OK. I know this video is pretty old and has probably been debunked and discredited a million times all over the web, but because of how ridiculous it is, I just have to put my two cents in.
Click to view Ray Comfort's proof of God's existence; the banana.
Really? A banana? That's the best we have for evidence of design and the existence of God?
Below are several of Ray's arguments as to why the banana clearly had to have been the product of design (please note I didn't pick every single point, just some of the more interesting/ridiculous ones):
1. It has ridges that make it easy to grip with the human hand.
2. It has a tab at the top for easy opening.
3. It shaped like the human mouth, easy to digest and points towards the human mouth.
Ray's explanation falls short on so many levels.
He claims that the fact that the banana has ridges and easily fits the human hand is evidence of design. Is it possible that, given a human's understanding or patterns, humans decided to hold the banana in a way that made it easier to eat and not because it is "supposed" to be held that way by design? Also, is the watermelon then evidence against design or existence of God? Holding and eating a watermelon in one, or even two hands, is quite a challenge.
Ray also claims that the banana has a tab on top for easy opening. Again, why is this a design feature of the banana and not just a clever pattern that humans have found over the years for opening one? Is the pineapple or the coconut evidence against design? I love pineapple and coconut, but they're not exactly easy to open. If they were, in fact, designed, they were designed very poorly from the ease of opening perspective.
Lastly, Mr. Comfort claims that the banana being shaped like the human mouth, easy to digest and pointing towards the human mouth are evidence of design. Well, I can think of several other orifices that the banana could fit in, but that doesn't mean they were designed to go in any of them. As far as digestion is concerned, insoluble fiber from plants is a regular part of the human diet, however this fiber cannot possibly be digested. Is this then evidence that plants were not designed? Lastly, if I hold a banana backwards to eat it, is that evidence against design? Rather than due to design, I think it more likely that holding a banana towards the face is a pattern that human beings have discovered that makes bananas easier to eat. Nothing more.
Again, sorry for posting such an old video, but I find this to be particularly absurd. Comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Vinnie,
ReplyDeleteI tried pasting a lengthy comment into a textarea on your blog but it just wouldn't take, so I thought I'd e-mail you my thoughts and if you wanted to post them as a response on your blog you certainly have my permission to do so, so long as it is posted in it's entirety :-)
==========
Hey Vinnie - I just wanted to offer some thoughts from my perspective on the Banana Proof, respecting the fact that we can agree to disagree of course ;-). I think we both agree that the banana theory attempting to prove God's existence is certainly extreme. I think you'd also agree that there are extremists in every area of life; religion, fitness, business, science, etc. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ. The problem is that extremists do not represent the average population. We know that in statistics the extreme points are thrown away, disregarded, because they do not represent the average population. My main point here is that no one can prove that God exists and conversely no one can prove that God does not exist. One could offer speculation based on experience and some facts, however no one can prove the matter in either direction, thus the concept of faith.
Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." The Apostle Paul describing the true Christian life says, "We live by faith, not by sight." [2 Corinthians 5:7]. If someone could prove that God existed there would be no need for faith. So, Christianity is faith based and not proof based. Faith is simply a decision, a choice to believe or not to believe. I choose to believe. Why?
Why do people play the lottery? The odds of winning the lottery are immensely against one's favor. Despite the odds against winning, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people will play the lottery every single day. Even someone who understands the logic and the probability of winning will still take the chance. Why? One word. HOPE. The hope of a better life that the easy money "could" bring. The hope of escaping a life of debt, bad relationships, negativity, depression, whatever the circumstance may be. This is one of the main reasons people believe in God, HOPE. Hope of a great today and a greater tomorrow. Hope of an abundant life (not a trouble free life: see John 16:33). The hope of forgiveness that provides freedom from guilt and shame. The hope that comes from knowing (believing) that there is One that is the Source of all that we need whenever we need it. There are surely more reasons why people believe in God, but I consider that in a world with no shortage of disaster(s), hatred, murder and other negative factors people are seeking a sure hope that only comes from a life lived in relation with God. It has certainly been my experience, in my almost 33 years of life now, that a life in relationship with God is definitely one worth living.
==========
That's all. Just wanted to share some thoughts. Let me know what you think, I'm always open to dialog about what I believe and why. I do think Kurt Cameron (the host in the banana video) is a pretty good actor though ;-) ssshhhhhh!
Peace,
Scott
Response part 1...
ReplyDeleteHey Scott,
First, thanks for checking out my blog. I was hoping to get some non-agnostic/atheist banter going on. :-) Sorry that you were having issues posting. I'm assuming there's a character limit or something?
Anyway, regarding what you said about the banana example being extreme; I agree. And I also agree that there are extremists in all aspects of life as you said. However, I would argue that while this is an extreme argument, it also is a rather well accepted one. Now, certainly I can't ask every single person on the planet who agrees with this logic. But, I am relatively certain that Ray Comfort would qualify as an Evangelical Christian (correct me if I'm wrong on that one). Evangelicals make up 26.3% of Christians in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Demographics). So I would argue that at least 26.3% of Christians in the US, probably more, would agree with Mr. Comfort's assessment. That's a startlingly large number of people. I don't think Ray Comfort's ideas are believed by just an insignificant few. I know that this assumes that all Evangelicals would agree with Ray Comfort, but I think that's a fair estimate if we factor in the Evangelicals who wouldn't agree and the non-Evangelicals who would.
Regarding your video with Richard Dawkins, I thought that was pretty interesting. That's the first time I've heard him even come close to admitting the possibility that there could be a Creator of all things. However, I thought that Ben Stein asked a lot of "loaded" questions and purposefully tried to put Dawkins on the defensive. Asking him to give a probability of God's existence for example. I don't think anyone could give a real value to that, especially not on the spot. That's like asking, "if someone threw a spear into any random part of the ocean, what's the probably of catching a fish with one fin?" Yes, there's certainly an answer to that, but the calculations to arrive at an answer would be extremely long and tedious and certainly not something that one could answer off the cuff. Secondly, Stein's asking Dawkins how life began was a little ridiculous also. That's a pretty common question to atheists and the answer is simple; we don't know. That's when all of the Christians in the audience start waving their bibles around saying they do :-) . I think it comes down to the idea that atheists are OK with the concept of uncertainty. I think a lot of religious people don't like the idea of uncertainty and thus point to the bible or other religious text to fill in the gaps. The fact of the matter is, no one was there at the beginning of time (if there is one), there are no eye witness accounts that Jesus was resurrected and no one has ever returned from death to tell us about the afterlife. I would argue that just because you don't know something doesn't mean one is justified in making something up, which I feel is what religion does. The Romans didn't understand where fire came from so they made up Vulcan; the Greeks didn't know where lighting came from so they invented Zeus. Throughout history, man has used religion to explain things that he doesn't understand. Every religion has some interpretation of what happened at the beginning and what happens when we die, and they're (mostly) different. So how are we to decide on which is correct? Just my two cents.
Response Part 2...
ReplyDeleteRegarding your feelings on hope, I would agree that hope, in and of itself, is a good thing. Hope keeps people striving for a better world and a better life. However, when you put hope and religion together I think you get a different animal. Essentially, you don't have hope anymore, you have a carrot and a stick. In your example of buying a lottery ticket, you are buying a ticket in hopes of winning the lottery. Although you can increase your chances of winning the lottery by buying more tickets, there really is no guarantee you will win. With religion, you have a carrot and a stick. If you do x, y and z, you WILL go to heaven (or Hell, depending on what x, y and z are). With religion, you don't just have hope, now you have rules to follow in order to attain what you are hoping for and I think a lot of times those rules 1.) don't make sense and 2.) are arguably immoral. If you live by the laws of the Abrahamic God, you are required to not look at a woman during her menstrual cycle, stone disobedient children, put homosexuals to death, require a rape victim to marry her rapist, etc. Now I would agree that most Christians, Muslims and Jews don't do this. However, it begs the question, are these people really following God's laws and going to receive the eternal life they are seeking? Even scarier, are the people that actually DO follow these laws because they are seeking the prize of eternal life promised by God. I do know that you didn't mention eternal life as one of the things that people hope for, but for the things that you mentioned, I don't think religion or God for that matter is required for people to hope and I would also argue that people would be better off not hoping for those things and actually taking physical steps to obtain them.
One final thought on the idea of hope as far as religion is concerned. You compared religion to a lottery ticket, basically saying that at least some people are living there lives for God wagering on the chance that there is an afterlife and a Heaven, etc. This is a classical and widely discredited argument for faith called Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager). This argument has a couple flaws. One, assuming that you are going to choose to believe in God for the sake of having hope in an afterlife or what have you, which God do you believe in? There are many religions out there and due to the requirement of people having faith rather than physical evidence, they are all equally valid. How do you choose the correct laws to live by? Second, if one is trying to abide by a religion strictly because they don't like the alternative (not believing and going to Hell), then it is questionable whether or not you could actually call them a true believer and follower and a think an all knowing God would be able to ferret them out.
Again, thanks for getting back to me. I really appreciate that you took the time to provide your arguments. I'm hoping maybe you and others can explain to me some of the things that I don't quite get about religion and God. Please do not take offense to anything I've said as that was not my intention.
Take care,
Vinnie
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYou seem like a true Christian and that I greatly admire. I have met many people in my life who said they were Christians, but their actions and words proved otherwise. Although I consider myself to be a non-believer, I do feel there are many Christian teachings worth practicing (e.g. kindness to others, forgivness). Also, unlike Vinnie, I do believe in the power of HOPE.
Take Care,
Michelle
I do believe in hope and think it's a good thing -- "Regarding your feelings on hope, I would agree that hope, in and of itself, is a good thing. Hope keeps people striving for a better world and a better life." But hope mixed with a strategic set of possibly immoral steps to guarantee that you get what you want is dangerous.
ReplyDelete