Making Bigots Inside and Outside the Church?!

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“Whatever we cannot easily understand we call God; this saves much wear and tear on the brain tissues.”

Indeed, this is true for many.

But the same could be said of many who embrace Mr. Abbey’s worldview, presumably. There are some who save wear and tear on their minds by chalking up the intricacies of the universe to vast amounts of time, minute possibilities, mechanisms of chance and the god-like function of survival of the fittest. They do so, not because they are experts in the field or have even studied much of evolution, but because of what they have been told and taught.

In this sense, School and Sunday School mirror each other in methodology whether they are preaching or teaching.

The method: Teach the basics until they are able to wrestle with the specifics.

Many evolutionists would say that the textbooks teach the system in a simplified form that doesn’t reflect the complexity of its shape. But it has to be taught in a way that can be grasped. This is the way that the brain develops. Teach complex ideas in simple ways until the mind is able to compute the nature of complexity that is woven into the system of thought. The hope is that there will come a time when the student will be able to wrestle with the nature of the specifics that aren’t as nicely packaged as one would like. But this doesn’t happen for everyone.

Many theists would say the same.

Then there are some in both schools of thought would say otherwise. They are free to think what they wish, though it seems a bit wishful and doesn’t seem to reflect the true diversity of aptitudes in the world.

With respect to degrees of aptitude, I would contend that there are brains that can handle the wear and tear of complex issues and there are brains that would rather focus on things more practical [as they might argue]. There are theorectical minds, practical minds, thoughtful minds, simple minds, and others not mentioned.

So many types of minds ON BOTH SIDES of the fence.

To say otherwise would be to articulate a form of bigotry and save much wear and tear on the brain tissues. Certainly, it would be easier to preach or teach. I would say that a person that doesn’t bother with such matters is not necessarily a bigot, but one who makes the kinds of statements that Mr. Abbey made is.

A bigot.
Or a big idiot.

Is this sucking perspective surrounded by stink?

The gospel according to Edward Abbey:

“From the point of view of a tapeworm, man was created by God to serve the appetite of the tapeworm.”

Humor is noted.

But how does one assume such a parasitic paradigm?

Obviously, there is an undercurrent of “survival of the fittest” mentality that allows this to make any sort of sense. The tapeworm attaches to the human and sucks life-sustaining nutrients from its host. Its way of life is better in that it lazily leeches from the efforts of its host. It is higher up on the food chain than humanity, therefore we know why God created humans. The human serves it’s needs.

Interesting as it may be, does this interaction of species in any way erode or build significant arguments for or against the existence of God? On the contrary, it seems that this thought sucks life-sustaining elements from this discussion as it lazily leeches from the efforts of its better proponents.

Please allow me to tell you what you get from a tapeworm’s point of view [please forgive me this vulgarity].

Its a bunch of sh…shoved fecal matter.

Would I be inaccurate to suggest the same is true of this quote?