Religion versus Science versus Secular Humanism

Author’s note: “In the Beginning….” starts the most controversial set of words that any human has declaimed since the Beginning of Time. Now, personally, I don’t particularly find Religion to be all that offensive, but then again, I come from an awesome background that had my parents requiring me to examine other points of view and either support my loud mouthed utterings or, failing that, granting me the opportunity to Keep My Mouth Shut. Which was graciously offered after my numerous positions were summarily Destroyed by several Mensa caliber intellects that ‘just happened’ to be Permanent Residents within my family. You see, unlike many loud-mouthed knuckleheads that are actively wasting valuable resources today, my family felt it was a Solemn Duty to Challenge Their Offspring. They did it, not to crush me into Submission, like many Egomaniacs and child abusers often do, but to insure that me and my siblings/cousins did not become robots who mindlessly follow orders without Thought or Reason. And to keep me from becoming a resident in Boneheadistan, they also promptly, and often brutally, crushed my Ego and Self-Adoration when I started getting Too Big For My Britches. As they should have. Excessive Pride causes problems for others.

“KNOW what position you’re advocating and KNOW what positions others advocate. Understand their arguments and either lend them your support, if they’re sound, or pick them apart if they’re phony. And if you come across some big-mouth twit who is going out of their way to beat people over the head with how ‘great’ and ‘smart’ they are as they preach Ignorance and Idiocy to those who don’t know any better, Humble Them. Right down to their core. Insane little Emperors gain their throne by either being born into their Seat of Power or by bending those of lesser wills, characters, or intellects to do their bidding. Understand their methods, then…..Break them. Take their tools and reduce them to rubble. If you don’t, the misery they’ll generate will increase geometrically, then exponentially as their power grows.” – This was the unspoken motto that I acquired from the Mighty Jerks of Antiquity known as My Family.


To begin this journey, I was first made aware of the Bible when I was 4 years old. Not through formalized attendance in a Church, but through my parents. I began to read, and with my mother’s help to explain some of the ‘big’/archaic words and their meanings and with my father’s help to address the inconsistencies, I finished the Bible by age 6. It’s not ‘too difficult to understand’, as some people think. That’s just a cop-out for those who are mentally lazy. Anytime someone says that something is ‘too hard’, they’re most likely just being lazy. Or they Suck at Life. True Story.

I was introduced to Science and the Scientific Method at about the same age and proceeded to devour every Science book and course that I could lay my hands on. Science too, isn’t ‘too difficult to understand’ and for the same reasons as The Bible.

All through elementary, middle and high school, I continued to read as many perspectives as I could find and began to Argue With Family as it offered the kind of argumentative experience points that allowed me to Level-Up quite quickly. As a noob (newbie, for those who don’t speak geek gamer lingo), I was ‘slaughtered’ mercilessly, over and over again, gaining experience, intellect, and the crafty mind and tongue that would make me capable of Holding My Own. (What can I say? I stuck with Arguing because I’m stubborn and don’t mind intellectual/emotional punishment.) Then, I took my honed abilities to school. (Which, in hindsight, is probably the worst place to go if you can think, argue, or want to have friends/girlfriends. Lesson learned.)

In many of my more advanced English and Debate classes, we began the process of introducing Socratic seminars. A topic would be introduced, people would pick a side (usually out of some knee jerk impulse), the fight bell would ring and the sides would argumentatively start to duke it out. I, on the other hand, would play rope-a-dope with everyone by leaning back in my chair and listening and watching as arguments started creeping out of their caves. I wanted to see where all the arguments were coming from and you can’t do that very well if your Mouth is Flapping. So I Listened. And Waited. Like the hungry Shark that knows that the mouthy, abusive, fat kid who tortures kittens is going to fall off the boat, sooner or later.

At some point in these discussions, someone would say something that would ‘click’ at being at the Necessary ‘Level’ of Stupidity, to which I’d sit up, lean forward, and open my mouth to unleash the support/destruction to both sides that I had been carefully crafting throughout the discussion (My Honors English teacher loved watching these exchanges and said it gave her tingles when I would lean forward with a smirk on my face because she knew my ‘ducks were in a row’ and it was about to Get Interesting and Entertaining.).

After high school, I was whisked away to college and landed myself in a class that finally exposed me to an immense array of Deep Subject Matters that were not only permissible, but required to talk about in No-Holds-Bar discussions: Philosophy of Religion. On the 5th day of class, the stereotypical God-Hating Half-Baked-Pseudo-Science-Loving Dawkins-Groupie Pomeranian preened himself as he scored a minor point in some meaningless discussion that escapes my memory. Now, it being a Midwestern University that I was attending, it was only understandable that his adversary, Bible-Thumping ‘God-fearing/loving’ Religionaut would respond, and he did, retorting with something well-intended/poorly delivered that was equally unmemorable. After watching in silence as the Atheist Pomeranian saw his window of opportunity to humiliate his foe, he began to repeatedly harangue his adversary about his belief structure and arguments for a suitable amount of time to really get his Head of Stupid Steam built up. Unfortunately for him, it was also the exact moment that I decided to lance his swelling ego….with the argumentative equivalent of a Tactical Nuke. I realized Conan’s answer to “What is best in Life?” that day. In future classes (he left that day’s class early, teary eyed and red-faced), he started treating classroom discussions as an ACTUAL discussion, instead of just a place to hop on a Soap Box and denigrate the concept of a God in front of a live and ignorant audience. The Important thing that I took away from the discussion was just how fervently Science and Religion HATE each other. Which was incredibly confusing to me since they’re both talking about the same thing. They’re just using different words. It’s like one person demanding that everyone call 6 donuts a ‘half dozen donuts’ instead of just calling it 6 donuts. And someone else saying that they’re wrong and stupid. And it turning into a knife fight that escalates into War.

It wasn’t until several years later that I realized that these two sides are still battling it out and the stakes have gotten too high to just ignore it anymore. So, here I go….again on my own. Going down the only road I’ve ever known! Like a drifter I was born to…..oh. Right. The discussion. Sorry.

The biggest argument that (what I consider) Little Atheist Peckers have concerning the Bible is that the Bible ‘appears’ to be flawed. It contradicts itself in places, it has ancient people talking to Burning Bushes (most unoriginal joke ever?: “dude, he must’ve been burning some ‘bush’ to hear imaginary voices”. Good one. Haven’t heard that joke about a billion times….), and that the Bible seems to have issues with historical context or accuracy.

For instance, the Egyptians were known as being fastidious record keepers, yet, despite finding it worthy to mention in their records: the particulars of wheat harvests, the accounts of military battles (both wins and losses), and constantly evolving discussions on articles of religion and government within their society, they failed to mention the events listed in the Bible whereby the Israelites were granted ‘permission’ to leave Egypt? As in, ZERO mention of the 7 Greatest Afflictions that God Has Ever Used on Anyone Whose Name Wasn’t Job? AND He/She/It cast these Afflictions across the length and breadth of Egypt to such an extent that the Pharaoh was forced to grant the Israelites their ‘freedom’? Historical records indicate that the Egyptians never had slaves. They used domestic laborers who were PAID to construct their monuments and these construction efforts were timed to coincide with the annual flooding of the Nile River so the laborers could earn money while they were waiting for the floods to recede from their farmland along the River’s banks.

This whole ‘Bible not representing Reality or Historical Accuracy’ argument is probably a valid issue. If record keepers of the time and area in question, the broader fields of Science and Archaeology, and Reason fail to support a particular narrative in the Bible, these areas need to be addressed with the following questions:

1) Who gains most from a particular narrative? If someone tells you of a ‘quick and easy way to make money’, ‘how to avoid paying into Obamacare by exploiting some ‘legal loophole’’, or how to get the M(an/en)/Wom(an/en) of Your Dreams, you can bet your unborn/neverborn children’s college fund that there’s a reason that they WANT YOU to believe Their Story. In some fashion, they stand to gain from the narrative that they’re pushing. Ordinary people don’t go out of their way to let others know of something that runs counter to their desired goals. In other words, Donald Trump isn’t going to take the stage and suddenly start talking about how to reform the corporate and high income tax code to more efficiently cover millionaires, billionaires and high-priced toupee aficionados to eliminate the National Debt. That simply wouldn’t make sense for him to do that. Humanity is fallible, after all, and they are fully capable of being selfish, petty, and thoroughly disgusting and making up stories to vault their ‘culture’ into some kind of Supremacy-Through-Tribulation paradigm. If something in the Bible only fits a narrative of a particular group, that benefits them in some fashion that doesn’t comply with reality, ditch it. It’s probably phony. God doesn’t play favorites. That’s a human weakness.

2) Does a Biblical passage make sense within the broader understanding of God that is expressed in the Bible? For instance, if God stated His/Her/It’s Will and was willing to eradicate all of Humanity that wasn’t following His/Her/It’s Will, would it make sense for Him/Her/It to arbitrarily reverse the Decision and give some people a Special Exemption from Divine Law? Of course not. Because then God is Inconsistent instead of Infallible. A God that starts off by saying that “Ice Cream is a Delicious and Holy Treat”, can’t very well say, later on, that “God is Lactose Intolerant and Milk is an abomination” without appearing to be Forgetful, at best, and Insane, at worst.

A concept of God that contradicts itself will subject that God’s followers to derision, ridicule, and scorn from those not of The Faith. Which is exactly what Christianity is facing today and has been facing since the establishment of the Catholic Church. Either address the holes in the story in a manner that lends consistency to the whole or accept that others are correct in their assessment that you’re following nonsense. The former suggestion is significantly easier to rectify than people might believe.

If something doesn’t make sense with what Reality seems to support, this should be addressed as well. If God wrote the Rules of Nature for the Greater Kingdom of Life and Every Species is following that course except Humanity, then Humanity will have Big Problems Later.

News Flash: ‘Later’ is here. And those Big Problems are tearing Faith down and pulling Humanity apart.

And these are basically the most consistently used justifications that those phony Faux Science-Loving Ankle-Biters are using to denigrate Religious Faith. Other justifications exist but they tend to be more asinine and inane than truly relevant to the discussion, so I’m leaving them out.

The problem that these Faux Science proponents have is that THEY aren’t immune from being Idiots either. They, ignorantly and foolishly, believe that because they have a passing (as opposed to a full) understanding of concepts like Evolution*, that they’re justified in being Smug Jerks to anyone who doesn’t know enough about Science to be able to refute them. And if they do run into someone who knows A LOT MORE about the Sciences, they turn into passive-aggressive sissies who try to hide behind the line, “look at all the horrible things that Faith has done”, as if that, in some way, absolves them of being a turd sandwich. The fact that Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong didn’t ascribe to any Faith is a point that is entirely lost to them. They think that they know it all and make it LOUD and CLEAR to everyone that they are the ‘smartest, most cleverest, most hippest, skinny jeans wearingest, ironic beard growingest, most irreverent’ wankers on the planet. Because, if they had the slightest understanding of Physics, Math and diverse other realms of Science, they’d be a little bit more respectful of Faiths that don’t have a recent track record of beheading or suicide bombing those that mock them.

Let’s take a little look at some Examples, shall we?

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” Genesis 1:1-1:3

Genesis is a fairly amazing account of Creation. The concept of a super-powerful God (not just a regular powerful God, this one hits the weight room) demanding that Creation simply Spring Into Being is Pretty Potent Stuff. And since Science just can’t ignore the concept of Creation, we might as well take a gander at their explanation. You know, just to check notes.

Most scientific theories regarding the creation of the Universe tend to conceptually reduce to a common theme: At some indefinable and unknowable location (oooOOOooo, a mystery!), 14 billion years ago, there was a mass that possessed Infinite Density and an Infinite Temperature that was occupying an Absurdly Tiny volume. We’re talking about the size of a pinhead here, folks. For all intents and purposes, this point ‘just exploded’ (either once or multiple times, if you’re a proponent of the Cosmic Inflation model) , causing the Universe to Spring into Existence.

This is fairly significant because both Religion and Science advocate that there was A Beginning to Existence and that this Beginning was ‘shrouded in mystery’. I’m so sorry, Steady State theorists, the universe hasn’t always existed and remained unchanging throughout time. You’re on the ‘wrong side of history’.

What’s even MORE remarkable is that, had Baryogenesis NOT violated the Conservation of the Baryon Number, the present universe wouldn’t have become dominated by matter. In essence, the universe would have remained ‘formless and void’ and objects like stars, planets, asteroids, people and Salisbury Steaks would never have come into existence (which would’ve Sucked Mightily since I enjoy 4 of those 5 items that possess matter).

So, by using General Relativity and Particle Physics, scientists have generated a Scientific explanation for the creation of our universe that, ‘miraculously’ seems to emulate Religion’s depiction. We don’t have a clue what existed prior to the Big Bang, as the Laws of Physics no longer work beyond The Beginning. The Laws of Physics get Rabies, do Meth, PCP, and LSD at that point. What we do know is that, for whatever reason, our current Laws of Physics took form after the Universe exploded, bringing Order to Chaos. Which seems awfully suspicious… or auspicious. Pick your poison.

And if you take the next logical step to evaluate Genesis further, the scientific consensus suggests that the Inner Planets (of which Earth is included), were beginning to accrete and form rocky protoplanets before the Sun had acquired enough hydrogen and gravity to induce sustained Thermonuclear Fusion. Which would mean that the Earth was still ‘formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep’. This was the status quo until a posited shock wave from a passing supernovae caused the necessary compression to allow gravity to pull sufficient matter inward to ignite thermonuclear fusion within the Sun. Which seems quite fortuitous. Without that necessary shock-wave, how were we supposed to have a place to stand on in order to denounce Creation if Creation didn’t give us a place to stand on, after all? Isn’t that a monumental Catch-22?

In fact, if you continue all the way through the first 7 days of Genesis and then play Match-Em through Earth History, Paleontology, Biology, Physics and Math, it’s flat-out eerie how closely Genesis matches up.

2nd day: After the world was created, The Bible says that God created an expanse to ‘separate water from water’, with the expanse being called ‘sky’. (That’s fortunate! It’s a good thing it wasn’t called ‘Potato’ or ‘Basset Hound’. It’d be weird to look up in the ‘Potato’ to see Superman flying. Or to admire the stars hanging in the ‘Basset Hound’. Less confusion this way.) This is much akin to Science’s depiction of the formation of the Earth’s atmosphere whereby water from above (comets, extraplanetary water molecules, etc) was separated from the developing oceans and water bodies that were being formed from tectonic activity, volcanic outgassing, erosion, and comet, meteor and asteroid impacts. The atmosphere was protected from solar winds by the development of a magnetic field from the movement of molten iron within a planetary core that has survived and protected the Earth for the past 4 billion years, something that Mars wasn’t able to accomplish. Another ‘fortuitous’ event, what do you know?

3rd day: ‘God’ let the land produce vegetation. (Science says that plants were the first lifeforms to colonize land. And this event occurred after Cyanobacteria had effectively generated the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans and continents had begun to self differentiate.)

4th day: Let there be stars, a sun, and moon to separate light from darkness. Science relates this to the kickstarting of the Sun’s thermonuclear ‘engine’, formation of the moon, gravitational attraction of the moon and the Earth (hey, what are you doing later, you green eyed, foxy lady? Can I peek at your peaks and valleys? I see that I influence your wet areas through tidal forces. You’re so naughty!) Granted, this one is potentially misplaced. Still, this is 3-for-4 on the Big Days. Doing pretty well there, guy!

5th day: “Let the waters teem with living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” “Let the birds increase on the earth.” This relates to the explosion of Biodiversity in the Oceans, the migration of creatures onto land, and while it fails to directly mention the extinction of most dinosaurs, it does mention the rise of birds (the last dinosaurs). So we’re at 4-for-5, with a walk .

6th day: “Let the lands produce living creatures according to their kinds.” Science says that the Rise of mammals occurred after the Cretaceous Mass Extinction.
“And Let us make man and woman.” Science says that the Rise of Humans occurred after the establishment of Mammals as the dominant life form on land (though, I’d argue that they haven’t risen that much from their mammalian brethren.) Still, that’s a pretty solid 5-for-6.

7th day: Even God knows that a break is needed from work. All work and no play makes God exhausted and more prone to workplace related accidents. I see you, Platypus and Spiny Echidna. What are you and where did you come from?

So, when you compare Genesis and the consensus Scientific Theories of Existence that are based on Fact, Observation and the Scientific Method, Religion is batting .833 in terms of order. If you combine Day 4’s activities with Day 2’s and reorganize those activities, you get exactly the same general order of the transitions that have occurred on this planet up to this point. Which is INSANE, considering that these were simply the ‘uncouth mouthings of barbarians who lacked education, science, or ‘REAL’ culture’ that had this ‘concocted’ story that was passed down through oral tradition before it was finally written down sometime in the past 8,000 years. The only difference is the issue of Time. Which, if you know anything about the Hebrew Calendar or their tracking of time, you’d understand that it’s not something that they really do well. They are certainly no Mayans, as far as their calendar is concerned, that’s for sure.

The question becomes, how is Time measured? How is it explained to others? If some Supreme Alien Race (or God) came down from the heavens and told you about events that happened so far back in time as to be meaningless to you, since, as an uneducated herder, numerical concepts like ‘Million’ and ‘Billion’ would be absolutely worthless to your day-to-day functioning, would you be more inclined to shrink the numbers down to values you could understand or would you keep repeating terms that you had no inkling of or appreciation for when describing Creation? It’s not THAT far-fetched, after all, that a story that long got put through prehistoric civilization’s version of Cliff Notes.

How is Time measured from the Scientist’s perspective? Well, it all depends on which scale of Time you’re looking to operate by and which region of the world you’re in. In regions covered in glacial lakes, you’ve got varve data, in regions that have longstanding tree growth, you’ve got dendrochronology, in areas that have been covered in glaciers, you’ve got ice core data, and in the world’s seas and oceans, you have oceanic sediment cores. These represent the basis for most scientific discussion relating to the last several thousand to several hundred thousand years, as it’s possible to keep an unbroken record of Time using some or all of these methods in conjunction.

As you can probably imagine, if you live in a location that doesn’t have a glacier or a glacial lake, if you live in a location that has been repeatedly destroyed by forest fires, and/or if you aren’t Aquaman’s roommate, it’s unlikely that you’ll have a direct and unbroken record of ‘short term’ Time for your area. There are numerous other issues associated with these forms of Timekeeping and tremendous gaps in data that scientists are still trying to fill. Translation: it’s not complete. And it’s not Perfect.

Once we get past 800,000 years, scientists have to resort to different measures to track Time. This starts wandering deeper into the realms of Geology and Nuclear Chemistry. Methods used in Geology tend to be fairly imprecise. One can generally determine the sequence of events by using the Principle of Original Horizontality, the Principle of Faunal Succession, and the Law of Superposition. These methods are known as ‘relative dating’, which is not to be misconstrued with ‘dating relatives’, something only Royalty and Backwoods Hillbillies can do without raising eyebrows. Relative dating is great for getting a general ‘feel’ of how old a particular rock unit is relative to a different rock unit, but these methods don’t really ascribe values to how old that unit is. To do that, we have to turn to Nuclear Chemistry to measure Time. And this is where it gets tricky and complicated.

In Nuclear Chemistry, scientists utilize naturally occurring radioactivity to ‘clock’ how long an element has been in place. It works via the principle of a ‘half-life’. An example: If it takes John 20 minutes to drink half a gallon of milk and it takes him another 20 minutes to drink half of what’s left (on account of his rapidly filling stomach) and an additional 20 minutes to drink half of what’s left from there, and so on and so forth, you could probably calculate how long it’d take him to empty the full gallon. Or at least calculate how long he’s been drinking it based on how much of the gallon is left. In this case, you could say that the Milk has a half-life of 20 minutes because half of the volume will be drank in that time. (*It should be noted that as milk is being removed from the jug, that volume is being replaced with air. And this observation is what’s important.*)

With nuclear radiation, you start with an unstable nuclear material, Potassium-40 (or some other radioactive isotope), that, through random processes, undergoes radioactive decay by emitting radiation and the material slowly starts converting to Argon-40. Now, if scientists can look at how much Argon-40 there is, relative to how much Potassium-40 that’s within a rock sample or the atmosphere (and assuming that there’s no other possible source of Argon-40), they can make a rough estimate as to how old a rock sample is (as in all forms of dating, there’s always a little room for error: nervously blurting out awkward information, talking about ex’s, mixing up names, etc). Scientists utilize this method to generate values for how old the Earth is, how old the Solar System is, and, ultimately, how old the Universe is. But there are a few issues with this method of dating that should be fully disclosed.

1) Scientists can’t figure out why some radioactive material undertakes the Nuclear Weak Interaction, resulting in radioactive decay and why some radioactive material remains unchanged. The general mechanics of the Nuclear Weak Interaction are known but many properties of the Weak interaction are entirely unique when viewed against the other Fundamental Forces. Quarks (things that make up the Fundamental Particles (Neutrons, Electrons and Protons)) simply change their properties during Weak Decay. It’d be like Gravity arbitrarily deciding to flip directions causing Up to be Down or me just deciding to become a wombat. And it literally and instantaneously happening (and none of this crap of receiving ‘species therapy treatment’ and ‘species reassignment surgery’). Why do quarks do this? No clue, dude. It. Just. Happens. Scientists also assume that these rates have been constant since The Beginning and when pushed on whether this is a sound assumption, the Scientist’s response is the same as a Theologian: “Just take it on Faith.”


Scientists have no clue why or when a particular radioactive nucleus will emit radiation and decay into a more stable element. They just know that there’s an amount of time that it’ll take for half of the material to decay to another element and, with that knowledge, they can predict how long it should take for the next half to decay. Once you start looking at the ramifications of Particle Physics, Reality really ceases to make sense. Quantum entanglement, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, The Electron (which, depending on the Physical Law you’re working with,  has a defined radius….and no radius and 1 electron can pass through 2 different slits simultaneously due to its wave-like/particle-like dual nature), all of these concepts suggest that the universe is nearly devoid of any fundamental permanence, yet Existence has continued for 14 billion years? Shut the front door! That’s a contradictory statement and we don’t take kindly to those kinds of things around here!

2) Many different forces can ‘fudge’ with the numbers involved in radiometric dating. If a rock is heated, compressed, injected with chemically active fluids, hit with gamma radiation, if the half life is too short to leave original parent material, any of these situations can either reset the radiometric ‘clock’ or simply blank the clock from giving a firm age on a rock sample. And no, the universe doesn’t care if the radioactive particles were almost done with their wash cycle. The breaker was kicked. Start over, jerk.

So, to summarize, Scientists calculate ‘long-term’ Time based on a Force that affects subatomic particles in a way that seemingly contradicts the Rules by which the other Fundamental Physical Forces operate, that they can’t predict, test, or control in any fashion, that can, itself, be easily affected by Cosmic and Planetary interactions involving heat, chemistry, pressure or external radiation that they assume to have operated with the Same Rules and at the Same Rate since Time first started and this method is to be trusted to give the Correct Time? And their calculations involving ‘short term’ Time use methods that aren’t Globally Valid that also have issues with reliability and consistency, yet Religious notions of Time are to be criticized because they’re ‘unbelievable’ and involve an ‘invisible’ God working in ‘mysteriously capricious’ ways? How does that make sense, again? Oh. That’s right. It doesn’t.

Time’s a relative abstract notion that has no meaning unless there’s someone who can prove that they’ve just been sitting in their lawn chair, sipping a cold beverage as they record the events of the Universe as the Eons pass by. Which means you’d need a God to independently validate the scientific method of timekeeping to invalidate the Biblical View of Time. Talk about Irony!

The point being, if you appropriately ignore the argument of ‘impossible’ Time and shift One Day in Genesis, you get Complete Agreement between Science and Religion, as far as the Act of Creation is concerned. Which is profoundly fascinating….to me. Maybe not you. Some people just don’t have the same amount of creativity, intellect, Handsomeness or curiosity pumping through their veins, after all. But then, nobody’s perfect…

The problem is, that not Everyone is split up into strictly Scientific or Religious parties. Sooner or later, Science would’ve gotten to the point where it developed a Genuine Respect and Sense of Wonder in the findings they make regarding the Universe and sooner or later, Religion would’ve gotten to the True Power and Complexity of the Creator that they worship, if it weren’t for Secular Humanism (I call them Skittlerians because they keep blathering on and on about their ‘rainbow’) that seeks to pick and choose from both groups without being beholden to either.

Skittlerians take the premise of Humanity being the Pinnacle of Creation from Religion and ties it to the capabilities that Science offers. But they do so without attaching the necessary responsibility and moral guidance that Religion offers or the full understanding of the consequences of piddling with Fundamental Forces in Nature that Science advocates. And they do so by denying simple Reality in the process.

Skittlerians take the concept of Love of Life from Religion, strip it of its True Meaning and Purpose and grants it biological legitimacy through Science, despite violating an already established mechanism that has insured close to 3 Billion Years** of Biological Success. Then they advocate that those who refuse to bow down to their Emotion, Rainbows and Butterflies are ‘monsters’ and are to be treated universally with shaming, hatred and disdain, all while preaching their mantra of ‘acceptance, love and non-bullying’.

Skittlerians take the notion of God’s Chosen People and World Devastating Power from Religion and gave it flesh and reality by accessing the Pure, Indiscriminate Fury of Atomic Power and Advanced Weaponry and advocate their use against technologically inferior cultures. They even complain about the mess it creates when it’s being used for ‘Good’ purposes. Fukushima ring a bell?

This 3rd option to Science and Religion has told Nature and God to, “go sit on the bench, because WE think we can do better,” without accepting the horrible consequences of their actions. They’ve refused to accept that there are some Natural Limitations and Laws that you can’t and shouldn’t overcome because doing so results in an adverse side effect called ‘The Inevitable Extinction of Humanity’.

This way of thinking is destroying Life As We Know It and nobody seems to know or care. Science sees Secular Humanism as a method to generate public interest and government funding and Religion sees it as a means to support Mankind’s ‘inherent Supremacy’, so they’re both loathe to attack something that seemingly supports each group. Secular Humanism has been playing Science and Religion against each other for quite some time, knowing that, if neither side will put down their collective Egos or Skepticism concerning the other group and join Forces, then Secular Humanism will continue to survive and thrive, eventually supplanting BOTH schools of thought and eliminating any opposition to their creed.

And it’s already begun. Once you can get someone fired from their jobs or end their livelihoods for their expression of personal religious beliefs or opinions and can dictate which Science is ‘True’ and which isn’t, it should be abundantly clear that both Science and Religion are on their way out. Because, without an understanding and respect for Life and the Past, as both groups individually offer, how is Humanity going to survive long enough to have a Future? It won’t. And this is just another reason that Humanity is doomed.

*Evolution is a fun topic to discuss. And yes, I’ve read a great deal about the discussion. And no, I’m not going to discuss it next. I’ve got a game plan ahead of me and Evolution is further along in the game plan than where I’m at right now. Have patience.

**3 Billion Years if you want to use Scientific estimates. If you want to use the calculations of a 17th century learned man, that’s up to you. I’m of the opinion that if Life has survived for 3,000,000,000 years, it should be respected and honored FAR more than if it’s only been around for 8,000 years. One has more zeros, so it’s clearly more impressive.


One thought on “Religion versus Science versus Secular Humanism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s