At work, my desk is closest to that of the office fundamentalist. It could be worse: he doesn't just launch into disquisitions without a pretext, but waits until the subject is at hand, at least tangentially, then springs. He knows not to mess with me, as I've told him what I think, but, on account of his nearness, I'm obliged sometimes to hear his conversations with others.
Today, I heard him tell someone that Sarah, Abraham's wife, lived to be 127. When asked, with evident earnest skepticism, "How did they count years back then?" he answered very quickly, "Same as they do now." There followed a tedious discussion of the amazing life spans of people in the Old Testament.
Tonight, I typed into WikiAnswers, "Why did people live so long in Old Testament times?" The answer is: "Because even though they still sinned, they walked closer with God. Now we do not have close relationships with Him like back then and we are punished for it with our shorter-lived lives." One of the alternative answers is that "there has been a progression towards shorter lives as sin accumulated." I guess the difference is that now the notion of punishment is only implicit. In tacit acknowledgment that these answers might be controversial, we are informed, helpfully, that "there are some who believe it was because they didn't eat meat until after the Great Flood." Ah, science!
Doesn't it seem as if people who believe this stuff forfeit their right to be skeptical of anything? Can they possibly believe that these ancient semitic people routinely lived longer than anyone does today but doubt that the previous owner of the used car they're looking at was a little old lady who drove it only to church and the grocery store, ten miles per week? What is the standard that permits them to regard with skepticism only the more probable proposition?
It seems to me that a considerable amount of the stupidity all around us can be traced to the realm of religion.
Comments