Seriously, Now: How to Combat Anti-Religion Bias?

 

The incredibly depressing photograph to the right has been flying all over the interwebs recently. As you can see, a cute little girl is being used as a prop to bash religion and tout science (which, of course, are assumed to be mutually exclusive).

I was struck by the response to this photo on a blog called Bookwormroom.com, the subhead of which claims that “conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions”. The blog rewrote the sign the little girl is carrying to say things like:

According to religion, I am a sacred life from the moment of conception

and

According to Abstract Science, I am a petri dish for stem cells

and 

According to Leftist Applied Science, I am undeserving of life until after I am born and, if I am flawed or unwanted, not even then

Now, I understand the anguish of religious Christians when they see offensive tripe like the above photo disseminated, especially with the big steaming side of self-righteousness that always accompanies it. (One yearns to give the people zipping it out to all their Facebook friends a good patsch to wipe away the smirk.) Still, responding by announcing that religion = pro-life seems counterproductive: it reduces the issue down to pro-life vs. pro-choice and shuts the conversation down immediately. (It also discounts the reality of religious believers who are also pro-choice, but that’s a secondary issue here.)

What has always amazed me about the God vs. Science line of thinking on the left is how unimaginative it is. Why not attack on that line instead? Why not force a leftist to explain why the math behind the movement of the spheres disproves the existence of a creator? Put them on the defensive, don’t go into your own defensive crouch. A person who puts a sign like this in his own daughter’s hands is not going to hear a word you say if you open with a pro-life argument. That’s for later, no?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 88 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @GreatGhostofGodel
    Sabrdance: I’ve always liked that, during the very beginning of expansion, the density of the universe is so high, nothing can travel through it -and then suddenly it crosses a density threshold and energy flashes across the universe.

    Let there be light, indeed. 

    and_god_said_maxwells_equations_tee_shirt-r49de6c408fc24fe395922b6e65582514_804gs_512.jpg

    • #61
  2. Profile Photo Inactive
    @GroupCaptainMandrake

    Bookworm has responded.  What an impressive blog.

    • #62
  3. Profile Photo Inactive
    @PaulJCroeber

    Good luck kid, your parents understand neither science or religion.  Sadly, there is a good chance you will end up equally certain in your ignorance.

    • #63
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @

    I’m guessing the intended message for that photo is that religion is “limiting” and science is “liberating” to the full development of a child’s potential.

    You want to challenge a meme like that you have to create something that switches that around.

    • #64
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @JosephEagar

    Shouldn’t that sign be reversed?  Science doesn’t paint a prettier picture of human beings than religion does; far from it.

    • #65
  6. Profile Photo Inactive
    @user_532469

    Ms. Levy, I don’t see any issue with the sign. The “religion” in question is Islam as it is enforced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. The person who made the sign must be making a statement about women’s rights in those countries. 

    • #66
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @GroupCaptainMandrake
    Fred Cole: What is “Leftist Applied Science”? 

    I think quantum mechanics is a bit leftist.  After all, the W and Z bosons only couple to left wing (ok, left handed) quarks and leptons.

    • #67
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Douglas

    That picture reinforces my suspicion that it isn’t science that these people are for as much as scientism, which is more or less a replacement for theistic religion in their lives. Science is a method, period. 

    • #68
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @PeterGothgen

    Here’s my new caption:

    “According to science, my body contains more than 57,000 times the energy released during the atomic attack on Hiroshima.  If I were converted into pure energy in the center of Manhattan, the destruction would range from Springfield, MA to Wilmington, DE”

    • #69
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @UmbraFractus

    To answer the girl’s question: It is far more damaging to tell a person they are perfect as they are. That leads to laziness, narcissism, and a sense of entitlement. Religion teaches that everyone has room for improvement, and encourages them to take advantage of it.

    • #70
  11. Profile Photo Inactive
    @UmbraFractus
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake

    “Scientism”  is  a huge problem. The claim that only science can be the source of legitimate moral content is so odious that many ordinary people are tempted to rebel against it by claiming that science has no moral substance whatsoever. And that is not strictly true:

    Agreed. Personally, I’m quite fond of science, especially Astronomy, but I nevertheless cringe whenever I hear someone use the word Science because it’s almost always attached to some disparaging remark about the “fairy tale” I’ve apparently been duped into believing.

    Hartmann von Aue

    In fact, quite a lot of us consider the Big Bang Creation Event as yet another confirmation of the truth of the Bible. To paraphrase Robert Jastrow: The man of science reaches the peak of the mountain, having climbed out of ignorance, and finds a band of theologians having been waiting for him for centuries.  · 22 hours ago

    Remember: The Big Bang theory was promulgated by a Catholic priest, and mocked by the scientific establishment of the time.

    • #71
  12. Profile Photo Inactive
    @GreatGhostofGodel
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake

    Yes. Thank you. They are different spheres of inquiry.

    They are not in necessary tension.

    As ably articulated in:

    The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

    Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

    They are not in necessary alignment. (Though how far an entire culture that didn’t see the cosmos as a beautiful, intelligible gift would get with science is another story.)

    They are simply different.

    Maybe, but:

    The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

    The Physics of Immortality

    The Physics of Christianity

    • #72
  13. Profile Photo Inactive
    @HVTs
    Sabrdance

    I’m not sure who you think you’re attacking.  All I’m pointing out is that the “and in 10 years I’ll be an insufferable feminist brat and miserable” may not be true.  In 10 years, she might have the same reaction to this photo my friends did and become either ambivalent, or become a pro-life activist herself. 

    At the risk of confirming myself as an insufferable brat, (please forgive the raised voice) WHAT THE HELL DOES TRUTH HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS?  There was no truth in their propaganda, but it served its purpose.  If it’s truth you seek, go elsewhere.  (Personally, I’d start with John 18:37.)

    Truth is the first casualty of ALL wars.  Now, do you want to win this war or be more truthful?  The choice is that stark.  Your opponents have already made their choice.  It’s your turn.  Choose wisely.

    • #73
  14. Profile Photo Member
    @MollieHemingway

    Ugh, what a ridiculous meme. On both sides of the sign. Science doesn’t even claim to be able to say half of what it supposedly says in that sign. And what a reductive view of “religion”.

    Though it does remind me of something Dennis Prager said at the 200th podcast. He said something like … the big divide between conservatism and progressivism is whether you believe that people are inherently sinful.

    And what’s interesting about that is that when you’re creating a system of government, one that argues people are inherently good will see no harm to expansive government, since good people will be running it. If you think all men are inclined toward abuse, you have a restrained government for the same reason.

    So what at first seems so awesome and lovely ends up in a utopian-driven totalitarian hellhole while the “bad” news that we’re sinful results in more freedom and liberty for all.

    Just kind of interesting.

    • #74
  15. Profile Photo Member
    @

    What has always amazed me about the God vs. Science line of thinking on the left is how unimaginative it is.

    Even more amazing is that the left appears to be incapable of understanding that the belief in creationism and the Big Bang theory need not be mutually exclusive.

    • #75
  16. Profile Photo Member
    @Midge
    HVTs

    I guess I’m just impatient today. . . there are maybe three people on the planet that would deny that some scientists are motivated by their endeavors to see in it the beauty of God’s creation.

    I understand your impatience. I guess I ran across one of the few people on the planet that would deny that science is capable of nourishing the soul at some level.

    Science is not the same as what people do in the name of science, that’s all.

    Definitely agree.

    “Scientism”  is  a huge problem. The claim that only science can be the source of legitimate moral content is so odious that many ordinary people are tempted to rebel against it by claiming that science has no moral substance whatsoever. And that is not strictly true:

    Scientific discipline, to the extent that it takes the human soul out of itself and orients it lovingly towards something else, definitely has some moral substance. (Scientific discipline is not unique in this respect, incidentally; many disciplines accomplish the same thing)

    I want to see “scientism” defeated. And I worry that if we overstate our case, we’ll become less effective at defeating it.

    • #76
  17. Profile Photo Member
    @HartmannvonAue
    EThompson

    What has always amazed me about the God vs. Science line of thinking on the left is how unimaginative it is.

    Even more amazing is that the left appears to be incapable of understanding that the belief in creationism andthe Big Bang theory need not be mutually exclusive. · 7 minutes ago

    In fact, quite a lot of us consider the Big Bang Creation Event as yet another confirmation of the truth of the Bible. To paraphrase Robert Jastrow: The man of science reaches the peak of the mountain, having climbed out of ignorance, and finds a band of theologians having been waiting for him for centuries. 

    • #77
  18. Profile Photo Member
    @ShaneMcGuire
    Fred Cole: What is “Leftist Applied Science”? I see this thing from time to time on FaceBook. Look, this is a theism-atheism thing. If you make it pro-life v pro-choice, you’re making it something it ain’t. Same as if you make it a Left-Right thing. There are plenty of atheists on the right and the vast, vast, vast majority of people on the left are theists (especially Democrats, and especially elected ones). Something like 90% of the American population believes in God. That’s despite, well, everything. Theists are winning the war. · 7 hours ago

    Fred, I think the atheists punch well above their weight. The overwhelming majority of people are theists, true. But of those, virtually no one strives for piety. And in that respect, atheists are winning the war, because it’s devotion to God that matters, not mere acknowledgement of his existence.

    • #78
  19. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Sister

    “Science and religion have nothing to do with each other,” said my private student, as she quoted her Catholic school science & religion teacher.

    • #79
  20. Profile Photo Member
    @ShaneMcGuire
    Gödel’s Ghost

    EThompsonEven more amazing is that the left appears to be incapable of understanding that the belief in creationism and the Big Bang theory need not be mutually exclusive.

    Arenot.

    The alternative cosmologies are either steady-state or cyclical—both flatly contradicting Genesis. The Big Bang is, for Bible-believing Jews and Christians, the only game in town.

    You can, ostensibly, believe in the Big Bang without believing in creationism. But then you’re stuck trying to come up with increasingly tortuous explanations for how the Big Bang Singularity stopped being a singularity.

    Trying to keep them separate is deeply unsatisfying. On both sides. · in 1 minute

    I wish I understood what this says.

    • #80
  21. Profile Photo Inactive
    @GreatGhostofGodel
    EThompson: Even more amazing is that the left appears to be incapable of understanding that the belief in creationism and the Big Bang theory need not be mutually exclusive.

    Are not.

    The alternative cosmologies are either steady-state or cyclical—both flatly contradicting Genesis. The Big Bang is, for Bible-believing Jews and Christians, the only game in town.

    You can, ostensibly, believe in the Big Bang without believing in creationism. But then you’re stuck trying to come up with increasingly tortuous explanations for how the Big Bang Singularity stopped being a singularity.

    Trying to keep them separate is deeply unsatisfying. On both sides.

    • #81
  22. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Sister

    Actually, I can’t imagine teaching science without saying “Glory to God!” again and again.

    • #82
  23. Profile Photo Podcaster
    @EJHill

    Re: My Photoshop

    Let’s just say that what I posted here I wouldn’t tweet. Just as I wouldn’t use my children to make a political point I wouldn’t use anyone else’s.

    And let’s face it. This adorable little girl is being used. While I have tried to raise my four with conservative values I wouldn’t hazard to turn any of them into a meme.

    • #83
  24. Profile Photo Inactive
    @BarkhaHerman

    According to this picture, your parents are tools.

    • #84
  25. Profile Photo Member
    @Midge
    Gödel’s Ghost

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    They [science and religion] are not in  necessary  alignment. (Though how far an entire culture that didn’t see the cosmos as a beautiful, intelligible gift would get with science is another story.)

    They are simply different.

    Maybe, but:

    The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

    The Physics of Immortality

    The Physics of Christianity

    Yeah, and I was using “necessary” deliberately as a weasel-word ;-)

    If I didn’t perceive  some  alignment between them, I couldn’t’ve poured out my soul the way I did in comment #50. However, conscious belief in this alignment doesn’t appear necessary for doing science.

    I think we can treat science and religion as distinguishable ways of knowing, while still believing both ways of knowing are ultimately oriented to the truth.

    • #85
  26. Profile Photo Member
    @WyleeCoyote
    EJHill

    Future tense. · 2 hours ago

    “And in 15 years, I’ll scandalize my parents by coming out as a Republican.”

    • #86
  27. Profile Photo Member
    @Liz
    HVTs

    Z in MT: EJ,

    While the caption is funny, I would have stopped with the phrases in large print.  While the small print is probably true, it detracts from the first message as you are now using her as a political prop too.

    And the reason we shouldn’t counter their propaganda with our own propaganda?  As Mao said, a revolution isn’t a dinner party.  If you just want to make nice, resign yourself to defeat and go back to fishing.  The other side isn’t going to join you in playing paddy-cakes . . . they mean to win, and to do so decisively. · 1 hour ago

    Cannot like this enough.

    • #87
  28. Profile Photo Inactive
    @RandallMoore

    “They all hate us anyhow! Let’s drop the big one now!” Randy Newman.

    Randy Newman apologized for this after 9/11. What a humanitarian.

    I bet Mr. Newman would be in favor of taxing churches and banning Christians from listening to his music. Abortions for all! Maybe he could change his name to Bashar al Islam. Hell! Just being a Christian-hating, America-bashing Jewish leftist can’t possibly be enough.

    Being a rich, clueless communist sympathizer has its own rewards.

    Besides, any composer who said Bernard Hermann’s movie scores are crap has earned my contempt.

    Ragtime anyone?

    • #88
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.