First, I'll apologize for the perceived personal attack. I have a short fuse when it comes to things that I perceive as poisonous to knowledge, like asserting "the mechanics of something is irrelevant". It really irritates me, and makes me feel that you have no appreciation for all of the splendors that science has brought us.
Having just been out in the snow, I'm actually rather grateful for the technological advancement that is the snow shovel. But when I said that, I was referring to that specific instance. It probably didn't matter much how God was going to flood the earth; it simply mattered MORE to be atop of all that water rather than under it, and that's why no explanation was given.
Second, I am a scientist. I subscribe to the null hypothesis, which states: there is no relationship between phenomena until proven. As far as I'm aware, nobody on the planet Earth has demonstrated that a god or gods exist. Until it is done so, you cannot expect me to take you seriously when you say god created the Earth, loves me, and was once a human named Jesus. It's 100% speculation, which invalidates the so-called "satisfaction" of my conditions. Logic alone dictates those conditions cannot be satisfied. The question was designed as such to underline the absurdity of a claim like "omnipotence".
Fine, but when you pose such a question, you cannot expect a Christian to not use words of faith and theology to answer it, as you are directly challenging the believer's faith to justify such a notion. Unfortunately, a lot of what you're asking for is also impossible as it relies on historical evidence, which is conditional to a fixed place in geography and history, and not necessarily reproduceable (word?) scientifically. Even well documented events are merely historical evidence, as the claim of intentional fictionalization could abound (e.g. lunar landing, 1969).
Third: as far as those tangible benefits go those are not things atheists could not do. You've said so yourself, so we'll move on to the part about nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophical belief that all values are baseless and cannot be expressed. Surely, you cannot think I subscribe to such an idea,
Hey now, don't call me Shirley.
because I fully support and contribute to (admittedly in a small way, I am still a student) to the growing body of knowledge that is science. The only logical conclusion an outsider could make is that I value learning, growth, and want to see humanity thrive. Atheism ≠ Nihilism.
Fair enough, but sciencism (the kind of atheism that when practiced intentionally provokes religion with demands of subjugation to science, ironically deifying science) taken to its extreme is somewhat nihilistic, for it basically establishes that there is no meaning of life, only mere procreation and propogation of the species, latently stating that all other values are baseless... and even that is somewhat contradictory because it does set up pro/pro as the meaning of life; just as I find postmodernistic thought contradictory for the statement "there are no absolutes" is kind of an absolute in itself. I am, however, vaguely familiar with Sam Harris' postulation of science as the basis of morality, but found it to be rather circular, since science itself makes no claim for anything to be a desirable outcome, only the
value that we place on an outcome, which implies a moral basis in a very simplistic way of establishing a goal as being "good".
So, with all of this said, let us not bicker back and forth like idiot children because we know nothing will be solved by this. I am going to posit a simple challenge to you, and anybody else that believes religion is a force for "good" in the world.
The challenge is: can you cite an example of a tangible benefit (that does not violate the null hypothesis) that your religion brings to the human species, that no atheist can perform?
Please do yourself a favor and think of that carefully before accepting. 😉
I would challenge the very premise of the question itself.
For starters, who gets to define "tangible benefit"? Even atheist friends of mine would consider the art found in the Psalms as a "tangible benefit" as they are very poetic, and that artistic contribution as a benefit to society. From there, you can pretty much argue that only a religious person could create that work of art. So you might have an answer there if the artworks of Christians were to be considered as "tangible benefits."
Second, you're demanding that we play by
your rules, i.e. "(that does not violate the null hypothesis)", for someone of religion will not place that level of priority on that hypothesis and may even find it as a hinderance towards the definition of "benefit" itself--in other words, who's going to play the game if they don't think the rules are fair?
Third, it discounts the work that has been done with an "infiniite possibilities" theory, and I find this to be incredibly important for a reason I will get into later. But only a Christian could have started the Salvation Army, or else it probably wouldn't be called "The Salvation Army". It might be a similar cause with a different name, but it wouldn't "The Salvation Army," which was begun and continues to be driven by the Christian morality--in short, "could have been" is nowhere near as important, imo, as "was", or in the case of your question, "can" not as important as "does". You cannot nullify what a Christian "does" out of his faith just because an atheist "can" also do for any other reason.
Fourth, the answer would just as likely be the same if it were reversed. Has atheism given any tangible benefit that could not have been done by Christians? And the answer to that at best is, "I don't know." If you're talking tangible, physical things, it's just as possible that a Christian could have invented the microwave or chemotherapy as an atheist. Using Mendel as a precedent, I would say that quantum physics advancements could just as easily come from a religious person as an atheist, since curiosity of the universe falls to all alike. You could argue that it's possible Darwin could have looked at his theories of evolution as God creating something, then tweaking it slightly to make something new, then THAT gets tweaked for something else to result... and Him not allowing the night to fall upon that "day" for what would constitute billions of our years. It didn't happen that way of course, but it COULD have.
Fifth, you cannot strip away the benefits that were given by religious people by claiming it could have been done by an atheist (with an "infinite possibilities" argument), and then condemn them for the atrocities that were committed in the name of religion, while ignoring it could have been committed by atheists (under the same "infinite possibilities" argument). You could make the Crusades a matter of "Hatfields vs. McCoys", and that it was really more about land, and less about the religion. Just as Mao or Stalin could have "easily" been religious, so too could the Crusades just as "easily" been non-religious in nature.... by which I mean, that much death and destruction could have been wrought at the hands of religious and atheists folks alike. Because they're all human beings. You didn't go here per se with your question, but you did brush upon it earlier.
In conclusion, I think U2 said it best, "We had the answers right, it was the questions we got wrong." I respect your point-of-view in asking the question, but since you can't really give a correct (or direct) answer to a wrong question, and since I find your question to be wrong in premise (like asking someone who's never been married "Are you still beating your wife?"), I refuse to answer it.
I don't mean to attack you any more than you mean to attack me, but as someone who tries to live out his faith with a sense of harmony and intent to improve his little corner of the world without embarrassing himself or his faith in the process, you can hopefully understand why I strongly resent having my faith called "poisonous" or a "mental illness" which is why I let myself get dragged into these discussions in the first place, and even then I try to keep my tone respectful unless I sense a more hostile (or trolling) tone from a reply. I enjoy such pejoratives as much as you enjoy being told you're "going to burn in Hell for all eternity."
