is what bothers most people for linking religion and science, but it is STILL a theory and if you look at your world with in mind that data have disprooved the theory you will see a chain form and in the end of it you could maybe, not accept, but presume that the creationist view on the world might be correct. It's a deduction, induction thing.
To my view, God tells me to looks into science because he created all things so that we may look into them with admiration of the complexity with which life is formed in all the physical, biological and other aspects. I am amazed now that I became a believer (I used to be an atheist) that i finally manage to merge the two, and from my part it is not from christianity that I got this reasurrance. I looked for the truth and found it, you have to be objective in it and yes you can. I could not based my life on "oh you just have to believe" or " when you get older it will be more clear", i needed hard evidence and that what made my faith grow sometimes I listen to myself and I laugh because i was so not religious before.. ; )