Slashdot Mirror

Science may require some kind of morality or ethics -- just like everything else does; however, Morality and ethics do not require religion.

If by "religion" you mean "theism," then you're right.

But, at the very least, to be moral you need to have some claim as to the worth of others / the whole of humanity. A self-centered viewpoint, which is emminently logical, is the very essence of amorality--and what logically a person will have if they do not believe in the worth and value of SOMETHING other than themselves.

The bare minimum to be moral is not "belief in the almighty" or "belief in the beyond" or even "belief in humanity", but a faith that if you are moral to others then others will be moral to you.

Thankfully, this can be proven through observation of how humans behave socially.

Historically, of course, great moral humans (who set the tone for the whole of our society) have been rather religious--and those that have not have had a "religous feeling" towards something else greater than themselves.

And, as for the "relion fantaics" meddling in medicine--it's just a semi-religous argument as to the personage status of a fetus. If a fetus is a living person, then it's unethical to kill them or profit from their death. If it's not as person, it is ethical to euthanise them and learn / profit from their death.

The religious overtones of the arugment are coincidences--the various clergy could just as easily be arguing that a fetus is no more than a part of the mother, and can be treated as a spare kidney or bundle of hair.

and leaves us wondering whether God is real in the same way, say, a brick is real.
Just like you wonder if you really love your mom? But now you're arguing against a non-Christian proposition. God is not a brick, and doesn't operate according to the same rules that govern bricks. A Christian would say, no God is not real in the same way as a brick- He's more real. (hehe, something to ponder as you watch the Matrix)

And the sun appears - to almost everyone - to go around the earth.
And you appear to have posted on /. What's the point? Because people believed something false does not mean that everything people believe is false. That people (not just Christians, btw) in the past thought that the sun went around the earth does not disprove the existance of God. Scientists once thought flies spontaneousely arose from rotten meat. They were proven wrong. Does that disprove Science or just those particular, confused scientists? Scientists today, no doubt are telling us things that will be disproven 2,5, or 50 years from now. Does this mean we should dismiss all science? There's a logic term for this fallacy, but it escapes me now...

[snip good stuff]
thanks =)

> The fact is though, Christians have a vested interest in learning as much about the universe as possible, because they believe it to be created by the same Creator that created them.

Some Christians do. Others conclude that they should despise knowledge of the universe.
The others are wrong... Some Athiests conclude that the universe is absurd. I have to say I think I'd agree with them if it weren't for my pesky theism. =) But no doubt many athiests think it's important for us, as little clumps of carbon on a small rock in an average system in an average galaxy among 10^n galaxies, to understand as much as possible about the universe before we die. Point being it is illogical to dismiss a whole belief system for the errors (percieved and real) of some, even many, of its practitioners. The problem is many people, as a quick review of this thread will show, are hostile to Christians' "illogic", yet blind to their own.

IMO atheism is a religion because atheists have faith that there is no god.

No they don't. Some might, but many (myself included) don't. All you can say is that they don't believe in any god.

Even for those that do have faith that there is no god, I'm not sure that makes atheism a religion. Do people say that their religion is "theism"?

I would say that only agnostics are truly without religion.

Depends on your definition of agnostism. Agnostic theists wouldn't be without religion. And what would you say about agnostic atheists?

I haven't had to do a census (I never received a form, for whatever reason), but my answer to what my religion is is generally one of "none", "n/a" or "my own set of beliefs - I haven't given it a name".

My take:

I'm a formerly religious person who abandoned the faith for the uncertainty of saying "I don't know" over the course of this last year. It was a tough personal and family decision to speak out about my lack of faith, rather than continue to hide it and pretend to be a faithful churchgoer.

In this context, I understand the meaning of his aside. To many of the pious, the firing of synapses and interrelationships of the human brain are manifestations of the will of the spirit or soul. Many outspoken theists also believe that the creation of true intelligence is a goal completely beyond our reach, because only God can create real intelligence. Alternatively, some embrace the philosophy that our intelligences have always existed, and that God gave them a mortal body to inhabit. They reason that any attempt to artifically create intelligence can only create a golem, something that has no "soul" and therefore cannot possibly be intelligent, think, or feel anything.

Now, please realize I'm not attempting to stereotype theists in this mold. I know many intelligent, well-educated, logical, and inspired devout believers, some of whom have made advances in artificial intelligence in software programming. Generally, the most intelligent among them do tend to exhibit a bit of non-traditional thinking on certain topics where the religious and scientific viewpoints have an apparent disagreement :) I say "apparent" because generally they see no disparity between their religious beliefs and scientific viewpoints. And that's OK.

On the other hand, to those who no longer embrace theism, the world is often a fundamental conflict of religious and scientific thought. The author of the original comment apparently perceived a conflict between a scientific outlook of personality and intelligence being shaped by the interrelationships of brain synapses, and the frequent religious outlook that such things are an effect, not a cause, of personality in an individual. I don't think it was entirely out of place, but, that said, you're right; this Slashdot discussion had no theological components until he brought it up :)

THE FOLLY OF DENYING GOD

Beyond a doubt, the most significant question to ever penetrate the human mind is that of the existence of God. More consequences for humanity hinge on the denial or affirmation of God's existence than any other issue.

Countless numbers of Christian families have sent their children off to schools across America only to see them return as strangers robbed of their faith in God and of the basis for morality and ethics.

Many of these children have attempted to fill the vacuum in their lives through aberrant sex, drugs, and alcohol. Others have sought to fill this void with material success, which can never satisfy the spiritual needs of one created in the image of God.

"Is there really a God?" Though there are a variety of possible responses to this question, there are three traditional responses that predominate in Western society: (1) God does not exist - atheism; (2) we cannot know whether God exists - agnosticism; and (3) a personal God does exist - theism. This article will demonstrate how, in witnessing to an atheist, one can move from atheism to agnosticism, from agnosticism to theism, and from the concept of an impersonal God to the personal God of Scripture.

To begin, atheism involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say "there is no God" from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible.

By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making progress rapidly in the right direction.

This leads us to the second possible response: agnosticism. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, an approach I have found effective is to point out that the universe is an effect which requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God. As Scripture says, "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Ps. 19:1).

It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism - the theory that "self" is the only reality, that "I alone exist." This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.)

The second possibility is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.

The third "possibility" is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing. This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.

The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism - the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe - is the only viable option on the question of God's existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a personal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality. Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection. Additionally, God has provided His written Word which

---An atheist who is simply unconvinced or unconverted is an agnostic :).--- Nope. That would confuse belief with knowledge. Angosticism/Gnosticism distinguishes belief (not jsut god belief either) via whether one knows or not (or even can know or not, in the strongest formulation). Atheism/theism distinguishes whether one believes or not, regarldess of whether they know. The two distinctions can overlap: they're not exclusive. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. "I do not believe in god" is an atheist statement, but does not imply a belief in no god. "A" "theism" means "without" "god belief" not "belief no god." Logically, a binary negation on theism would give us "believe X" vs. "not believe X" It does not give us "believe not X." "believe not X" is a SUBSET of "not believe X." "I don't know if god exists" (the agnostic position) isn't even on that logical continuum in the first place, so it can't be a midpoint between atheism and theism. Need I go on?

Tell that to a kid who is being disciplined by his father.

Communism, like theism, feeds on the sociobiology of human kin selection by substituting the idiological "body" for the consanguinous history of a deme.

That's why socialist states like Sweden did so well until mass immigration and why polyglot empires have never sustained altruism for more than a few generations.

It's not that atheism isn't a religious position, clearly it is. It's just not enough, by itself, to qualify, any more than an answer "I believe in a God" as a response to a question asking your religion qualifies.

Interesting that you are quick to label me as a theist when I've given no evidence as to my beliefs.

In any case... as the other poster said, "belief" and "believe" are the operative words here.

Even for "agnostic", the definition is in terms of the (dis-)belief in the supernatural.

(both from http://www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: atheism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: 1agnostic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- agnosticism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

One common thing I've found though is that those who profess religion the loudest (theism or atheism - but most often atheism), is that those people are usually severely uptight and bitter. ;)

... governance does not as you must get all your 'goods and services' from only 1 source. (the government). No choice.

Monostatism -- the idea that a person can only be governed by one form of governance -- is a high-ranking, yet fairly unexamined, theory of social control. Let's look at it.

Perhaps this is because governance is -- until now -- geographically based -- you can only be in one place at a time, and hence only have one government. For those who would argue that you are simultaneously subject to both state and federal government -- it's the same centralized, heirarchal "democratic republic" system, isn't it? (assuming location == USA, but also applicable to other DR systems as well.)

You might argue that you could vote with your feet and change your location. But no matter where you go, you are subject to *one* governmental system. You can't find a place where you can *choose* from an array of governmental systems (unless you go to a place where there is *no law at all*, which tends to default to the "law of the jungle" -- again, only one system -- and not a very nice one at that.

If we could decouple governance from geography, and choose our system of governance, we might have competing systems, but each system would be *better* than what we have, because they would be competing for our 'consumption'.

In a sense, that is what we already have [here] in the area of religion: free choice and competing ideologies. And it works: in places where there is only one religious choice, people who choose otherwise are persecuted for not conforming to the primary religious norm.

After all, 'monotheism', while high-ranking, is not the only choice: multitheism [e.g. Hinduism], pantheism [e.g. paganism] and a[nti]theism [e.g. atheism or Buddhism or materialism or humanism] also have their adherents.

Analogically, only two forms of "anti-monostatism" come to mind: "libertarianism" and "anarchy". Even those terms can only be defined relative to *some* form of statism and one merely argues for limited monostatism. "Multistatism" and "panstatism" don't seem to have any other words to describe them.

Since "governance" is just as arbitrary a social construct as "religion", how do we get from "here" to "there"? Is it possible? Is it time for monostatism to go into the dustbin of history as the only form of governance possible?

Of course, because atheism is much more rational than theism.

Well, that just seems silly to me, anyway. Given the way that people re-fit their myths and idologies around science and scientific discovery (such as the changing role and impressions of God), it would seem almost axiomatic to me that people believe in their myths for reasons other than science. Ignorance of science does facilitate some myths, and even helps create a mythology I call "scientism", which is a worship of scientific authority or the trappings thereof, but I don't know anyone who would take that overly-broad generalization seriously.

Here's the main point: Since naturalists imply that they would have a more favorable opinion of theism if naturalists were aware of famous theist scientists (however fallacious this logic may be), it's in the interest of theists to give them the requested information.

I don't know who these "naturalists" are, but I guess I'm not one of them, because I've never said that it would give me a more favorable opinion of theism. I really don't know where you've gotten this from in general, honestly. Anyone who would think better of theism because it included their fellows is falling prey to a herd mentality and isn't personally judging the idea based on their perceptions of its merits.

Naturalists basically say "Spiritual people believe in their myths because they don't understand science." In other words: "Because most spiritual people are not scientists, they are ALL ignorant, stupid, backwards kooks." (Or something like that.) This is the fallacy of, you might say, "guilt by non-association" being used against theists. It is fallacious thinking, but that is the operating premise that nanojath and the rest of us have been given to work with.

Here's the main point: Since naturalists imply that they would have a more favorable opinion of theism if naturalists were aware of famous theist scientists (however fallacious this logic may be), it's in the interest of theists to give them the requested information. Naturalists laid the grounds for this point of discussion, so that's what we're going with.

> Almost makes our Earth-bound existence sounds like sort of a chore

Yes, but what if that is true?

Quite independently from Christianism, modern philosophers have reached the same conclusion. The result was nihilism and the death of Western High Culture.

Similar was the conclusion of the Western mass culture, and the result is hedonism, AKA practical materialism.

Buddha reached the same conclusion, and the result is the only atheistic, non-secular religion in the world.

In fact, that life is a chore seems to be the consensus of most people in all cultures and ages who actually had a real life.

> I tend to think that the world is still a very beautiful place

I assume you are either young, or rich, or superficial, or most probably all three.

And before you protest poverty, if you have access to the Net you are rich compared to most of the population currently living in planet Earth.

> one certainly does not need angels, devils, and Jesii to enjoy it and have meaningful experiences in it.

Certainly not. But see, you are talking in the plural: experiences. Christianism never denied one could have meaningful experiences, or that one could do good things, or whatever isolated acts or phenomena.

The real thing is to have a meaningful life. And this is not in man to have, but in God to give.

As for the value in life as in respect for others, it stands to reason that if man is the sole measure of man, he can do whatever he wants provided he takes the consequences. It is only if there is a God that Absolutes come into play.

I did, and your main argument still boils down to "lots of people chose it, so it must be good".

The problem is that God has left room for doubt. Even those living at the time of Jesus had the opportunity to not believe, despite the miracles he did in their presence. The fact is, if we have a 100% concrete evidence, it is no longer a matter of faith, but becomes a fact, no different from the law of gravity. This would take away our freedom to choose whether to believe he is who the Bible says he is.

This would be true if humans were perfectly logical beings. As it stands, people disbelieve fact everyday! Even if god left no reason for doubt, there would still be those who would not believe.

And even above and beyond that, if the only method of taking in god's facts was our infalliable senses, it would be still be impossible to know that facts beyond a given certainity, just as with any other facts currently held as being the truth (mainly science).

Yet you are so sure its the word of god ? Like wise, on one knows who wrote the ancient hindu, islamic and buddhist texts... And there are MANY more people who believe in these other religions. If I was a tarzan(or an alien if u'd rather) who met a "civilized" man for the first time, how do u convince me that the bible and not these other books state the word of god ? For eg all hindus and most buddhist sects believe in re-birth which is totally opposite to christian beliefs. Your argument is not cogent enough to make these 1 billion plus belivers switch over(and vice vera) Shouldnt it be convincing ? when u say that the bible is the only light that god has given to save u from eternal damnation...

Millions and MILLIONS of hindus, buddhists and assorted ppl like american indians, africans, eskimos etc have been BORN AND DIED since jesus stepped on earth. What do u say has happened to their souls ? Are you trying to tell me that god condemned them to hell merely because of an accident of birth ? Because they were not BORN christians with no one to tell them the word of god ?

Popularity doesn't prove anything

Before it became state religion of the Roman empire it experienced explosive growth throughout the known world. Why? Not because governments or churches were forcing it down people's throats, but because of the real power that undergirds the word of God.

A good example is suicide bombers. They would value their life more if they were athiests.

This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point well.