A question for the theists

[Renton 17744]

NJS is obviously preaching to the converted to me in that last post but I have to congratulate him on nonetheless.

[Isegrim 8870]

All of the civilisations that developed before the jewish one, all those that developed concurrently with them and all the ones that have developed since share, despite a myriad of faith beleifs, a core set of moral values:

 

Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal and all of the related variations. The idea that we need a particular God or indeed any to "keep us right" is plainly ridiculous in my view. The idea that English law is based on a Christian view of these is also wishful thinking - theres plenty of rape and murder in the bible sanctioned by God (and enshrined in his laws) so those laws were "cherry picked" once again - what tool is used for this cherry picking? - the same evolved morality that exists throughout the world.

Well, you might call it wishful thinking, I would describe it as a historical fact. Like it or not, but the development of what we call the modern western cultures stems to a large degree from medieval and modern scholars dealing with the subjects on the foundation of their religious believes. Everything else would us again lead us the dog taking a shit and not catching the rabbit, i.e. being just hypothetical (and therefore something especially a scientist shouldn't accept). Yes, and of course this is interpretation or "cherry picking", but again I fail to see the problem with it. Religion in this aspect isn't empiric, but part of a historical cultural process. It's rather ridiculous in this aspect that it seem to be religious scholars who see the bible as a historical transcript with flaws than scientists (and religious fundamentalistic nutters) who seem to need an unquestionable a priori document that you either accept in it's actual form or leave it.

 

And yes, there seem to be a core of an ethical code among the vast majority of civilisations. This didn't stop them to develop differently though. And if there is nothing of real worth in the bible, why do we see our modern (christian based) western culture as more advanced to its predominant alternatives of Islam or Hinduism (who weren't suffering from Christian oppression in this regard). And for the record, I wouldn't accept an atheistic, religion-oppressing alternative of Marxism or Leninism tbh. Taking the highly intolerant socialist/communist regimes into consideration like the former GDR or todays PR China as they are as bad as any blood-thirsty political regime of violating rules in the name of religion.

 

So if there is a core of fundamental ethical rules, where do they come from? There are interesting pyschological studies about them being in the genes on the base of Chomsky's linguistic studies. But then again how did they come into the genes. Are morals just a product of a chemical reaction by accident? Well, this might of course be, although I do find it a bit unsatisfying to believe this. There we would again be confronted with the question if god does play dice...

 

Anyway, we are going in circles and I don't think this will go any further at all.

 

For all those who need their bible-bashing believes confirmed, I recommend them to rather read Thomas Paine's "Age of reason", which is delightful to read and in contrast to Dawkins actually inventive.

[Renton 17744]

Are morals just a product of a chemical reaction by accident?

 

Without wishing to sound patronising Isegrim, in that sentence you appear to be revealing that you do not really understand how evolution operates, Don't worry though, seemingly not many people do from what I can make out.

 

I'm having real difficulty grasping what you do believe though. Is it your belief that God gave us morality directly, or that he passed the concepts of morality on to select people who then added them to the Bible? Is this a reasonable time frame for what happened.

 

14 billion years ago. God created the Universe, setting up a series of events that would result in the world we live today.

4.5 billion years ago. The Earth forms, very shortly life appears (spontaneously or do we require extra intervention?).

About 3 million years ago. Hominids appear (spontaneously or do we require extra intervention?).

Around 6000 years ago. Abraham etc.

2000 years ago. God decides to intervene in mankinds progress by putting his only son (who is also human) on Earth, in the full knowledge he will be tortured to death in the process. Mind, not a lot of people know about it at the time.

About 1800 to 1950 years ago. Some people decide to write up about what happened to Jesus, presumably from word of mouth.

1600 years ago (?). The new testament is assembled, with the somewhat arbritrary rejection of some so-called heretical or apothyrical gospels.

 

Is this a fair summary?

[NJS 3977]

Well, you might call it wishful thinking, I would describe it as a historical fact. Like it or not, but the development of what we call the modern western cultures stems to a large degree from medieval and modern scholars dealing with the subjects on the foundation of their religious believes. Everything else would us again lead us the dog taking a shit and not catching the rabbit, i.e. being just hypothetical (and therefore something especially a scientist shouldn't accept). Yes, and of course this is interpretation or "cherry picking", but again I fail to see the problem with it. Religion in this aspect isn't empiric, but part of a historical cultural process. It's rather ridiculous in this aspect that it seem to be religious scholars who see the bible as a historical transcript with flaws than scientists (and religious fundamentalistic nutters) who seem to need an unquestionable a priori document that you either accept in it's actual form or leave it.

 

And yes, there seem to be a core of an ethical code among the vast majority of civilisations. This didn't stop them to develop differently though. And if there is nothing of real worth in the bible, why do we see our modern (christian based) western culture as more advanced to its predominant alternatives of Islam or Hinduism (who weren't suffering from Christian oppression in this regard). And for the record, I wouldn't accept an atheistic, religion-oppressing alternative of Marxism or Leninism tbh. Taking the highly intolerant socialist/communist regimes into consideration like the former GDR or todays PR China as they are as bad as any blood-thirsty political regime of violating rules in the name of religion.

 

So if there is a core of fundamental ethical rules, where do they come from? There are interesting pyschological studies about them being in the genes on the base of Chomsky's linguistic studies. But then again how did they come into the genes. Are morals just a product of a chemical reaction by accident? Well, this might of course be, although I do find it a bit unsatisfying to believe this. There we would again be confronted with the question if god does play dice...

 

Anyway, we are going in circles and I don't think this will go any further at all.

 

For all those who need their bible-bashing believes confirmed, I recommend them to rather read Thomas Paine's "Age of reason", which is delightful to read and in contrast to Dawkins actually inventive.

 

 

Theres a differnce in my view between the "moral leaders" of the time ie the religious hieracrchy using what I would maintain are "natural" morals to interpret the bible and pick the good bits and them actually setting thouse morals as you imply.

 

The main reasons for the western cultures "supremacy" is nothing to do with christianity - you should read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond - those 3 items were all the western empires needed to conquer most of the world - the missionary recruitment drive followed in the wake.

 

As a socialist I accept that Stalin/China don't exactly fill me with joy but I think its too easy to imply those "failed" therefore lets not risk athiestic societies ever again. It could be done right. To expand on my point from the other thread about Japan (perhaps the most civilised nation there is) I was reading that they are probably the nation on earth with the least christian influence. I know they do have a spiritual side but thats a long way from the "join us or burn in hell" approach of the Abrahamic faiths.

 

I would also point out that I read an article last week about the "iconic atheist" Stalin - his entire childhood was warped by Russian orthodox priests (as in the famous jesuit phrase) so I would no longer hold him up as an example of an "enlightened Atheist" that is my ideal - he was a very warped and twisted man on many levels and one of the factors in that was good old religion.

 

Another book I'd recommend is one I've just finished - Nature via Nurture by Matt Ridly - I think he answers your query on how genes "pass on" morals -and yes is it all evolved chemistry and biology. The way we turn out is a mixture of genetics and environment but a surprsising amount of influence passes between the two. Genes require environmental input to "switch on" various functions thoughout our lives and at the same time there is a lot of genetic influence in how we influence our own environment.

 

I don't think we're going to reach the point that some physicists thought in the last century where science is "finished" and explains everything but I think every insight like those talked about by Ridley are another hammer blow to the "we're special due to something mystical" view.

[GeordieMessiah 0]

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

 

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate.

 

Well it means different things to different people hardly a point of referance for a pseudo-debate of this calibre..Grow up.

 

 

 

I still like this thread mind. Just think the bible is getting in the way here cause it's meaning is so reletavised depending on who is quoting it, as you yourself recognise vis a vie the Christian right wing in America. For me this debate has always been about belief and more to do with a sense of mysticism and spritituality and of course aspects of which can be found in the beauty and wondrment of science. Once we slip into the realms of morals and meaning we have to be clear that these meanings are fluid and measures of morality have to be colonised within a cultural framework.

 

This phrase alone tells me that Parky studies sociology. It sounds intelligent, but is upon further inspection, incoherent unintelligible bollocks.

[NJS 3977]

About 3 million years ago. Hominids appear (spontaneously or do we require extra intervention?).

 

The best one I read recently was on the BBC's Have Your Say page where somone stated that God took Homo Erectus who was just an animal and put a soul into him thus creating humans.

 

Absolutely no evidence or thought at all but oh so typical.

[Isegrim 8870]

Are morals just a product of a chemical reaction by accident?

 

Without wishing to sound patronising Isegrim, in that sentence you appear to be revealing that you do not really understand how evolution operates, Don't worry though, seemingly not many people do from what I can make out.

Well, making it a bit simplistic was meant to be sarcastic. But ok, where are the "natural" morals coming from? Why did humans decide killing each other is immoral, e.g. when it firstly was a strategy to survive does it mean it is becoming acceptable with space on earth and resources getting rare... (being sarcastic again btw.)

 

I'm having real difficulty grasping what you do believe though. Is it your belief that God gave us morality directly, or that he passed the concepts of morality on to select people who then added them to the Bible? Is this a reasonable time frame for what happened.

 

14 billion years ago. God created the Universe, setting up a series of events that would result in the world we live today.

4.5 billion years ago. The Earth forms, very shortly life appears (spontaneously or do we require extra intervention?).

About 3 million years ago. Hominids appear (spontaneously or do we require extra intervention?).

Around 6000 years ago. Abraham etc.

2000 years ago. God decides to intervene in mankinds progress by putting his only son (who is also human) on Earth, in the full knowledge he will be tortured to death in the process. Mind, not a lot of people know about it at the time.

About 1800 to 1950 years ago. Some people decide to write up about what happened to Jesus, presumably from word of mouth.

1600 years ago (?). The new testament is assembled, with the somewhat arbritrary rejection of some so-called heretical or apothyrical gospels.

 

Is this a fair summary?

I do believe that there is a penultimate (a priori existing) force having an effect on everything, the natural laws and the "creation" as well as "evolution", i.e. development of the universe, morals etc. I don't care if you have to personalize it or not.

 

I do believe there are historical persons who have been inspired/influenced by the natural (God given, i.e. the a priori force) ethic code in a special way, i.e. certain persons named in the Old Testament and the historical person with morals on a exceptional high level, which is called Jesus who you could call a (spirital) son of this god/force (but wasn't born by a vigin or any kind of this rubbish) and who formed a society around him and how became victim of his believes and moral teachings. I do believe that on this basement a "church" (splitters from another religion) was founded which became popular in the western world and displaced other religions. I do know that in a historical process, this religion was mainly responsible for the development of our current society by the spiritual influence of the interpretation (i.e. "cherry picking") of an historical transcript (i.e. the bible) where present and metaphysical answers were sought from.

 

I do accept that major as well as lesser crimes were committed in the name of religion, which have nothing to do with religion in itself though, but are rather political, economical reasons. In that regard there isn't any difference between religion and other (in itself peaceful) ideologies as marxism, which is nothing else than a replacement for religion in my eyes anyway.

 

Oh yes, and I to believe in Vulcans (with having their own idea of a god) coming to visit us some day...

Edited March 3, 2007 by Isegrim

[NJS 3977]

Why did humans decide killing each other is immoral

 

Because there was an evolved natural advantage to building communities.

 

Which is more sensible - that or your "spiritual intervention"?

[NJS 3977]

I do know that in a historical process, this religion was mainly responsible for the development of our current society by the spiritual influence of the interpretation (i.e. "cherry picking") of an historical transcript (i.e. the bible) where present and metaphysical answers were sought from.

 

Do you think the "liberal" morals which most people support ie the general law plus things like the gradual acceptance of homsexuality and women's rights derive in any way from the Abrahamic religions or from "natural" moral development?

 

By natural moral development I mean how it was pefectly acceptable under your wonderful christian utopia for homosexuals to be persecuted, women to be "kept in their place", slaves to exist and the abhorrent racism of the british and others empires to be excused. In fact more than excused - encouraged.

 

It was not one iota of the establish religions that changed those "crimes" (Wilberforce was an individual christian) it was the moral progession of civilised people as a whole - the same way comparing morals of the middle ages or the older times compared to today shows a vast difference.

[Isegrim 8870]

Why did humans decide killing each other is immoral

 

Because there was an evolved natural advantage to building communities.

 

Which is more sensible - that or your "spiritual intervention"?

Where did I say it was a spiritual intervention (like god at some point deciding to alter the human code of conduct)? All I said was that imho there is a priori force (i.e. also a practical reason) determining special causes of events, meaning things not being totally random.

 

Will (darwinistic) killing become acceptable?

[Isegrim 8870]

I do know that in a historical process, this religion was mainly responsible for the development of our current society by the spiritual influence of the interpretation (i.e. "cherry picking") of an historical transcript (i.e. the bible) where present and metaphysical answers were sought from.

 

Do you think the "liberal" morals which most people support ie the general law plus things like the gradual acceptance of homsexuality and women's rights derive in any way from the Abrahamic religions or from "natural" moral development?

 

By natural moral development I mean how it was pefectly acceptable under your wonderful christian utopia for homosexuals to be persecuted, women to be "kept in their place", slaves to exist and the abhorrent racism of the british and others empires to be excused. In fact more than excused - encouraged.

 

It was not one iota of the establish religions that changed those "crimes" (Wilberforce was an individual christian) it was the moral progession of civilised people as a whole - the same way comparing morals of the middle ages or the older times compared to today shows a vast difference.

I don't see any point in this kind of discussion. As I said it are certain a priori morals (a practical reason) which are interpreted by humans and therefore also misinterpreted by humans. I don't believe in a faultless human race.

 

Do you think oppression of critics in the GDR, the restricition of free movement in the GDR, the enslavement of cetain ethnic groups in the USSR have anything to do with the original idea of marxism? Or are they just happening in the name of it? But of course your example of Stalin demonstrates that you rather chose the easy option and blame religion for it as well...

 

For the abolition of slavery etc. and having nothing to with religion. I am fully aware what are the foundations e.g. in Prussia for anti-slavery legislation or the liberation of farmers in the early 19th century. There was far more than a iota of religious believes involved and the same applies to other countries.

 

When you chose to blend out religious influences (due to the interpretation of religious text like the bible, texts of Augustine etc.) out of the progression of civilised people then fair enough, I think to believe that it is utter ahistoric nonsense.

[NJS 3977]

Will (darwinistic) killing become acceptable?

 

Classic misinterpretation - "survival of the fittest" does not mean murder in Darwinism.

 

I'd love to know when your "special force" applied - to prevent the crusades? to prevent the inquisition? to ask the church to torture Gallileo?

 

When were the great moral decisions made? who by? Do you beleive there is the "guidance" for the pope the catholich church claims?

 

Does your force come in dreams for "the great and the good"?

 

Are the interventions small every day or huge every now and then?

 

If Christ was an intervention why in that place at that time? - if it was then was the rise of christianity pre-destined? If the Mongols hadn't went home they would have conquered Europe - did your force intervene and "murder" the Emperor so they fell out over succession and thus safeguarded christianity?

 

The thing about "warm and fuzzy" notions like there being a benevolent force influenceing evertything is that you have to prepared to answer some pretty easily thought of questions - or just like the organised believers you can just say "Yeah but thats just what I believe" with no rationale.

[NJS 3977]

For the abolition of slavery etc. and having nothing to with religion. I am fully aware what are the foundations e.g. in Prussia for anti-slavery legislation or the liberation of farmers in the early 19th century. There was far more than a iota of religious believes involved and the same applies to other countries.

 

When you chose to blend out religious influences (due to the interpretation of religious text like the bible, texts of Augustine etc.) out of the progression of civilised people then fair enough, I think to believe that it is utter ahistoric nonsense.

 

Not from the churches which you say "set the tone" or are you saying the fact that "good" people like Wilberforce were christians means that the religion gets the credit and not the courageous man.

 

If the morals are a cut and paste job from the bible why is for the most part the OT insanity dropped? - could it be that the base morals are more human at the core and don't need embellishement? - Thats all I'm saying.

[Isegrim 8870]

For the abolition of slavery etc. and having nothing to with religion. I am fully aware what are the foundations e.g. in Prussia for anti-slavery legislation or the liberation of farmers in the early 19th century. There was far more than a iota of religious believes involved and the same applies to other countries.

 

When you chose to blend out religious influences (due to the interpretation of religious text like the bible, texts of Augustine etc.) out of the progression of civilised people then fair enough, I think to believe that it is utter ahistoric nonsense.

 

Not from the churches which you say "set the tone" or are you saying the fact that "good" people like Wilberforce were christians means that the religion gets the credit and not the courageous man.

No, by Christians with Christians believes and influenced by others with Christians believes who are forming the institutional body of the "church", especially in the protestant meaning.

 

As I said blinding out religion out of the historical process of the development of our society is purely hypothetical and just contradicts historical facts. And imho the discussion starts to get ridiculous when you chose to blame the crimes of an self-proclaimed atheist like Stalin on religion and the orthodox church, but chose to see Wilberforce, a devout Christian, as the actions of a reasonable man where religion and its believes weren't envolved.

 

And it's at this point where I chose to opt out of the discussion before it gets even more absurd.

[NJS 3977]

As I said blinding out religion out of the historical process of the development of our society is purely hypothetical and just contradicts historical facts. And imho the discussion starts to get ridiculous when you chose to blame the crimes of an self-proclaimed atheist like Stalin on religion and the orthodox church, but chose to see Wilberforce, a devout Christian, as the actions of a reasonable man where religion and its believes weren't envolved.

 

I mentioned Stalin as he's an iconic Athiest in the context of you saying irreligious societies were failures - I was just saying that he didn't become an atheist trough rationality - "Hating" religion because you were its victim is different to taking an enlightened position.

 

How devout were the slave traders, owners and the church leaders who opposed Wilberforce?

 

Would he have found his anti-slavery stance in the bible where you say christian morality is based?

[Isegrim 8870]

Would he have found his anti-slavery stance in the bible where you say christian morality is based?

Yes, the most important bit is the letter of St. Paul to Philemon (which is about the freeing of a slave). There are other examples of anti-slavery stances in the bible (and the personal freedom of men), but as well in works of Augustine and even some of the popes were actually condemning slavery throughout the centuries. The political-practical approach though (in the name of religion) in reference to Roman law and the predominant opinion became that you were allowed to take non-christians (which applies to muslims and later to indians) as slaves in the state of war. But there have always been critics to this which finally became predominant (by people like Wilberforce) in the early 19th century. Again blinding out religious influences in the development of reason (the practical approach was pretty reasonable) would be totally non-historic.

 

That was really my last contribution.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Isegrim

[NJS 3977]

Would he have found his anti-slavery stance in the bible where you say christian morality is based?

Yes, the most important bit is the letter of St. Paul to Philemon (which is about the freeing of a slave). There are other examples of anti-slavery stances in the bible (and the personal freedom of men), but as well in works of Augustine and even some of the popes were actually condemning slavery throughout the centuries. The political-practical approach though (in the name of religion) in reference to Roman law and the predominant opinion became that you were allowed to take non-christians (which applies to muslims and later to indians) as slaves in the state of war. But there have always been critics to this which finally became predominant (by people like Wilberforce) in the early 19th century. Again blinding out religious influences in the development of reason (the practical approach was pretty reasonable) would be totally non-historic.

 

That was really my last contribution.

 

Cherry picking a few verses to make your point and ignoring the entire OT.

 

The prevailing morality at the time was christian and it taught that slavery was okay. The majority of the law making part of the bible in the OT condones slavery. To me he was a rebel against the majority of christian teaching.

 

The people who profited from slavery no doubt considered themselves good christians yet their morality wasn't outraged by slavery because I would argue that was the prevailing general morality. I suppose you would argue Wilberforce was a better christian than them - I'd argue he was simply a better man - people are "good" or "bad" due to a combination of genetics and early environmental influence - religion has lttle to do with it - if it did the more religious societies would be "better" - they are not.

 

Slavery (as in european driven) was abolished because general morality demanded it - the same goes for rights for women and more recently less outright persecution of homosexuality. Most religion's stances on the latter two have not changed at all but society has adapted anyway - as it would have done no matter what belief system thrived.

[TheInspiration 1]

I generally didn;t want another debate to spark up again, but in response to Renton's pervious question - if God really is omnipotent, 14 billion years would be nothing to him. I can't prove that we did/did not evolve in that time, but there's a lot of evidence for it. Similarly there are scientists who reject it, and they aren;t all Christians either. The universe is massive, but I've stated earlier there could be other planets with life on as well - there's no reason to believe the universe was made just to suit us. If you look at it the other way, what is the likeliness that an explosion would randomly create this giant universe, which expanded from within an extremely dense and hot singularity?

 

So, like how there are questions scientists cannot answer about our world, there are obviously those religious followers can't once they look at the facts, and don't take the Bible as solid fact. Too many people believe they are just scientifically ignorant, while at the same time forget how many Christians are scientists. Maybe too many atheists are ignorant of relevation, or haven't gotten to know enough decent Christians and instead focus on the really foolish ones, when basing an opinion? They're quick to tell people they've not experienced God in whatever way, and that's just their mind tricking them etc - what would make you so certain? For the record I'm fascinated by science, but there needs more discoveries and truth behind it before it hinders my beliefs.

 

On the subject of Creationism, this is not taught instead of evolution, but alternatively. It may not be true but it being taught isn't my concern - it should be taught in an unbiased way though, simply as a theory. I'm probably ignorant of its effects, so what are they? As for Dawkins, I've read/skim read quite a bit of his most recent book, and I've seen TV programmes by him. I'm not "scared" of him, and may read more of his work in the future. I accept some of his points, but don't agree with a lot of others, which seemed to me to highlight his lack of knowledge of faith in God. The fact plenty of theists worldwide have read his book and slated it, would argue against them being scared of him - and then there have been plenty of atheists/agnostics who have slated it as well.

Edited March 4, 2007 by TheInspiration

[Park Life 70]

I generally didn;t want another debate to spark up again, but in response to Renton's pervious question - if God really is omnipotent, 14 billion years would be nothing to him. I can't prove that we did/did not evolve in that time, but there's a lot of evidence for it. Similarly there are scientists who reject it, and they aren;t all Christians either. The universe is massive, but I've stated earlier there could be other planets with life on as well - there's no reason to believe the universe was made just to suit us. If you look at it the other way, what is the likeliness that an explosion would randomly create this giant universe, which expanded from within an extremely dense and hot singularity?

 

So, like how there are questions scientists cannot answer about our world, there are obviously those religious followers can't once they look at the facts, and don't take the Bible as solid fact. Too many people believe they are just scientifically ignorant, while at the same time forget how many Christians are scientists. Maybe too many atheists are ignorant of relevation, or haven't gotten to know enough decent Christians and instead focus on the really foolish ones, when basing an opinion? They're quick to tell people they've not experienced God in whatever way, and that's just their mind tricking them etc - what would make you so certain? For the record I'm fascinated by science, but there needs more discoveries and truth behind it before it hinders my beliefs.

 

On the subject of Creationism, this is not taught instead of evolution, but alternatively. It may not be true but it being taught isn't my concern - it should be taught in an unbiased way though, simply as a theory. I'm probably ignorant of its effects, so what are they? As for Dawkins, I've read/skim read quite a bit of his most recent book, and I've seen TV programmes by him. I'm not "scared" of him, and may read more of his work in the future. I accept some of his points, but don't agree with a lot of others, which seemed to me to highlight his lack of knowledge of faith in God. The fact plenty of theists worldwide have read his book and slated it, would argue against them being scared of him - and then there have been plenty of atheists/agnostics who have slated it as well.

 

 

Perhaps God is an unifying 'force' (science) as much as a spriritual being (religion)?

[NJS 3977]

I generally didn;t want another debate to spark up again, but in response to Renton's pervious question - if God really is omnipotent, 14 billion years would be nothing to him. I can't prove that we did/did not evolve in that time, but there's a lot of evidence for it. Similarly there are scientists who reject it, and they aren;t all Christians either. The universe is massive, but I've stated earlier there could be other planets with life on as well - there's no reason to believe the universe was made just to suit us. If you look at it the other way, what is the likeliness that an explosion would randomly create this giant universe, which expanded from within an extremely dense and hot singularity?

 

I can see the 14bn years is nothing argument but its the 14bn years in the context of 6000 years of "action" that makes no sense to me.

 

There are now very few scientists who dispute the age and size of the universe or evolution - those that do tend to be theists - I think they have what is known as compartmentalised minds - they can be perfectly good scientists but have what I would say is an unscientific portion which sees things differently due to faith.

 

 

So, like how there are questions scientists cannot answer about our world, there are obviously those religious followers can't once they look at the facts, and don't take the Bible as solid fact. Too many people believe they are just scientifically ignorant, while at the same time forget how many Christians are scientists. Maybe too many atheists are ignorant of relevation, or haven't gotten to know enough decent Christians and instead focus on the really foolish ones, when basing an opinion? They're quick to tell people they've not experienced God in whatever way, and that's just their mind tricking them etc - what would make you so certain? For the record I'm fascinated by science, but there needs more discoveries and truth behind it before it hinders my beliefs.

 

There are obviously perfectly decent christians. My mother was one and we used to talk about these things - my view of christians is certainly not one of the kind of ignorance you suggest.

 

Again there are many scientists who are theists but there is a general correlation between education and lack of belief. Many American sites who try this argument have a very dubious definition of scientists when it comes to this and would for example count people with degrees in Engineering - now I think engineers are to a certain extent scientists in that they apply scientific principles but I don't think they are as relevant to the argument as physicists and biologists where the correlation of non-believers is far, far greater.

 

The brain and the mind combine to form one of the last frontiers of science. A lot of recent work has started to explain "revelations" and "mystical experience" - I'm not saying such discoveries would or should hinder your beliefs per se - they are a part of you but I'd hope your fascination with science would let you consider such evdence.

 

 

 

On the subject of Creationism, this is not taught instead of evolution, but alternatively. It may not be true but it being taught isn't my concern - it should be taught in an unbiased way though, simply as a theory. I'm probably ignorant of its effects, so what are they? As for Dawkins, I've read/skim read quite a bit of his most recent book, and I've seen TV programmes by him. I'm not "scared" of him, and may read more of his work in the future. I accept some of his points, but don't agree with a lot of others, which seemed to me to highlight his lack of knowledge of faith in God. The fact plenty of theists worldwide have read his book and slated it, would argue against them being scared of him - and then there have been plenty of atheists/agnostics who have slated it as well.

 

Creationism as part of a study of comparitive religions and obviously including the hundreds of versions ie not just genesis I don't have a problem with (though the subject should be optional). Teaching it as science is completely wrong. As I said earlier even though history is open to interpretation key facts like who won wars and whether the holocaust happened are sacrosant - there is no "alternative" theory of the German death camps and the same should be true about the age of the world and the common descent of man. The evidence really is overwhelming to the point that creationists should be dismissed as easily as the nutjobs who deny the holocaust. As an alternative science to evolution its a joke - as is its stealth cousin - ID.

 

As has been said many times the phrase "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as in more general useage. Evolution is really just as nailed on as gravity or electricity.

 

Dawkins has rattled a few cages and thats one of the best things imo - firstly we are seeing how much people rely on this "you must respect us" thing as a barrier to honest query. Secondly the arguments used against him if examined somewhat prove his point - classics like he doesn't understand theology - replied by I don't need to undertsand Astrology or Fairyology to know they are flawed. It also seems apparent that theology is a non-subject without a God - that seems obvious but theologians have now moved on from defending the biblical god and have tried to move the goalposts more towards Isegrim's "God" - as I said fair enough but thats not the God most people "know".

 

The atheists/ moderate theists who have attacked him tend to be from the camp who demand too much respect imo. People who look at the good believers do as a justification for the faith. Once again as I argued with Isegrim I prefer to see that as people who would do good with or without the faith. They also use the argument "it makes people happy" - once again I have no objection to "comfort" but that doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more true.

 

You also have the point as made by Sam Harris that "nice" believers get in the way of the "nasty" elements. Because we are taught that faith is a virtue no matter what we say there is no great will to condemn fundamentalists as they are just "really faithful" or "holy". If the moderate followers of religion all woke up tomorrow and said en masse "we reject dogmatic faith and fundmentalism" the idiots wouldn't last much longer.

[Park Life 70]

I generally didn;t want another debate to spark up again, but in response to Renton's pervious question - if God really is omnipotent, 14 billion years would be nothing to him. I can't prove that we did/did not evolve in that time, but there's a lot of evidence for it. Similarly there are scientists who reject it, and they aren;t all Christians either. The universe is massive, but I've stated earlier there could be other planets with life on as well - there's no reason to believe the universe was made just to suit us. If you look at it the other way, what is the likeliness that an explosion would randomly create this giant universe, which expanded from within an extremely dense and hot singularity?

 

I can see the 14bn years is nothing argument but its the 14bn years in the context of 6000 years of "action" that makes no sense to me.

 

There are now very few scientists who dispute the age and size of the universe or evolution - those that do tend to be theists - I think they have what is known as compartmentalised minds - they can be perfectly good scientists but have what I would say is an unscientific portion which sees things differently due to faith.

 

 

So, like how there are questions scientists cannot answer about our world, there are obviously those religious followers can't once they look at the facts, and don't take the Bible as solid fact. Too many people believe they are just scientifically ignorant, while at the same time forget how many Christians are scientists. Maybe too many atheists are ignorant of relevation, or haven't gotten to know enough decent Christians and instead focus on the really foolish ones, when basing an opinion? They're quick to tell people they've not experienced God in whatever way, and that's just their mind tricking them etc - what would make you so certain? For the record I'm fascinated by science, but there needs more discoveries and truth behind it before it hinders my beliefs.

 

There are obviously perfectly decent christians. My mother was one and we used to talk about these things - my view of christians is certainly not one of the kind of ignorance you suggest.

 

Again there are many scientists who are theists but there is a general correlation between education and lack of belief. Many American sites who try this argument have a very dubious definition of scientists when it comes to this and would for example count people with degrees in Engineering - now I think engineers are to a certain extent scientists in that they apply scientific principles but I don't think they are as relevant to the argument as physicists and biologists where the correlation of non-believers is far, far greater.

 

The brain and the mind combine to form one of the last frontiers of science. A lot of recent work has started to explain "revelations" and "mystical experience" - I'm not saying such discoveries would or should hinder your beliefs per se - they are a part of you but I'd hope your fascination with science would let you consider such evdence.

 

 

 

On the subject of Creationism, this is not taught instead of evolution, but alternatively. It may not be true but it being taught isn't my concern - it should be taught in an unbiased way though, simply as a theory. I'm probably ignorant of its effects, so what are they? As for Dawkins, I've read/skim read quite a bit of his most recent book, and I've seen TV programmes by him. I'm not "scared" of him, and may read more of his work in the future. I accept some of his points, but don't agree with a lot of others, which seemed to me to highlight his lack of knowledge of faith in God. The fact plenty of theists worldwide have read his book and slated it, would argue against them being scared of him - and then there have been plenty of atheists/agnostics who have slated it as well.

 

Creationism as part of a study of comparitive religions and obviously including the hundreds of versions ie not just genesis I don't have a problem with (though the subject should be optional). Teaching it as science is completely wrong. As I said earlier even though history is open to interpretation key facts like who won wars and whether the holocaust happened are sacrosant - there is no "alternative" theory of the German death camps and the same should be true about the age of the world and the common descent of man. The evidence really is overwhelming to the point that creationists should be dismissed as easily as the nutjobs who deny the holocaust. As an alternative science to evolution its a joke - as is its stealth cousin - ID.

 

As has been said many times the phrase "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as in more general useage. Evolution is really just as nailed on as gravity or electricity.

 

Dawkins has rattled a few cages and thats one of the best things imo - firstly we are seeing how much people rely on this "you must respect us" thing as a barrier to honest query. Secondly the arguments used against him if examined somewhat prove his point - classics like he doesn't understand theology - replied by I don't need to undertsand Astrology or Fairyology to know they are flawed. It also seems apparent that theology is a non-subject without a God - that seems obvious but theologians have now moved on from defending the biblical god and have tried to move the goalposts more towards Isegrim's "God" - as I said fair enough but thats not the God most people "know".

 

The atheists/ moderate theists who have attacked him tend to be from the camp who demand too much respect imo. People who look at the good believers do as a justification for the faith. Once again as I argued with Isegrim I prefer to see that as people who would do good with or without the faith. They also use the argument "it makes people happy" - once again I have no objection to "comfort" but that doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more true.

 

You also have the point as made by Sam Harris that "nice" believers get in the way of the "nasty" elements. Because we are taught that faith is a virtue no matter what we say there is no great will to condemn fundamentalists as they are just "really faithful" or "holy". If the moderate followers of religion all woke up tomorrow and said en masse "we reject dogmatic faith and fundmentalism" the idiots wouldn't last much longer.

 

 

I'm sorry but there are huge disparities on the nature and age of the universe/universes. On a basic level General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and the 'new' all encompassing 'string theory' is better described as philosophy as it displays many exotic characteristics and perhaps needs 11 dimensions for it to work. In fact NJS deeper science digs into the nature of things the less things become predictable an infact nearly everything is possible at the same time. It is utter rubbish the way you are portraying science as some kind of codifying all encompassing force IT ISN'T...Physics is currently in an exciting mess as we see how little we understand and how little we can predict.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Parky

[NJS 3977]

I'm sorry but there are huge disparities on the nature and age of the universe/universes. On a basic level General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and the 'new' all encompassing 'string theory' is better described as philosophy as it displays many exotic characteristics and perhaps needs 11 dimensions for it to work.

 

Fair point - and I'd agree that some of the theories make a grey-haired old bloke look sensible in comparison but its the desire to find out that matters.

 

I've read a couple of books on string theory - bizarrely they sort of made sense and the 10/11 dimensions thing is supported by maths.

[Park Life 70]

I'm sorry but there are huge disparities on the nature and age of the universe/universes. On a basic level General relativity breaks down at the quantum level and the 'new' all encompassing 'string theory' is better described as philosophy as it displays many exotic characteristics and perhaps needs 11 dimensions for it to work.

 

Fair point - and I'd agree that some of the theories make a grey-haired old bloke look sensible in comparison but its the desire to find out that matters.

 

I've read a couple of books on string theory - bizarrely they sort of made sense and the 10/11 dimensions thing is supported by maths.

 

Well there were five versions of string theory ALL 'supported by maths', they just had to ascribe new behaviours to 'strings' to compensate for the fallabilities of the ideation. It IS a philopsophy and calculations at this leve I feel pretty much akin to art....perhaps even mysticism...of magic...As the all encompassing string theory is know as M. I'll have to look it up but I'm sure he laughed when he said it stood for Magic.

 

nb

There is no need to pollute the religious debate with morality at all...morality doesn't exist in nature which is savage or in the universe which is destructive as much as it is creative...MORALITY is a man made invention completely, as is the notion of GOD.

[NJS 3977]

In fact NJS deeper science digs into the nature of things the less things become predictable an infact nearly everything is possible at the same time. It is utter rubbish the way you are portraying science as some kind of codifying all encompassing force IT ISN'T...Physics is currently in an exciting mess as we see how little we understand and how little we can predict.

 

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me.

 

The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first.

[Park Life 70]

In fact NJS deeper science digs into the nature of things the less things become predictable an infact nearly everything is possible at the same time. It is utter rubbish the way you are portraying science as some kind of codifying all encompassing force IT ISN'T...Physics is currently in an exciting mess as we see how little we understand and how little we can predict.

 

Thats not my view at all - I know that relatively recent discoveries actually open up whole new ball games and reveal a universe a million miles from Newton's notion that once we know how everything works then we can predict everything but its the intent to look at these things that appeals to me.

 

The failure to question things is what condemns religion at its core for me (theology is just dancing around shite) - if science "proves" that the universe is the plaything of some mega-entity then so be it - but lets at least find the bloke first.

 

Forget about fucking religion....the deabte here should be about spirituality, something we ALL have - even if we feel it only as a momentary sense of wonderment. And if we are going to line up spirituality/mysticism - then yes that would be a good foil for 'string theory'. These long sentences mean something....Not sure what.

I take your point about religion however and agree. But the engine room of religion is mysticism....You see??