Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

That supervisor in chief (of course) would be the almighty .

Anybody who is under this impression would do well to read this cute little essay by the inimitable Bertrand Russell:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell3.htm

Closely read especially the last paragraph. :-)

gsd

Sedit - 6-1-2011 at 09:13

I judge the church by Letters sent from the vatican to Ireland after the abuse alegations started to surface. The church was keeping it hush hush for decades and when it started to surface Ireland wanted answers and the response they got shown by the Wikileak cables was the Vatican refusing to speak with Ireland because they have tarnished the Sovereignty of the church.

Any organization willing to cover up abuse of children and further more reject and demonize those who expose it is evil. This is not a couple evil men but the foundation thru which these churches are based. They have exposed that a large portion is evil from the ground up. If this was an isolated incident one could look past it but if you follow the timeline of the religion back to its start you will see that as the three sects broke off from mainstream Egyption religion in profress of a single god all three have left a wake of destruction in there paths and we are currently living in an age where one such destruction was carried out on September 11. The two religions are almost identical and to feel that christianity is above what took place on that day one must look back at its history to see that acts much more atrocious have taken place in there name. I liken it to waiting a couple hundred years and then worshiping the acts of the Nazis as though they are saviors.

Perhaps it does prove the religions teachings in that the closer you get to god the more you will be tested but to many of these people have failed the test and it is something I would wish to distance myself from since I have seen first hand the cult like nature of organized religion and how it ripped a few familys apart. If the almighty is the superviser of what is taking place then I would just as well chose to worship my own beliefs instead of supporting corruption of this nature.

Im starting to change my tone on this subject after watching this thread play out and the direction its going. It is painfully clear that No, Science and religion can not co-exist. Any discussion will turn into a flame war between the two partys with the impossibility of any resolution ever comming on the table.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 09:25

I just have no time for organised superstition!

I have decreasing admiration for organized denial, deception, amorality, hostility, and willful ignorance. I have dismay for the conflicted humanity composing the marxist and communist "societies" to which that godless lack of enlightenment leads.

If you let only governments and/or science define what is good and right for you, what are your rights, and in what you should place your confidence ....then you have your fullest reward already. Don't complain or worry, you have achieved nirvana by the light of their 10 watt bulb in a large room. You may leave your sunscreen at home without fear of overexposure to illumination.

[Edited on 6-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 6-1-2011 at 09:56

Fear of the unknown will always be a potent force in the lives of most people.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 10:09

No fear is mine, a blessed assurance is now located where any fear used to be.

You see the Rock of Ages is something even better than the Rock of Gibraltar.

People buy life insurance, having faith that payment will be made to their survivor beneficiaries.

If people would so readily place faith and money into a bank on earth to cover
final business involving their mortal remains, then how is it so much a greater leap to also have maturity and foresight concerning the making of advance arrangements with Jesus for the safekeeping of ones own soul ?

hissingnoise - 6-1-2011 at 11:00

Quote:

No fear is mine, a blessed assurance is now located where any fear used to be.

Gee Rosco, is it me, or does that really sound very quaint.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 11:54

My pledge of allegiance, officers oath, and Lord's prayer would also sound quaint. I take the traditional, plain and simple meaning sincerely to heart. I actually do believe all that old time religion God and Country and Constitution , Bill of Rights kind of principled stuff literally, without mental reservation or prevarication like is more comfortable and popular with many who think everything is a matter of "interpretation". I know what it means to me,
doesn't require a lot of analysis by me. I have observed that analyzing it too much is generally where dishonesty enters by people who don't really concur and would clothe naked subversion as being principled "interpretation". To me it means what it says or else it really doesn't mean anything at all.

hissingnoise - 6-1-2011 at 12:10

Well then Rosco, I can only envy you your certitude . . .

turd - 6-1-2011 at 12:14

If people would so readily place faith and money into a bank on earth to cover
final business involving their mortal remains, then how is it so much a greater leap to also have maturity and foresight concerning the making of advance arrangements with Jesus for the safekeeping of ones own soul ?

And what if god hates religious people and puts their soul directly into hell? With a bank/insurance I can at least be quite sure that the money finds my intended purpose.

Please - this thread should have been detritused a long time ago. At least put it in whimsy, this has _nothing_ to do with science.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 12:29

Why detritus ? Is that the deciding turn in a discussion which has merit but
has a course which is not deemed "satisfactory" in serving the aims of bias
for one view or another ? There is a matter of respect that is at the core of
this topic. Every atheist radical with an agenda of deceit tries unsuccessfully
to put science and Christianity at odds as if somehow science is the validation
for atheism, and that atheism is a license to slander the church, Christians, and God.

Is legitimate debate then to keep silent in the face of insults and lies or
to expose it for exactly what sorry politics of cynicism, deceit, and bitterness it is ?

Science and religion can indeed peacefully coexist so long as atheists do not try to claim science as their invention, brainchild, and exclusive realm, while professing a rewritten history, redefined reality, and a false affirmation of intellectual or moral superiority to Christians.

turd - 6-1-2011 at 12:45

Because it has _nothing_ to do with "The art and science of amateur experimentalism", the site's topic. I couldn't care less what imaginary beings you believe in as long as you post good science/experiments. I have never heard of someone being barred from doing experiments because he/she had this or that religious belief. Actually the attitude amongst practically all (professional) scientists that I know is: We don't care what your racial, religious or sexual preferences are as long as you work is sound.

Please move this off-topic discussion to whimsy.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 13:47

Your concern over topic categorization accuracy and propriety is a sensitivity remarkable in its precision and insight, so you may yet have some promise with regards to development of a discerning intellect capable of greater appreciation for "imaginary" beings. However it could also be that more realistically speaking,
such optimism is only a case where hope springs eternal. God only knows.

Sedit - 6-1-2011 at 14:29

Science and religion can indeed peacefully coexist so long as atheists do not try to claim science as their invention, brainchild, and exclusive realm, while professing a rewritten history, redefined reality, and a false affirmation of intellectual or moral superiority to Christians.

It just can't happen Rosco and this statement is the fundemental flaw as to why they can't. Your blaming the Atheist and im sure there blaming the Christains. An Atheist will profess that they can peacefully coexist so long as Christains would stop declaring there books and superstitions as fact.

No matter how you look at it you will see its obvious they just can not co exist and this thread proves it.

I hate modern science and religion for both the same reason. Both partys are stubborn jackasses that refuse to listen to vauge facts. A fact does not have to be true in order to gain wisdom from it.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 15:12

I don't blame the atheist for much beyond what appears to me a near perfect record for cynicism and dishonesty. There hasn't been any effort on my part to confuse "belief" with "scientific fact". I try to make a distinction between science and religion in a way that is inclusive, rather than making baseless arguments
that the two things are invariably at odds. There absolutely are religious fanatics and there absolutely are atheist fanatics and it is the fanaticism where
conflict arises because zeal tends to blind people to rational thinking. Science is neither atheist nor religious, any more than mathematics or geometry.

Excessive bias that blurs and dishonestly redefines distinctions between science and religion is a negative commentary on intellect. There are brilliant lunatics who are still intelligent even in spite of their evil genius. I get weary of the endless attack by atheists on people who believe in God as if faith was somehow a litmus test of intelligence ....when very clearly that is absolutely not the case. Yet even here in this thread you see the smartasses with attitude mouthing off their insults as if repetition of the lie and insult will by enough telling transform into truth what is only their cynical opinion. The opinion of an atheist may be that a Christian is necessarily a moron who could not be a legitimate scientist, but
that opinion is incorrect, and the proof is abundant that it is an opinion of the same depth as is racism or sexism .....stupid actually.....and yet it is an often
revisited offensiveness which obviously speaks of a personal problem owned
by the person having such a bias which is a prejudice of such intensity it is blinding.

Atheists can go ahead and believe that they are going to hijack control of the world which was built for the most part by people of faith, but that simply isn't going to happen.

psychokinetic - 7-1-2011 at 14:01

Most of that was the best thing you've said all thread.

condennnsa - 7-1-2011 at 14:07

"the world which was built for the most part by people of faith"

They may have been of faith, i don't know. But it was not faith that made the people build the world, but rather greed. in my opinion

woelen - 9-1-2011 at 00:40

Your blaming the Atheist and im sure there blaming the Christains. An Atheist will profess that they can peacefully coexist so long as Christains would stop declaring there books and superstitions as fact.

Your blaming the Christian and im sure there blaming the Atheists. A Christian will profess that they can peacefully coexist so long as Atheists would stop declaring there books and superstitions as fact.

madscientist - 9-1-2011 at 06:54

Science is a method - the use of reproducible, verifiable evidence to reach conclusions. Religion is a system of beliefs - it uses no reproducible or verifiable evidence of any kind.

It should be obvious that science and religion are fundamentally different approaches to discovering "the truth."

Are there religious scientists? Sure. But it is also a human tendency to be inconsistent and contradictory in one's words and thoughts.

hissingnoise - 9-1-2011 at 07:09

What I'll never understand is how intelligent people can abandon all rationality to engage in what amounts to childish wishful thinking . . .

woelen - 9-1-2011 at 09:57

What I'll never understand is how intelligent people can abandon all rationality to engage in what amounts to childish wishful thinking . . .

What you are referring to is a caricature of religion. Indeed, intelligent people do not engage in some ill-defined and illogical feel-good wishfull thinking.

True religion has a well-defined worldview, which absolutely does not need to conflict with what science finds. Science is a tool for understanding the world around us, but it is mainly geared at HOW. Religion also attempts to understand the world around us, but it is mainly geared at WHY.

Just to make an analogy with a radio receiver, which is capable of receiving signals over different channels. We have pop-music channels, classical music channels, cultural channels, news channels and so on. You can listen to just one of these channels, but you can also decide to spread your attention over different channels, depending on mood and situation.

Now let's extend this to ourselves. We have the channel of science, the channel of art, the channel of feelings, the channel of religion and probably many more channels. What I observe in many scientists (I say many, but not all) is that they almost exclusively tune in on the channel of science and that is their sole input of information in their life. Every aspect of life has to be understood and explained in terms of science. In the long run, however, this will lead to failures.

For me, religion also is one of the channels of understanding, but music, arts and yes, science also are. All of them give understanding at different levels and together they give me a worldview which makes life worth living.

What I see in this discussion is that many people over here associate religion only with fairy tale stories of things which by long have been disproved. That is not a fair method of discussing things. A true religion can withstand discoveries of every kind and I believe Christianity is. What many people do is referring to the "god of the gaps" and then they tell that the True God does not exist. They just have shown that the "god of the gaps" does not exist. This "god of the gaps" is something which some people believe and more and more of this "god" is taken away with further scientific discovery. But true believe in the real God does not depend on scientific discoveries. Actually, when I read about new amazing and complex discoveries, such as new planets, new structures in DNA, the relation between species, which once shown by fossils now also is shown by DNA, then I only can say that God is even greater than I thought before. The more we know about His creation (at the super macro level of billions of light years, at the super micro level at subatomic particle levels and at huge time scales of billions of years) the more I see how fantastic and great this God must be.

This awesome God, Who made the galaxies on one side and the quarks and bosons at the other side, but also made the earth with all its life forms on it in a process of billion of years feels love for each individual person and cares about us.

How did God do all of this? He uses the laws of Nature, which he has made Himself. The laws of Nature allow all these phenomena to unfold and to exist. As scientists we can (and should) attempt to understand the HOW of His creation by studying the laws of Nature.

But God's method of working goes beyond the laws of Nature. Just see the operation of the laws of Nature as the normal operational mode. Sometimes, however, there is an exception. Such an exception we call a miracle, but by its very nature of it being an exception it falls outside the realms of science. Science only can tell something about the normal mode of operation, exceptions cannot be handled by science and then we come to the point of religion, but also arts, emotion.

[Edited on 9-1-11 by woelen]

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 10:22

From personal experience I know Christianity is not a religion which asks or seeks that anyone leave their brain at the door and exchange intellect for a skull filled with "blind faith". Many here seem to have an incorrect idea that is just how it works. On the contrary it is quite an opposite process. Some of the most highly educated and intelligent persons who ever lived, many of whom are scientists, medical doctors, engineers, ect. are also Christians. Inability to reconcile that FACT with incorrect ideas or illusions reveals a personal philosophical conflict and not any bona fide issue with religion. Prophecy historically recorded and later fulfilled is indeed verifiable evidence, but of course there is a governing premise operable which does involve acceptance of the veracity of the report that such things have occurred in a time long before "peer review" and authentication by committee became scientific convention in more modern times.

What clearly is occurring is that some people would be more comfortable with the idea of having all ancient texts and records made subject to editorial review for a scientific determination of their veracity by persons now living millenia distant from the time such writings were made. That kind of revisionism is pure censorship and social and psychological manipulation in service not necessarily of humanity. Such revisionism is rightly questionable in regards to whatever "scholarly or scientific" virtue may be
accorded such revisionism by those who would judge themselves worthy for their estimation of their own excellence at being scholarly and scientific ...before even examining what true virtue exists in that revisionism.

Inevitably such "experts" then make "law" whatever they "believe" defines right from wrong and how men should live their lives. What that has gotten us in the modern world is a set of flawed and too often ridiculous "laws" inflicted in many cases as a real crime and imposition carried out by liars and corrupt men of cruel ambition who estimate they are a notch above any other man, especially any lowly Christian.

Intelligent people do not abandon all rationality to engage in religion that is what amounts to childish wishful thinking. It is more of a humility and honesty that acknowledges
that right from wrong is not ultimately defined by children nor is it children's duty or right to impose whatever cockeyed standard they invent on all whom they may estimate are inhabitants of what they regard as their own sovreign realm.

It is no small distinction that to whom would be accorded the status and identity and authority as the sovreign would necessarily be different for people of faith as compared with people who have none. Because some would prefer to believe there is no sovreign higher authority than their own thinking and ambitions, then anything whatsoever they decide is given absolute power and regarded as the ultimate virtue realized when their own desire is attained .....no matter how evil or monstrous their faulty and imperfect human desires may be. So the trap is very real for people who do not believe in God to substitute themselves and whatever they think, usurping what should rightly be Gods sovreignty in their own lives while disrespecting that de facto sovreignty over the lives of others who would declare it, as a license to act also as if the unbelieving had attained
"superiority" over and authority by assertion to lord things over those "stupid religious people".

Now where is the truth found ? That question may be
very complex and perplexing for the scholarly and scientific.

To a Christian it is a simpler matter which goes like this:
God said it, I believe it, that settles it. That profound simplification of things is generally not the first realization, but is something more like the end product of a hundred distillations and recrystallizations. But anyone is welcome to estimate the depth of the process for such a realization any shallow way they wish .....just don't try to climb into my head and tell me how you think that process worked.

@woelen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfys7U-o3bI Turn Your Radio On

[Edited on 9-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 9-1-2011 at 10:32

Quote:

A true religion can withstand discoveries of every kind and I believe Christianity is.

You make your points eloquently woelen but it seems to me that every religion has, in its time, seen itself as "The One True Path to Redemption".
Religious belief seems always to evolve, and the gods of Ancient Greece were every bit as real to the Greeks as the Christian god is to Christians.
Older religions have no relevance to people today and in the distant future Christianity will almost certainly have been eclipsed by a new set of beliefs - the only constant being the presence of atheists of which I'm just one . . .

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 11:18

There is no religious or philosophical equivalency between religions having similar coincidental beliefs .....but possibly the coincidences are explainable as being parts of a greater truth being earnestly sought by different men who had some part revealed to them.

Christianity is the entire religion "contract" complete. Mormons add to gospel and that is heretical. That is where a bona fide religion becomes a cult. Mormonism is a good example of a religion susceptible to historical scrutiny so it doesn't wash, revealing what has been added by Mormons and hitched like a third testament to Christianity. The differences there between Mormons and mainstream Christianity provides a good scholarly study which will be informative to anyone wrestling with the matter of equivalency, authenticity, veracity.

The "gods" of ancient Greece don't hold the keys to heaven and hell,
and so far as ancient past, present, or distant future .....
being the Alpha and Omega .....Christ already has that covered,
everything that ever existed or ever will. And as for all the other
religions, there's only one road to heaven, and they aren't it,
according to what I understand and believe.

With regards to any person's unbelief ......maybe try asking God
to deliver you from that skepticism....and see what happens....
( You may want to hold on to your hat, you could be in for quite a ride )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFef5y8VVEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuVBc76jas

hissingnoise - 9-1-2011 at 11:26

Quote:

There is no religious or philosophical equivalency between religions having similar coincidental beliefs .....but possibly the coincidences are explainable as being parts of a greater truth being earnestly sought by different men who had some part revealed to them.

Coincidental Rosco?
Come on, you know as well as I do that Christianity has as its foundations the wreckage of those religions which preceded it!

madscientist - 9-1-2011 at 11:50

Sometimes it's not just the answers that are absurd.

Why is the number 3 a prime number?

Why does the universe exist?

Why do I exist?

One can either recognize that the questions themselves are flawed and unanswerable, or attempt to resolve them with answers that cannot be proven or disproven. As our minds are wired in a way that makes unanswered questions troubling, the latter approach is the usual road taken. "It just is" is a difficult concept to accept.

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 11:59

Quote:

Coincidental Rosco?
Come on, you know as well as I do that Christianity has as its foundations the wreckage of those religions which preceded it!

Christianity has it's origins in a unique baby boy named Jesus born to a virgin named Mary in a town called Bethlehem. The term "gospel" has been synonymous with "truth" for a very long time, and there is a reason for that which is a lot better reason than some lame explanation it is a mass delusion.

Christians were hunted and killed for three hundred years in a failed effort
at their extermination. Would you suppose that such effort was mounted
in order to eliminate a foolish and unfounded, man invented "superstition" ?

You go ahead and believe whatever you think is "reasonable".
Good luck with that.

[Edited on 9-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

woelen - 9-1-2011 at 12:06

Atheism is something of all times, just as hissingnoise sais, and it probably will be, until God unites the realms of our universe and heavens. Nothing new here.

But this is not my point. Atheism also is just a point of view, like any religion. The only difference is that atheism denies the existence of all gods and Christianity denies the existance of all gods, except the One. What I see, however, is that many atheists are so hard and bitter. Why is this? Because they just see a caricature of religion or even worse, they only WANT to see a caricature of religion. Not all atheists are like that (actually, quite a few of my best friends are atheists and I myself have been atheist till I was 22 or so). I do not want to blame atheists only, I also blame a subset of christians. I also know of christians who are harsh and do not show the true value of what Christ has done.

Most of the bitterness does not come from well-informed people, no it comes from people who have strong opinions on the bible, on christianity and on God Himself, while they never actually read the bible and only heard some distorted stories from people or have seen some fanatics with bold opinions. The same is true for part of christianity, who are equally ill-informed. They have hard opinions on what science achieved and see many discoveries as a vice instead of a virtue. In the end, it is all humans who have hard opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

Unfortunately, this makes discussion less than intelligent, we just see lots of hard words billowing over the screens. This kind of discussions leads nowhere, except to hot heads and cold hearts.

If someone really is interested in religion and not just wants to bash it, then such a person should be honest and try to learn about it. Read about it, there is good info on it, both from an atheist point of view and a christian point of view. Read a book like the bible and then tell whether you like it or not. For certain christians I want to say a similar thing. Read what science really is about, what evolution really is about, what astronomy really is about and then talk again. Then you'll see that all these things do not need to be threat to your faith, actually they can make your faith deeper/richer.
What I write here, I actually are promoting in my personal surroundings, I invite my non-believer friends to read about Christianity, the bible and so on, and I invite people from my church and my believing part of the family to read about science in general and more specifically evolution and cosmology. I can say that more than once in my life this has lead to very interesting discussions, which go much further than the bashing I usually see on internet forums.

[Edited on 9-1-11 by woelen]

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 12:15

Sometimes it's not just the answers that are absurd.

Why is the number 3 a prime number?

So base 10 mathematics can work reasonably well?

Quote:

Why does the universe exist?

God was feeling creative, bored, or lonely?

Quote:

Why do I exist?

Your parents wanted a child or you were a surprise?

Quote:

One can either recognize that the questions themselves are flawed and unanswerable, or attempt to resolve them with answers that cannot be proven or disproven. As our minds are wired in a way that makes unanswered questions troubling, the latter approach is the usual road taken. "It just is" is a difficult concept to accept.

That would be equally rationally extensible as a proposition regarding God. He just is, the great "I Am".

The larger more significant question would be is, okay now that I am here, is there anything important beyond all I understand or even can ever understand, and what will become of me ?

madscientist - 9-1-2011 at 12:52

Quote:

So base 10 mathematics can work reasonably well?

3 is prime regardless of the base used to represent it.

Quote:

God was feeling creative, bored, or lonely?

This is the latter approach I mentioned.

Quote:

Your parents wanted a child or you were a surprise?

I hope you realize I meant the philosophical question.

Quote:

That would be equally rationally extensible as a proposition regarding God. He just is, the great "I Am".

The primeness of 3, the existence of the universe, and the existence of consciousness are all universally verifiable. This is not the case with a deity. Hence it has no bearing on my point.

Back on topic...

Religion can incorporate ideas delivered by science into its ideology, but it itself cannot endure the rigors of the scientific method. There is no evidence - only faith - and there is no place for faith without evidence in science. A requirement for verifiable proof is the most fundamental tenet of scientific reasoning.

woelen - 9-1-2011 at 13:10

Religion can incorporate ideas delivered by science into its ideology, but it itself cannot endure the rigors of the scientific method. There is no evidence - only faith - and there is no place for faith without evidence in science. A requirement for verifiable proof is the most fundamental tenet of scientific reasoning.

Yes, this is true. Science by definition only works on verifiable concepts, otherwise we cannot speak of science anymore. So, a theory which involves faith of some sort is NOT a scientific theory. Every religious person should accept this! This, however, does not mean that religion is inferior to science, it is another channel of understanding our world.

A hammer is an invaluable tool for building constructions, but does this mean that a lawn mower is an inferior tool? A lawn mower is used for a completely different thing. A hammer and a lawn mower can even complement each other, together they can be used to construct a nice house with a tidy place surrounding it. Think of this how religion and science can complement each other.

vulture - 9-1-2011 at 13:52

I do not have a problem with religion per se. I have a problem with religion influencing policy and setting moral standards where it should not.

The current example being the catholic church blowing alot of hyperbole over AIDS and sex. What the hell do they know about this stuff?

I also strongly oppose the common reasoning that religious people are good people because they live up to their moral standards. It's like saying atheists or others are inherently bad because they don't believe. What about the atheists who are spending their time helping other people instead of praying?

Quote:

The only difference is that atheism denies the existence of all gods and Christianity denies the existance of all gods, except the One.

That's a rather sweeping statement. I certainly wouldn't say that is the only difference. Also, atheism isn't per se the denial of existence of (a) god(s), it's rather the lack of evidence supporting the contrary. That may seem trivial, but it's an important distinction.

In case of denial, you believe that there is no god and won't change your mind even if proved wrong.

[Edited on 9-1-2011 by vulture]

turd - 9-1-2011 at 14:29

Quote:

For me, religion also is one of the channels of understanding, but music, arts and yes, science also are.

But since this is a science board, religion, music and arts are off-topic(*) and should be discussed - like politics - in whimsy. You see, that's the nice thing about science: it provides a common language (mathematics) and a set of methods which allow to (more or less) objectively evaluate the quality of your work. Good scientific work stands on its own and the biography of the creator is totally irrelevant. Matter of fact, often experts in their field are assholes(**), which does not devalue the theories and methods they developed in the slightest. Of course similar things are true for music: apparently J.S.Bach was not an easy person, yet his work will stay relevant for a long time to come.

In short, the whole premise of this thread - that people even care about your faith in the context of science is bunk. I have the feeling the only purpose of this thread is to shove some crazy (in my opinion) religious faith into everybody's face. This is akin to youngsters annoying their co-travelers in a train by playing terribly bad hiphop with their mobile phones. I guess that's where the bitterness you perceive comes from, and which is just a silly prejudice, btw.

Notes:
(*) Except of course scientific discussions about these subjects. Religion is certainly a hot topic in psychology, psychiatry, neurology, history, political science, anthropology and more.
(**) Actually I believe that the _really_ good scientists are practically never assholes. It's just the nerds concentrating on one little aspect. This may be wishful thinking though.

MagicJigPipe - 9-1-2011 at 14:44

About asking god to deliver one from skepticism: I have tried that many times before, especially when I was young and wanted to fit in by believing, but it never worked. It only helped to reinforce my disbelief. When I get to a computer I'll tell you about an interesting experiment I conducted. I think it is more likely that a truly benevolent god by human standards will respect such honesty and perhaps even reward it. And if god has a different set of morals that justifies his rejection of those that honestly can't believe despite repeated efforts, those morals are bullshit and I reject them anyway. Those morals are more similar to a jealous, attention-seeking teenager than an omniscient and omnibenevolent being. This, of course, seems like evidence that the god was made up by people who had such immature morals.

squirrelwax - 9-1-2011 at 15:02

Ommmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_God_Om#Om

true pity that he is loosing his mind.

but then again any that can truly see are in danger of this.

The little bastards just can't cope with others belifes then they
have to tote prejudice against there small mindedness and
personal orientations.

personally I have to agree with MagicJigPipe's signature.

If what your signature says was true then we would have the freedom
to inquire about these things with out dogma and our faith could
then be our science or is that the other way

quicksilver - 9-1-2011 at 15:38

If a man Believes; I see no reason why he should mind someone who does not do so. I certainly don't resent an Atheist. Provided that person doesn't intend to force his beliefs on me. I do NOT Evangelize my beliefs on others & I expect them to afford me the same courtesy.
Agnosticism, however is frankly what appears a natural progression from those who had no formal religion in their life & appears entirely understandable & natural. I have even spoken with a close friend who studied at a seminary & he often spoke of wondering. He was close enough to me to admit that his faith often wavered. I see nothing evil about that. I deeply believe that it's a classic example of the human condition to question, doubt, & struggle with very complex issues.
I feel that as long as respect is offered for differing view points; there is nothing inherently "wrong" with any perspective (within limits; their IS something wrong with harming innocents) - if it respects that of others to maintain their own belief path.

madscientist - 9-1-2011 at 16:28

The position of an atheist (a reasonable one, at least) is not based off beliefs. The religious believe, the atheists don't.

hkparker - 9-1-2011 at 16:48

But you have to have to have faith that their isnt a God, dont you? You cant prove that there is no God and therefore, some faith is involved. Also it is often said that religion is not open minded to change, which is most of the time true, however most Lutheran churches have accepted and ordained gay and women pastors recently, something forbidden historically. So they are in some respects open to change.

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 18:48

Old time religion that is bible based is reliable. Neo-orthodoxy sects formed
to serve "special interests" may seem open minded, progressive, and reformed
to those "special interests" who are served by such change and who don't really care if such changes have scriptural authority or not .....because they are amending Christianity as they go so that it fits what they want to believe,
more than do they believe what it actually teaches and requires. Don't like the message .....don't worry....we are so progressive we will just change things
for you and make it a "will build to suit tenant" kind of religion and accept the customary ten per cent for your peace of mind about your salvation .....
never mind whether it exists or not. Progressive religion is a lot like progressive government .......caveat emptor.

MagicJigPipe - 9-1-2011 at 18:49

yes, in the same way one must have faith to disbelieve in fairies, mars, apollo, neverland, unicorns and an lsd crystal one foot in diameter orbiting pluto.

And rosco, i find your comments about people using christianity to serve their interests amusing seeing as though that is exactly how your (likely) modern text and dogmas were formed. thousands of years of unauthorized changes, corruption, racism, genocide, despotism and indoctrination is what made christianity what it is today (yes. i ignored the few good things to make a point). i just don't understand how you can believe the bible that you know and love was written by god instead of those very people who wanted their interests forwarded. That's what we know about so many other influential texts, goverments and organizations. why is christianity different? there's definitely no real evidence to suggest it is. why not just admit that your beliefs fly in the face of reason and evidence and that doesn't bother you? then we can just move on (temporarily i'm sure).

[Edited on 1-10-2011 by MagicJigPipe]

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 19:35

Wait a minute, what you are describing sounds exactly like statist propaganda
rather than religion and a moral code involving a personal God. Could you be confused about the very thing you are criticizing as being a fairy tale ?

I tell you the world must be an abysmal and scary place for the innocent child of an atheist.

They get their bedtime story and maybe a good luck, I hope you live through the night so we can see each other in the morning. All things considered .....
a Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray thee Lord my soul to keep....ect. would
probably be in order .....don't you think ?
( do you know how the rest of that bedtime prayer goes ? )

One day we all get to walk that lonesome valley so to speak and
Dawkins or secular humanism isn't going to be there for your comfort .....
but a welcome and needed angel might be there,
if you have chosen well instead of having acted stupidly in this life.

If I'm right then I have a comfort and a heaven to which to look forward,
and if I am wrong, then five seconds after the blood stops flowing through
my brain my consciousness winks out and I am none the wiser nor
am I any the poorer for having tried to "keep the faith" to the end.
If you are right, of course the five second rule applies and nothing
is really changed for me because I sure won't know the difference
as I won't be around any longer to notice or care either way. Therefore
I technically cannot be then disappointed if what I believed was only
a fairy tale. On the other hand, let's say it is yourself coming to your
"end of mission" for this world ....you do see the implications there
are not so favorable if you basically lose the coin toss with the devil
concerning the matter of whether you have a soul or not, and where
it will be going after your last breath. If I am wrong in what I believe
then I don't have to burn for the mistake. But if you are wrong then
you have made an irreversible error that is the mother of all screwups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHup25Mi3zY

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

psychokinetic - 9-1-2011 at 19:41

You're/they're as bad as each other.

Obviously science and religion cannot exist together peacefully. We can't even have a logical discussion about the two together.

Rosco Bodine - 9-1-2011 at 19:50

Perhaps the perfectly definitive nature of what I just said is disturbing in its implications. And the logic of it is quite impeccable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogU48WZV8WQ

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

woelen - 10-1-2011 at 00:56

@Rosco: What you are saying about your faith I find quite apalling. I also believe in God just as you do, but you are talking about it like a kind of insurance. Just believe, then in case you are right, you are happy and in case you are wrong, it doesn't matter at all.

I say something different: The bible tells that if christians indeed are wrong and there is no risen Lord Jesus and just this poor man, who lived appr. 2000 years ago, then the christians are the saddest people on earth. You can say such a thing, because you (and I also) can express our believes comfortably in freedom and we can attend services in freedom with no fear for pain, the police or the government. What when you are living in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Somalia? But in those countries there also are christians, risking their lives, suffering from suppression and still they believe. Their life could be a lot easier if they dumped their believes, but they don't. They believe that Lord Jesus is a reality and if the price of believing this is (very) high, then that be so.

No, fear for the devil and a perilous afterlife is NOT the main reason for believing in God. Actually, I'm sure that many people who are not christian at all (e.g. atheists or people adhering another religion) may be far better off than many so-called christians. I'm not saying that this applied to you, please don't understand me wrong, but what I do want to say is that people's salvation is MUCH more certain than you want to make us believe.

So many people simply don't know what to believe and they have their doubs on God or even His existence. Yet, if these people are sincerely investigating these matters, then God will be graceful, even if they do not find the complete answer and even if they do not really know the ins and outs of the bible.

Vulture made a remark about people praying instead of acting. He is right. If christians are only praying, evangelizing, and not acting, then they will not be better off than an atheist who does his/her best to change the world in a better direction. Indeed, true christianity requires words and deeds. And these deeds must not be things like saying that gay persons are inferior, that AIDS is a punishment of God and that kind of things. True christians try to help those people with the means they have. Remember, Jesus was with the prostitutes and the people who frauded with tax-money. He cared about these people, because they were despised by the others from that society. He did not say that their works were good, but he did not condemn them, he helped them.

Just to give an example from my own life. I know a girl (now a grown up woman) from the southern part of the Netherlands who is lesbian and she (more or less) was expelled by her Roman Catholic family when she told about her feelings. This is something I abhor and I think this is the worst thing a christian can do. We (as a group of christian students at that time) tried to help her by accepting her as she was and have her feel welcome. We had discussions with her and within our group there were different opinions on lesbian sexuality, but none of us condemned her. If you point with one finger to someone else, then three or four fingers point to yourself.

And what is happening now with the release of information about child abuse in the Roman Catholic church (and possibly in some other churches as well) is good, very good. The fire of openness should burn away all the rotten and hidden abuse of young people, all those so-called pastors and priests should be punished and every stone should be turned upside down to bring all of this rotting evil to the daylight. I may sound harsh in this, but I think that is the only way this evil can be taken out. It must be cut away from the root and if this means that the organisational structure of church is damaged in this process, then that be so. Church may be damaged, but Christ will have His victory if all of this evil is taken away.

[Edited on 10-1-11 by woelen]

Rosco Bodine - 10-1-2011 at 06:12

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

@Rosco: What you are saying about your faith I find quite apalling. I also believe in God just as you do, but you are talking about it like a kind of insurance. Just believe, then in case you are right, you are happy and in case you are wrong, it doesn't matter at all.

You have observed here and elsewhere that unbelievers ridicule as being irrational the choice which believers do make and I knew when I summarized one definitive aspect of the entirely valid rationale which is applicable by using such a stark example.....it would be disturbing and should be to any having reason for concern .....but it should not be an "appalling" example for another Christian that I would "take the gloves off" in a setting of such scholarly debate with skeptics. It does tend to lay it on the line with regards to exposing the fallacy of the atheists allegations that there is a flawed rationale at the basis of Christianity.
When you get things down to simplest terms it doesn't seem so irrational after all, and the debate on that point is really over right there at that particular fork in the road.
For your gentleness and meekness you want to keep moving that "point of reckoning" further down the road for the comfort of people who are a bit slow to "get it".
You would indulge the deceptive arguments of skeptics
more than myself to a distance beyond the point where I will simply stand my ground and state the plain fact. These aren't babies to whom we are speaking in this forum, but grown men. Sometimes stark honesty cuts through all the crap. And there isn't any way to remove from the matter of decision the fact that it truly is an ultimatum, the mother
of all ultimatums.....because that indeed is just exactly what it is. Some people sugar coat it. But the medicine is the same. Plain talk should be okay about plain matters. Christianity actually could be compared to a kind of insurance policy on a persons soul, the premium for which has already been paid by the blood of a crucified Jesus. However, to
put that "soul insurance policy" into effect, a person has to
"opt in" by publicly professing their faith in Jesus, and hopefully also being baptized.

Quote:

I say something different: The bible tells that if christians indeed are wrong and there is no risen Lord Jesus and just this poor man, who lived appr. 2000 years ago, then the christians are the saddest people on earth.

I must have missed that part. Maybe I am a little slow this morning, so please tell me the passage there on that one and I'll look it up.

Quote:

You can say such a thing, because you (and I also) can express our believes comfortably in freedom and we can attend services in freedom with no fear for pain, the police or the government. What when you are living in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Somalia? But in those countries there also are christians, risking their lives, suffering from suppression and still they believe. Their life could be a lot easier if they dumped their believes, but they don't. They believe that Lord Jesus is a reality and if the price of believing this is (very) high, then that be so.

Exactly. Persecution or even martyrdom can very much be the worldly price paid for being a Christian irregardless of whether there is a Christ or not. So it is no trivial or shallow
belief that resides in the heart of a Christian. It defines a
point of absolute reckoning with the world and its secular or otherwise heathen beliefs. There's no avoiding that.

Quote:

No, fear for the devil and a perilous afterlife is NOT the main reason for believing in God. Actually, I'm sure that many people who are not christian at all (e.g. atheists or people adhering another religion) may be far better off than many so-called christians. I'm not saying that this applied to you, please don't understand me wrong, but what I do want to say is that people's salvation is MUCH more certain than you want to make us believe.

Love is the best reason for believing in God. However, with regards to fear of the devil .....listen to yourself and you will
see that to have such fear then there would already be a belief .....a person would not believe in a devil worthy of fear unless they also believed in a God worthy of love and can understand the love which casts out fear. So there is here an entering into circular logic. If a person needs to seek shelter from a storm and the inviting glow of good company
beckoning from a sanctuary is insufficient motivation, if a thunderclap should send them running for safety instead .....then praise the Lord for the noise. Hold the door open for them .....wait, there's yet another in the distance
increasing from a gallop to a full run, coming in from the storm.

Quote:

So many people simply don't know what to believe and they have their doubs on God or even His existence. Yet, if these people are sincerely investigating these matters, then God will be graceful, even if they do not find the complete answer and even if they do not really know the ins and outs of the bible.

If God chooses to speak to mans heart and really needs that mans listening, well look at Jonah as an
example of persuasiveness. Yes indeed God would more
likely be gentle and graceful .....but not always so subtle, it would depend on the circumstances. Students are probably a special case, as are children.

Quote:

Vulture made a remark about people praying instead of acting. He is right. If christians are only praying, evangelizing, and not acting, then they will not be better off than an atheist who does his/her best to change the world in a better direction. Indeed, true christianity requires words and deeds. And these deeds must not be things like saying that gay persons are inferior, that AIDS is a punishment of God and that kind of things. True christians try to help those people with the means they have. Remember, Jesus was with the prostitutes and the people who frauded with tax-money. He cared about these people, because they were despised by the others from that society. He did not say that their works were good, but he did not condemn them, he helped them.

Really I don't pray as much as I should, I'm not good at it.
So I tend to try to help strangers when I see them in a lurch,
good samaritan kind of stuff. I generally offer no explanation
for the kindness, it is like a band aid on a skinned knee and
I know that....but every little bit can help so I try to do my little part when that opportunity is there.

Quote:

Just to give an example from my own life. I know a girl (now a grown up woman) from the southern part of the Netherlands who is lesbian and she (more or less) was expelled by her Roman Catholic family when she told about her feelings. This is something I abhor and I think this is the worst thing a christian can do. We (as a group of christian students at that time) tried to help her by accepting her as she was and have her feel welcome. We had discussions with her and within our group there were different opinions on lesbian sexuality, but none of us condemned her. If you point with one finger to someone else, then three or four fingers point to yourself.

If homosexuality and its attendant philosophies and practices were consistent with Christianity, or marriage, or the priesthood or ministry of churches, then the commentary of the bible would be different from what it is on the subject.
Some people can choose to ignore that and differ with it for their own comfort. This is one of those matters though where there isn't ambiguity in what the bible says about it.
Is it a controversial matter, you betcha it is controversial.
Should a Christian ever lose sight of what the bible says
about homosexuality .....no sir. Some may think they can
pick and choose on that issue, but that is a secular and social and not a Christian concept, no matter who may
think it is some neo-orthodoxy reformation of inclusion and tolerance ....it is heretical to have homosexual marriage
and homosexual ministers.

Quote:

And what is happening now with the release of information about child abuse in the Roman Catholic church (and possibly in some other churches as well) is good, very good. The fire of openness should burn away all the rotten and hidden abuse of young people, all those so-called pastors and priests should be punished and every stone should be turned upside down to bring all of this rotting evil to the daylight. I may sound harsh in this, but I think that is the only way this evil can be taken out. It must be cut away from the root and if this means that the organisational structure of church is damaged in this process, then that be so. Church may be damaged, but Christ will have His victory if all of this evil is taken away. [Edited on 10-1-11 by woelen]

It is simply a sad commentary on humanity that where there are children there are going to be child molesters, and unfortunately the perversion of homosexuality is particularly active in molestation of children as a part of the expression of that "orientation". It isn't politically correct to call it a mental illness anymore. Anyway, it isn't fair to associate such evil (or mental illness) with any particular religion, simply because a notorious scandal occurs involving a religion for whom the practice is a defined abomination before God. The matter is very different for the heterosexual child molestation as has been associated with the polygamy sects of Mormons, where that perversion is an actual teaching and normal practice. It is important not to ever
identify false doctrines and evil practices with Christianity
but to recognize that those things are subversive. The
same sort of subversion occurs with other groups and notoriously it also happens with government, where the
personal ambitions of evil men are substituted for whatever
virtuous things should be the mission instead. In my country right now there is a struggle between the people and a government which acts in ways that are contrary both to
established law and the will of the people, because of the
ambitions of subversives who are socialists or communists
but who incorrectly and deceptively identify themselves as
"progressives" or "liberals" because that sounds nicer than
saying they are socialists and communists. The same kinds of shenanigans can carry over from the "social order" of
society and pollute the orthodoxy of the church with delusions there is now in effect some neo-orthodoxy that
is also "progressive" .....when it is only subversive.
There is no way to sugar coat that truth either.

madscientist - 10-1-2011 at 07:20

You're veering wildly off-topic. This thread is about the modern relations of science and religion, not Bolshevik Democrats and their gulags.

hissingnoise - 10-1-2011 at 08:21

I blame the parents . . .

quicksilver - 10-1-2011 at 08:47

It appears that an Atheist HAS to believe* in some sense; in that I cannot find a solid proof that there IS NO God. Therefore and Atheist (capital "A") must devote a faith to his "beliefs" that God does not exist. No where have I found a proof that God does not exist . :-)
*Many great scientists had not found a "-proof" that a "Greater aspect" did not exist. Those who were Atheists "choose" to be so because they could not find a Proof that such a thing DOES exist. It is not so much a question of validation as it is a choice.

I was raised as an Atheist. - As a child and young adult it was a very lonely & frankly frightening place to be. This was my experience; as looking back some many decades. If some find me childish for embracing that perspective; I find that I am the luckier for being so. I would not demand that others believe as I do (or in any manner take up my way of thinking) but I found a great comfort in a Belief that there is a "Greater concept". I was also VERY lucky in that I found loving ethical people who had within them a compassion for someone in my position. That is why I carry on a small tradition not being angry or Evangelistic regarding Faith. It MUST be a personal choice, acceptance, & provide a warmth. Without that it's simple dogma & hollow ritual.

In fact I feel almost too self-conscious to share what I believe. I think it's a very private thing that perhaps should remain so unless asked directly. Prayer (for me) is more of a self examination process wherein I speak to a deeper "me" & it's very tough to explain. In fact it SO tough to put into words I would even demonstrate:
If you have ever saved someone's life (-=really=- saved their life!) and looked into their eyes when all the shit and gristle was over, the communication that is shared, that goes well past gratitude; to me is an example of 'The Spirit". It could be said to be a "Greater Good" or a Greater Productivity but it goes even beyond that! {And that's simply the Spiritual demonstration of a defining moment.}
You see how tough that is to define?

I am certain that Religion & Science can co-exist provided mutual respect for that which is a choice can be achieved. Can two individuals who vote different ways, work together? I believe so - provided that they have mutual respect for each other and do not let a demand "to convince" obscure the nature of a working relationship.

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by quicksilver]

madscientist - 10-1-2011 at 09:33

In the context of religion, beliefs exist without evidence; in the context of atheism, "beliefs" are specifically due to a lack of evidence. It's unreasonable to cast the two as equivalent.

Atheists are just skeptics. As there's no evidence, an atheist simply doesn't bother with religion.

There's a widespread misconception that atheists obsess over godslaying - spending their days bitter and angry, splattering pig's blood pentagrams on the wall - but the reality is most spend little time thinking about it, just as we would with MJP's theory of a giant LSD crystal orbiting Pluto, or any other incredible internet rumor.

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by madscientist]

Rosco Bodine - 10-1-2011 at 12:41

A reasonable measure of healthy skepticism is just common sense. But a child can be
troublesome with the continual "prove it" or "make me" or "why?" in response
to everything they are told. Life is short. We don't all have a thousand years
to "get it" concerning things we need to know, as if anyone will live long enough
to fully perfect their knowledge of anything.

The increase of knowledge is in large part due to "intuition" leading to hypothesis and theory and then to attempts at confirmation. That same process and rationale, although necessarily more abstract can be applicable to philosophy and
within boundaries to religion. Anyway, the well proven point I see that is made a matter of flat denial by many atheists, is that there is a legitimacy of rationale and reason which can apply particularly to Christianity .....a proven point that
at least on a philosophical basis there does exist a valid rationale involved in
Christianity which is a weightier matter than mere superstition having no rational basis as would be a "belief" invalidated by any intellectual scrutiny, as being
contrary to reason. To put it more precisely, no Christian should be thought
to be somehow stupid for being a Christian as if there were no historical or philosophical or rational basis (or merit) for having such beliefs, as if the entire matter
was just some wild fairy tale and mass delusion evidencing weak mindedness or weakness of character. Even if there was only a social structuring and organizational motive, involving deliberately designed psychology for the greater good of the "flock", to offer some moral discipline and dignity and social order for human enterprise ....certainly Christianity has served that purpose. So it would not be without merit even if that was all it had accomplished....it would still be inspired.
It really is a kind of hysteria of cynicism and dishonesty that is not humorous, when non-Christians maliciously criticize Christians as unreasoning and superstitious idiots incapable of rational thought, especially when trying to
hold out something like secular humanism, the invent it as you go along "religion"
as the "more intelligent", more sophisticated substitute or "cure". This is a definite case in point where the "cure" is worse than the greater sanity misidentified as being a "disease". For my part I would say that if evil ambition is the ultimate human "computer" virus ......then affected users should download and install the gospel "hotfix" to protect
their core operating system from "data loss" involving their
soul. A reformat and reinstall just may not be an option later.

psychokinetic - 10-1-2011 at 13:02

Perhaps the perfectly definitive nature of what I just said is disturbing in its implications. And the logic of it is quite impeccable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogU48WZV8WQ

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

No.

Rosco Bodine - 10-1-2011 at 13:18

Quote: Originally posted by psychokinetic

No.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt .... Frank Zappa

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

psychokinetic - 10-1-2011 at 14:14

I'm not denying a higher power, I'm denying you.

Rosco Bodine - 10-1-2011 at 15:04

You are entitled to your own personal analysis of the same scenario
as I was describing to illustrate my understanding using a definitive example.
That view is one I have had for fifty years and nobody has knocked
even a little dent in it by any logical argument, so it is long settled
business for me. If you have some logical argument to offer as a
refutation, please do tell me how do you think that scenario I described
should be described or understood differently ? Lay it on the line.

psychokinetic - 10-1-2011 at 16:57

I'm not going to lay anything on the line. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I keep them to myself. If only others would show the same courtesy.

quicksilver - 11-1-2011 at 09:12

In the context of religion, beliefs exist without evidence; in the context of atheism, "beliefs" are specifically due to a lack of evidence. It's unreasonable to cast the two as equivalent.

Atheists are just skeptics. As there's no evidence, an atheist simply doesn't bother with religion.

[Edited on 10-1-2011 by madscientist]

Could you elaborate on this as I am reading this (& frankly I read it over several times) I understand the second statement to be an agnostic one not an Atheistic one.

To be skeptical (to me) means to question rather than to have made up one's mind. Skepticism appears a natural element of lack of proof.
Yet there is no "proof" in either direction.

Please understand me - I do NOT mean to convince another individual to have Faith: it's too personal an issue and I have too much respect for another viewpoint which I certainly understand to attempt to foster my beliefs on them.
But let's examine issues with science such as the functions of a Blackhole, Event Horizons & related topics. They are not met with solid disbelief even though they cannot be proven. We can see what we believe is a Blackhole yet we know so little. We see how Faith is an intrinsic part of Man's experience yet we know so little; why should we deny what we have little supportive evidence to deny (rather than wonder)?

Why is it that two issues [of concepts than cannot be proven] do not share some elements of equivalency?

Please note that I am not speaking of an artistic conceptualizing of an elderly guy w/ a beard who is someone's idealistic concept but a MUCH wider one. Where I am going with this is there is a difference between agnosticism and Atheism. The later deigns a "Greater" existence impossible with no proof. Which leads to the old saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

edit*
I trust you also realize I say this in the theme of a relaxed conversation; I have no desire to refute your beliefs, etc. My point is that agnosticism is a "questioning" but Atheism is a predetermined belief (so says Webster's unabridged). I understand a man's agnosticism, yet I don't see Atheism in the same light as there is no "proof" that a "Greater" concept (I'll not call that God simply for a widening of discussion) does not exist. :-)

[Edited on 11-1-2011 by quicksilver]

DougTheMapper - 11-1-2011 at 09:55

Zoom out for a bit. I can't help myself but to state the seemingly less-than-obvious:

Religion has tenacity derived from its ability to adapt to modern science through the human condition. God made lightning until we studied electrostatics. Then God made the electron. It plays on the human condition, something both science and religion share - the assignment of hypothesis to the unknown. For instance, what is beyond the edge of the known universe? Oh, God of course. But he used to be in the sky before we gained the ability to go there. We will never find God since he only really exists in the one place we cannot go: the imagination.

Ironically, biblical stories aren't even relevant to modern religion. All they have done is impose beliefs onto ancient people when the stories therein were actually relevant and believable. Today, the stories are all nonsense or are scientifically impossible or explainable, but the belief that there is a man in the sky who controls everything has yet to be disproven. For this reason, all modern religions involve some sort of immortal deity/deities backed only by some shaky claims in ancient books and the fact that so many people in existence today actually believe in them, be it out of fear or straight simple-minded followership. They'll never be proven or disproven; we will continue to argue about this for the foreseeable future of mankind. It feels good to believe in something to explain the unexplainable, so there will always be some sort of religion floating around. On the other side, in a perfectly religious society there will always be someone to ask "why?". Again, it's the human condition.

As for scientists and religion getting along, let's try getting religious people to get along with other religious people first. Historically, scientists haven't started too many wars with each other based on mere hypotheses.

This is not to say that a religion-free society is the best society. The problem with an areligious society is that people are selfish. They will not go out of their way to help their fellow man without the threat of punishment. You can't impose laws regarding the honoring of your parents, adulteration, lying, coveting, or the like. The government would have to be absolute. Instead, there is the fear of the wrath of God. It is the absolute government: no real punishment is involved, no real threat is imposed; however, the many tend to forget this and are subsequently made better people on the empty promise of reward. To all who oppose government, do you not also oppose religion? It was not too long ago that the separation of church and state took place. Government is therefore either religious itself or very, very clever; the former more likely.

Concerning truth of the stories in the bible: There is a distinct possibility that the storytellers were speaking the absolute truth. However, consider the time at which they were written. Remember when the absolute truth was that the Earth was flat and anyone opposed to this was burned at the stake? I'm sure accounts we write today about inexplicable things will end up being laughable in the future. Dark matter and string theory come to mind.

What I find sad is the colossal amount of time people waste in prayer or ceremonial services. God tells you you're immortal. Science can prove to you that you'll be on earth for about eighty years, plus or minus a bit of chance. Frankly, I'm going to go with what I know and stop wasting time that has scientifically proven to be limited. Even many religious people seem to realize this and show it by being privately pious and forgoing formal, expensive, and time-consuming traditional ceremony.

Speaking of death, we don't know where consciousness goes when we die so we have assigned places such as heaven and hell simply as another manifestation of the human condition. Perhaps as the brain dies, you lose track of time and dream "forever", when really only for a minute or two. Now there's a science-religion fit... If only I were that optimistic.

[Edited on 11-1-2011 by DougTheMapper]

I forgot to state my disposition. Frankly, I do not let religion affect my life. I've already wasted enough time writing this, but I suppose it satisfies my argumentative side. Plus, I like writing.

Cheers, gentlemen!

[Edited on 11-1-2011 by DougTheMapper]

turd - 11-1-2011 at 11:33

Quote: Originally posted by DougTheMapper

The problem with an areligious society is that people are selfish. They will not go out of their way to help their fellow man without the threat of punishment.

You couldn't be more wrong. I find it hard to believe that you missed over 200 years of western philosophy. Check Kant, ca. 1790. And before anybody comes with "Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason": What Kant describes therein is the complete opposite of what your run of the mill devout monotheist believes (a personal, punishing higher being).

But thanks for bringing it up, IMHO this is one of the worst misconceptions of religious people. And frankly, people who only do "good" things because their religion orders them to scare me a lot.

BTW: You will find that many societies which are much less religious than the USA have better social systems and are often more free and relaxed in general.

psychokinetic - 11-1-2011 at 12:12

I think Doug meant what he typed - an Areligious society.
As in not religious.

But still, humans are humans, not all of us are good people, and most of us need telling off.
Religion or not. the telling off just comes from different sources for different people.

vulture - 11-1-2011 at 13:44

Quote:

BTW: You will find that many societies which are much less religious than the USA have better social systems and are often more free and relaxed in general.

Well this is something that ties into what I said about praying instead of acting. I would say that the USA are probably the most religious developed country, or at least the one that is most vocal about it (God bless America mantra), but they also have the greatest disparity between rich and poor. I do not see much compassion there and a lot of hostility mixed with a hint of new age crusades (aka spreading democracy).

It could be that I'm tying in politics with religion in a false correlation here, though.

[Edited on 11-1-2011 by vulture]

Sedit - 11-1-2011 at 18:11

Quote: Originally posted by vulture

This simply has no basis in facts at all vulture. Almost every other country I can think of is much more religious and vocal then the USA. Go to Ireland, Arabia, Israel or all most any other country for that matter and see that we are by far lower on the totem then almost all of them when it comes to worship and out spokeness of it all. God bless America is nothing more then a remant of a different time in the history of the USA.

Rosco Bodine - 11-1-2011 at 21:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1p22kW5Xs Jacobs Dream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkTHPbMzhGU Almost Persuaded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frKneDcUVtU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDatkylkFSM Me and God

[Edited on 13-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 12-1-2011 at 03:11

Almost every other country I can think of is much more religious and vocal then the USA.

That statement shows how little you know about other countries!
The US has some striking similarities with Pakistan as far as religious observance is concerned!
Ireland, these days, is a predominantly secular society - yes, it was a dark, priest-ridden place but that has changed for the obvious reasons.

madscientist - 12-1-2011 at 07:41

Rosco, what on earth does that have to do with the modern relations of science and religion? At least keep it vaguely on topic.

You're not going to convert any of the atheists here with random youtube links...

Quicksilver - I've always thought of atheism as not so much an absolute certainty that there is no god, but the realization that it is highly improbable, so improbable it's not worth spending any time considering. I guess your definition of agnosticism and my definition of atheism overlap.

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 08:51

An atheist could go the monument to the Cox children and demonstrate denial of the same sort as would conveniently (and dishonestly) "explain away" any other evidence which is contrary to their own personal "belief", and such denial is evidence of a bias that is blinding for an atheist. You are correct that
no you tube links and probably nothing else is going to convert an atheist, because an atheist has made a decision and conscious choice to be wilfully ignorant and to disregard evidence which runs counter to their bias. Atheism is a belief which cannot withstand scrutiny as being intellectually honest, because it requires "blind faith" in the non-existence of something specific, God.
Atheism is an intellectually dishonest "belief" which embraces and proclaims
as being truth a denial of the existence of God when no evidence exists to disprove the existence of God, yet much evidence exists to support the opposite
"belief" that God does exist. Intellectual honesty would then require acknowledging that a "belief" based upon no evidence whatsoever (which is what the atheist is practicing) demonstrates greater "blind faith" than does
the "belief" of a Christian because for the Christian it is not required to pick and choose for their comfort what evidence would be believed. There is evidence
to support the idea and the "belief" that God exists, so that belief has its bona fides within the scope of intellectual analysis seeking "proofs" more than does
the "belief" of an atheist which must necessarily deny such "proofs" and embrace a belief for which no supporting evidence or proof can be provided.

Quicksilver has tried to point out the irony of this "blind faith" of atheists,
who preferentially "believe" a lesser rationally supported view while calling
it intellectual superiority. There is deception there coming out of the gate.

Agnostics are not at all encumbered by irony of "blind faith" affirmations of
unsupportable unbelief but can indeed have an honest and "righteous" skepticism
which is not the same thing as the "liars denial" of an atheist.

You see an atheist must profess to "know" a thing that is unknowable is true, and therein is found the paradox which is a lie. But an agnostic has not really
made up their mind and is not sure what to believe regarding the matter of
whether God exists or not.

It is like the case of three men walking along a railroad track. Suppose one is a Christian, one is agnostic, and one is an atheist. The Christian says, "I hear a train whistle in the distance". The agnostic says "You must have good ears, I don't hear it yet, but I will keep my ears open". The atheist says "there is no such thing as a railroad, so don't worry, both of you guys are just imagining things".

anotheronebitesthedust - 12-1-2011 at 09:46

DougTheMapper - I agree with what you said except for a couple things:

Quote:

The problem with an areligious society is that people are selfish. They will not go out of their way to help their fellow man without the threat of punishment.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are 15-40% religious. Rwanda, Iran, Sudan and the USA are all over 90% religious. Religious countries always seem to be the most violent. And what is more selfish than murder? Also I don't think that when a priest molests a child it's out of selflessness. Holy wars, crusades, burning people at the stake, torturing enemy combatants, mass civilian murder, "refudiating" mainstream science, influencing governments to stop donating condoms to AIDS-infested Africa... these all seem really selfish to me.

Quote:

You can't impose laws regarding the honoring of your parents, adulteration, lying, coveting, or the like.

All those things are not governed in democratic and free societies (nor should they be unless you're lying about a real crime). And you can't tell me religion stops people from lying or cheating on their spouses.

Ted Haggard

Eddie Long

It's interesting how the 2 newest religions are the most popular.

madscientist - 12-1-2011 at 09:50

No proof is offered in that story that supernatural phenomena occurred.

It may have been an amazing coincidence - with so many people on this planet, freak coincidences happen all the time. Or perhaps he knew this place, and something in his subconscious suggested his kids ended up there.

Then again, it really could have been a "supernatural" phenomenon - but even then, it still proves nothing as to the existence of a god, or the Biblical one at that.

And who's to say "supernatural" phenomena won't eventually be explained by science? That's not to say they will be explained as figments of our imagination - they could be entirely real. Our understanding of the natural world is still skin deep, and we have much left to discover.

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 10:49

No proof is offered in that story that supernatural phenomena occurred.

Of course not. Such an occurrence does speak volumes by itself. Perhaps all other extraordinary events thought to be miracles can be explained away as well. And of course if they can't be explained doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly "logical" or "scientifically valid explanation" possible. Would it be more analytically correct "analysis"
to apply Occams razor, probably not ...you can't really trust Occam ....as he was friar you know.

Quote:

It may have been an amazing coincidence - with so many people on this planet, freak coincidences happen all the time. Or perhaps he knew this place, and something in his subconscious suggested his kids ended up there.

But of course, and statistically speaking, if you have enough monkeys sitting at typewriters banging away for long enough, eventually one of them will just by pure chance type out the complete works of William Shakespeare.
But that's a fat chance.

Quote:

Then again, it really could have been a "supernatural" phenomenon - but even then, it still proves nothing as to the existence of a god, or the Biblical one at that.

Yes, but atheists do not believe in the "supernatural" so
even one verifiable example of even one supernatural occurrence disproves the validity of atheism on all counts.

Quote:

And who's to say "supernatural" phenomena won't eventually be explained by science? That's not to say they will be explained as figments of our imagination - they could be entirely real. Our understanding of the natural world is still skin deep, and we have much left to discover.

By the convoluted rationale acceptable to an atheist, through "science" all things are possible, even twisting reason into a pretzel so long as that serves the bias of the atheist. Even if the evidence supporting the idea and belief that God exists is purely anecdotal and only supported by philosophical analyses including those which expose paradoxes inexorably leading to an intuitive conclusion in favor of the "belief" that God exists .....such belief still would have at least some rational basis even if that basis fell short
of being "conclusive proof". On the other hand, the absolutist view of an atheists bias would preclude any proof ever being sufficiently conclusive to disuade the bias of an atheist and "convert" it to a differing view. It is by nature
and definition an incorrectable error of logic that the atheist embraces and declares the paradox of intransigent, adamant denial and disbelief, rather than honestly seeking any different view or answer. The bias and denial which is blinding for an atheist obscures any honest seeking of what is actual and factual or possible, because they declare impossibility about what they do not know for certain, and ridicule any who do not share their lack of depth and concur with their view.

anotheronebitesthedust - 12-1-2011 at 11:09

Jared Lee Loughton = Rosco Bodine ???

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 11:57

Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust

Jared Lee Loughton = Rosco Bodine ???

You mean Loughner the loonie toon of recent infamy ?
Well aren't you the quick wit, maybe we should have a
spelling contest.

That's an unfounded and rude equivalency to make, call it slander. The question marks get a huge negative in reply.

There is no equivalency between me and a deranged moron skinhead inclined to go postal with a glock on women and little girls, but on the contrary I am a man who would and who has intervened to stop that sort of thing.

hissingnoise - 12-1-2011 at 12:08

Yes, I was about to commend him for the earlier post but the "Loughner" reference negated all that, and more!

hissingnoise - 12-1-2011 at 12:15

Better to call it just plain libel . . .

vulture - 12-1-2011 at 12:23

Quote:

This simply has no basis in facts at all vulture. Almost every other country I can think of is much more religious and vocal then the USA.

Really? Did you take a look at the graph anotheronebitesthedust showed in his post? Isreal is definitely more secular than the US.

FYI, Arabia is not a country.

FYI, Pakistan is not a developed country.

[Edited on 12-1-2011 by vulture]

hissingnoise - 12-1-2011 at 12:30

But Rosco, can you offer us one scrap of real evidence for god's existence?

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 13:53

Our own existence is a significant scrap of evidence in that regard if one considers the evidence in nature that progeny are descended from a progenitor. God wanted a family.
Human beings are Gods children.

What I would accept as circumstantial, anecdotal, philosophical, and historical evidence would not be regarded as real evidence. Reported miracles get
dismissed as folklore and legends and myths or misunderstood natural or coincidental random occurrences, prophecies get dismissed as being lucky guesses, and so forth on down the line. The history of the world and Christianity is filled with accounts of unexplained and perhaps unexplainable occurrences.
The matter of the analysis for the rationality of differing views is settled business for me and the Christianity/agnosticism/atheism (and/or other false religions)
rationality relationship via comparisons is likewise settled business for decades
for me. I think the germane question is what better accounts for the miraculous things best attributed to God other than belief being true there is indeed a God ?

Zoom out someone said ......okay zooming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id9O82D9h3A

quicksilver - 12-1-2011 at 15:51

Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust

Jared Lee Loughton = Rosco Bodine ???

That is a very unproductive & extremely insulting thing to say.

psychokinetic - 12-1-2011 at 16:25

A lot of this appears to be unproductive and insulting.
Logic appears to have gone out the window.

gnitseretni - 12-1-2011 at 17:30

I never understood the point of these threads. Threads like this one pop up every once in a while on all forums I frequent and most of them end the same way. First people try to prove there is/isn't a god... and when they realize that it's useless, that's when the insults start until a mod closes the thread.

madscientist - 12-1-2011 at 17:35

This one has remained reasonably cordial until the last day or so.

Keep it on topic (modern relations of science and religion), and keep each other out of your posts, or this is probably going to end up locked. It's teetering on the verge of a flame war...

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 17:51

Reason is tested significantly by "meaning of life" philosophical kind of discussions,
so it soon becomes impossible to fake it if the needed supply of reason is deficient. When some people ponder such deep subjects it is like that little animated flashlight icon in an empty Windows folder ....searching ....and searching....and searching

Hopefully a friend will guide them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhtUWG5K9_I

madscientist - 12-1-2011 at 18:08

Please, don't directly call others idiots, or killers, or lost souls, or whatever. Focus your words on the ideas, not the individuals, or I'm bringing down the hammer. :mad:

And please Rosco, no more youtube videos. They are patronizing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DmGJrrLCQE

hkparker - 12-1-2011 at 18:26

Quote: Originally posted by gnitseretni

I never understood the point of these threads. Threads like this one pop up every once in a while on all forums I frequent and most of them end the same way. First people try to prove there is/isn't a god... and when they realize that it's useless, that's when the insults start until a mod closes the thread.

Couldn't agree more. I think many people have proved science and religion can exist peacefully (ask a religious scientist?). At this point weather or not you do believe is your own opinion, and no one is convincing anyone different. I think its time this is closed.

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 18:49

The church is the greatest patron of the sciences and the arts that has ever been,
therefore it is by inference a question involving prediction of a potential ethical conflict that is the premise of the thread. Intuitively, it would be my guess that something controversial like
research contemplated involving living human embryos and genetic engineering,
beyond "medicinal genetics" is the "hidden topic" behind the pretext question.
If the question which is more honestly being offered to be guessed as what
is really being asked is different, for example "Is it okay with the church if scientists want to do some human modeling and engineering or is there an
ethical impasse there?", then the answer would probably be that such science
is a matter with which the church would have a real problem.

So ....are we down to the nitty gritty?

[Edited on 13-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

anotheronebitesthedust - 12-1-2011 at 20:25

Oh come on, no one else saw the resemblance in writing styles?

Jared Lee Loughton:

Quote:

If the police remove you from the educational facility for talking then removing you from the educational facility for talking is unconstitutional in the United States. The police remove you from the educational facility for talking. Thus, removing you from the educational facility for talking is unconstitutional in the United States. This situation is fraud because the police are unconstitutional!

Rosco:

Quote:

On the other hand, the absolutist view of an atheists bias would preclude any proof ever being sufficiently conclusive to disuade the bias of an atheist and "convert" it to a differing view. It is by nature and definition an incorrectable error of logic that the atheist embraces and declares the paradox of intransigent

I choose not to believe in an organized man-made religion because to do so would be to surrender my own creativity and freedom to learn and think for myself. And it's a lot more productive for individual humans to each think up new ideas, much like the infinite amount of monkeys reference, eventually someone will think up something that makes sense.

I'm not saying that the unknown mysteries of the universe don't inspire awe and at times thoughts of the existence of a supreme being or higher intelligence pulling the strings. But those thoughts are my own and I have pieced them together from the accumulation of experiences and information gathered throughout my life.

At the same time it's not impossible that a god put a baby on Earth to die for mankind and somehow absolve humans of the bad things they have done. But it's much more probable that we're just a bunch of monkeys typing on keyboards.

Jared Loughner - Uncle Fester Addams (undead???)

Rosco Bodine - 12-1-2011 at 22:54

For the writing styles I just don't see any similarity ......

However, anyone can see the resemblances here

Jared Loughner

Tom Henning Ovrebo (Norwegian Football referee)

Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester Addams)

[Edited on 13-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

Sedit - 12-1-2011 at 23:23

Almost every other country I can think of is much more religious and vocal then the USA.

This statement shows how little you know about me and shines light on how the majority of your post are nothing more then troll ridden comments. Going to church on sunday has about as much to do with religion as wipping my ass does to ensure its clean. Its a good ritual and may help a bit but worthless in making it pure. Its not about saying you believe its about acting like it and the US does very little in this respect as opposed to other countrys. More often then not churchs are filled with those who feel its ok to sin because god will forgive them. This is bullshit.

turd - 13-1-2011 at 02:00

Huh? Is this some kind of winning the argument by definition? Are you saying that believing in a god and going to church so that you will be forgiven for your sins is not religious because it is not the true path? That's a pretty weird definition. Also note that anotheronebitesthedust's chart did NOT picture church attendance (that would look much "better" for the USA), but whether people consider themselves religious. And frankly, I've come around a bit and the chart totally reflects my experience.

Sedit - 13-1-2011 at 05:57

No I belive that the majority of those who claim they are religious are anything but and uphold there religion to only the thinnest of standards. Howmany people do you know that claim they are christain but haven't entered a church since there parents stopped making them go, if they have ever gone in the first place. The results of these polls and graphs are tainted by the fact that many call themselfs christians or whatever religion only in hopes that they don't go to hell. In the US is seems religion is more of a social status then it is a belief. Catholics churchs with there sometimes strange rituals are some of the only churchs I have ever been to that still practice the sometimes odd rituals that started with the christian and other simular religions.

Its not about winning an argument because this thread lost value by around page 4 or 5 so for the most part I am done with it because like I stated before this thread is blatent proof that science and religion can not co-exist because you all as both scientist and religious can't even get thru a few pages of discussion without resorting to personal attacks at the other side.

Rosco expresses his strong held beliefs and that to me is ok, others stress there beliefs that there is no god and I feel thats fine as well. But when Rosco blames the Atheist for the arguments that start and the atheist start to blame Rosco and the christians for all the problems then that in itself is where the problem is. You are all the cause of the problem and this discussion should have never started because there will never be an agreement since the majority of both sides are about as close minded as it gets without the slightest room for growth.

My feeling is that there is a god but its far removed from anything either side would view as a god so I personally just watch you all bitch and moan with a grin on my face while I do infact practice my beliefs which are a mixture of many, many religions over shadowed with scientific process. I feel that Atheist are wrong in never seeking a higher source of something you'll never begin to comprehend and I feel that the christians are woshiping the man that the old testiments deamed as the antichrist and he is the false profit so warned about millenia ago. So all in all I would no doubt consider myself a neutral party. Neither the religious or you atheist seem to be able to open your minds a little and admit and possibly, in maybe some sort of way, YOU ARE ALL WRONG!.

[Edited on 13-1-2011 by Sedit]

hissingnoise - 13-1-2011 at 06:29