Science Text Attempts to Reconcile Religion and Science

terrymaster69 writes "The New York Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has just published their third book outlining guidelines for the teaching of evolution. 'But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.'"

Comments

Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you reconcile logic and faith.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

if (IQ >= 100) then evolution; else creation; endif

Re:Logic vs Faith

[smittyoneeach]

Logic is something mostly objective, and provable in a mathematical sense.
Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein.
The casual observer of one of my more meaningful experiences would have said: "Dude: you were parking the car".
Yet, at that time, in that context, I got a very deep message out of it.
The trick to peaceful existence is to keep a weather eye on the line of demarcation between faith an logic, and be respectful, if not accepting, of both sides.
And don't try to use elements of one to assail the other. Such is a quick trip to unhappy land.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Secrity]

There is no logic in faith, and there is no need to reconcile the two.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[vorpal22]

Faith can be tempered by logic, and logical explanations can often be translated back into faith frameworks without loss.

It's like what happened at the turn of the 20th century where society began to discover psychopharmacology. There was an initial crisis that it would reduce the human experience to nothing more than a set of chemical interactions, which brought religion entirely into question. Similarly, again, was the discovery that "religious experiences" can be reliably induced by stimulating certain areas of the brain. Now, I don't see why the theory that consciousness and the soul are nothing more than functions of chemical reactions invalidates them from having a higher meaning, at least in a subjective sense; it simply requires a slight adjustment in thinking.

It's one thing to decide to adhere strictly to a faith-based approach or a science-based approach, but in my opinion, only a narrow mind sees the impossibility in rationalizing the two. I'm a philosophical Taoist mathematician with a good interest in science and I've never had any problems. My dad is a fairly devout protestant from a moderately conservative denomination (by Canadian standards), and holds a PhD in physics; he also doesn't find that there needs to be any clash between his scientific knowledge and his religious beliefs.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[mrbluze]

Human beings are rarely aware of much of what drives them to think or act or feel what they do. Science attempts to explain it all, but its answers aren't very reassuring and when it comes to it, religion is much better at satisfying people's feelings of emptiness and lack of direction.

So it's no surprise that, given the inadequacies of the current state of science, people are still believing in the supernatural.

Also, it's not a question of logic but probability. I mean, even science has basic assumptions, mantras and anecdotes here and there which occasionally turn out to be false and lead to radical rethinking on basic ideas.

Essentially, I think we needn't care too much about whether people choose to see everything as fitting into 'God's Plan' or being just 'Stuff that happens' or whatever, as long as everybody is committed to uncovering the truth, whatever it turns out to be.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

don't bother clicking that, just another troll

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Broken Toys]

Logic dictates that I verify the link for myself and confirm your results. After all, why should I believe an anonymous stranger on the Internet?

However I'll take it on faith that you are correct and not click on the link.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Trailwalker]

Religions derived from Mosaic beginnings are based on intolerance and exclusivity.

These are seldom seen in the world of science. Scientists who disagree do not burn each other at the stake, or begin wars of extermination against those who advocate alternate theories.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[polar red]

The trick to peaceful existence For thousands of years, faith has not been very effective in keeping the peace. VERY MUCH au contraire.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[nick255]

Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein.

That is not true. That is how people like Dawkins define faith (and in all fairness how post-modern, liberal Christians define faith), but is not how Christians traditionally have define it.

Faith, as traditionally defined by Christians, is closer in definition to trust. Faith is defined as, because of objective past experience of God's action, trusting his promises of future action. Christianity claims God has objectively acted in history and have this as the basis of faith, not some subjective feeling.

Christianity is not subjective, it makes objective historical claims (most importantly that Christ rose from the dead). You may objectively disagree with them, but you can claim they are subjective: either they did or didn't happen.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[francium de neobie]

My only faith lies in logic.

Reconciled! Done!

Re:Logic vs Faith

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I don't find that. Faith has logic, based on axioms such as the existence of God and so forth. The axioms are, in my opinion, completely stupid, but faith *is* logical. Wrong, but logical. :-)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[mrami]

Reconcile?

Logic is a system of rules which let you take truths (which may be axioms or derived truths) and manipulate them into (i.e., derive) other truths.

Faith is those axioms.

Maybe I have an overly broad definition of faith.

But as far as I know, there is no proof that 1+1=2 without including some definitions first like 1 is successor to 0 and 2 is successor to 1 (and we take 0 as an assumption).

My understanding is that the definitions of 0, 1, and 2 are outside of the framework of number theory, and hence illogical. They are taken on faith, with the assumption that it will be beneficial to have made these assumptions down the line. Just like most religions. I can't think of any major religions that promise, "Just stick with us, and when you die you'll say to yourself 'What a fucking waste of time that was'". Even the Church of the Subgenius offers camaraderie!

Re:Logic vs Faith

[foobsr]

invalidates them from having a higher meaning

Why is there a need for the attribution 'higher'? I am working from the premise that 'meaning' is a transitory phenomenon.

impossibility in rationalizing the two

Here I am troubled with the term 'rationalizing' – integrating? as parts of a whole?

I'm a philosophical Taoist mathematician

Well, I am in good faith :) that I am in the process of approaching the still distant target to have a grasp of Taoism (for short: Taoist agnostic).

CC.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[DarkIye]

Logic dictates that I verify the link for myself

This is the internet, man. Logic dictates you stay the hell away from that thing.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Oligonicella]

Your explanation did a lot of dancing around the word objective. It's not a simple word and you have appeared to use it several ways while trying to seem to use it only one. Try explaining yourself without the word and see how it does. I can interpret "objective historical claims" at least three ways, for instance.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[sentientbrendan]

>Essentially, I think we needn't care too much about whether people choose to see everything
>as fitting into 'God's Plan' or being just 'Stuff that happens' or whatever, as long as
>everybody is committed to uncovering the truth, whatever it turns out to be.

I think the problem is that some people aren't committed to finding out the truth, whatever it turns out to be. There are some religious organizations, such as those promoting creationism that are using intellectually dishonest arguments and some outright lies to spread a world view that has been thoroughly disproven for hundreds of years.

I think it is true that science and religion can easily coexist in general. However, science cannot coexist with people who are not committed to discovering the truth. A person cannot be a scientist or understand science without a commitment to the truth.

This creates great stress on our society, because on the one hand people need science both to survive and to provide a reasonable explanation of the objective truths of the world. On the other and people also need help understanding the things that science doesn't have very good explanations of, like morality, or their subjective experience of the world.

Modern science and philosophy don't give clear guidelines on what sort of things a person should do, and they don't provide any sort of explanation on what our experiences of the world are. For instance, modern science provides an explanation of how light works, and how the brain works (to some degree), but there is no explanation of our experience of the color red, since red is not quantitatively defined. Note by the color red, I am not referring to a particular frequency of light, but our experience *of* that frequency of light. These are important aspects of how we partake in the world that have yet to be tackled.

Since psychologically people have a strong desire for explanations and reasons for both the things that we have explanations to, and the things we have yet to find explanations to, there is a strong need for belief in addition to knowledge. Religion typically fulfills this role in society with supernatural explanations of aspects of reality that our knowledge of the natural world falls short of. Unfortunately, people offering supernatural explanations for the things that we don't understand will sometimes try to offer supernatural explanations for the things we *do* already understand and those two explanations will stand at odds with one another.

In my mind is is clearly the responsibility of any religious organization to mend their religious doctrine so that it does not conflict with facts that are known about the world. Indeed, most major modern sects do so to some degree. The catholic church for instance has changed many of its stances on various issues to correspond with scientific understanding. Ideas like the big band theory and evolution are accepted and taught at catholic institutions, and of course there is no mention of a geocentric model of the universe anymore. Many protestant denominations have made similar changes.

Unfortunately, some religious groups feel that their beliefs about supernatural matters are on par or superior to knowledge about the physical world. They ask, why should we have to change our beliefs just because we know otherwise? Instead, these groups ask their members to believe one thing and know another. This is not a healthy attitude, and causes psychological and social strife I feel pretty strongly that such religious organizations are doing their members a disservice and should be called to task for the harm they are doing.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[ProfessionalCookie]

if evolution(){
      u = monkey++;
} ;)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[smussman]

if evolution(){
u = monkey++;
} ;) Wouldn't that actually be ++monkey? I mean, I'm not a monkey, only the descendant of a monkey.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[alexgieg]

So how do you reconcile logic and faith.

Given that "faith" is just a synonymous of "trust" and "confidence", here's a way to construct a "logic of faith" as a special case of your typical inductive logics:

"For each 'n' in the range 1 to 'p', 'X' said on occasion 'On' he would do 'Yn' at moment 'Mn'."
"For each 'n' in the range 1 to 'p', 'X' actually did 'Yn' at moment 'Mn'."
"Therefore, 'X' is faithful."

Going on the other direction, one can hardly ignore that logic is "believed in" because we trust what, to our eyes, looks like absolutely undeniable a priori evidence: the implicit connection between logical statements. Meaning, when we say:

"All men are mortal."
"Socrates is a man."
"Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

We "trust" (have faith) in the meaning of the words "man", "men", "Socrates", "mortal", "is", "are" etc. to remain the same from one instant in time to the next, and thus for the 3rd sentence to be saying something valid and actually contained in the two previous sentences. In other words, for logic itself to be possible we must first have "faith on it".

As you see, either by going the more abstract path of a "logic of faith", or the more subjective one of our "faith on logic", or even by following both, there's no difficulty at all in "reconciling" these two fields. Whoever thinks one is exclusive of the other has clearly not understood what each term means.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[SerpentMage]

Ok please answer the following.

> Faith is defined as, because of objective past experience of God's action, trusting his promises of future action.

How do you know it was God? Why not the purple people eater monster?

Ah yes, you take it on faith that it was God and not some purple people eater. In other words...

> Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[maraist]

Faith has logic, based on axioms such as the existence of God and so forth.

I disagree. There have been incredible minds in history that NEEDED to apply logic to the basis of their existence, so they BROUGHT logic to Religion. But religion was free of logic long before and after their collective contributions.

Religion is, quite frankly the father telling his son a bed-time story.. The story is NOT intended to be logical, but to convey significance. It is meant to be remembered, it is meant to impart guidelines, it is meant to bring race-pride (to foster loyalty, etc). I'm generalizing all religions.

In the bed-time saga, the target audience is the inquisitive youth - religion is always the 'master speaking to his flock', or the elder speaking to the community, or the parents/grand-parents teaching their children. In this, there is an implicit respect (otherwise there wouldn't have been a conversation), such that we 'trust' our elders and that what they have to say was important for their survival, and thus is likely important in our own.

Further, elders don't just spout the history of the bible.. They impart useful info - dating advice, how to cook, how to hunt. My great great grand-daddy built this farm with this bare two hands.. And don't worry about lying to your wife just then.. God will forgive you.. See Jesus sacrificed himself knowing that each of us is flawed, but he loved us so much.. And so on.

It's all part of a cultural acceptance for each successive generation. It's not:
1) God created the world
2) God gets angry
3) God punishes bad people
4) The first person was bad
5) God punished all his children
6) God gets over his anger and makes promises to avoid punishing us in the future
7) Jesus's sacrifice represented a new covanant where God will not punish those that honor the sacrifice
8) You should do whatever the f*#k I say because I've accepted Jesus, so I'm going to heaven, and you might not.

That's a logical progression (with a LOT of assumptions of course). But who in church ever talks like this? People would tune out the pastor. Religion, is a series of unrelated assertions - where you trust the lecturer. Dawkins book talks about this phenomena. Basically that it is biologically important for children to absorb their parent's instructions without question (at least until a certain age). It is also biologically important for us to work as a team (group-think). This combination leads to a meta-life-form. Legends, rituals, etc. Religion is one of the ultimate forms of meta-life-forms that Hawking describes (quite offensively) as a parasite, living entirely off it's hosts; surviving from generation to generation.. Slightly evolving to fit the environmental changes, or dieing, in the face of natural selection.

What I find significant about this meta-life-form perspective is that we can never be free of such parasites entirely.. Look at Christmas - it is now expected of us to act crazy on Black-Friday through past new years in the US. It's a culturalism that has grown out of a complex series of unrelated historical events and will likely continue to evolve for another thousand years into something as yet unrecognizable. The ramifications have extended to most countries around the world, because need to be part of the economic event. We are in a generation that can not ignore the phenomena (if you are a business owner at least). Much like the founding generations of other religions. If the whole community necessitated a cultural series of actions (for weddings, funerals, child-bearing, what-have-you), you couldn't afford to isolate yourself... Judeo-Islamo-Christianity is getting the hard stuff now because it's actually possible to live in non-religious communities. It's possible to not baptize your children now or what-ever, and not be effectively stoned to death or burned at the stake. How many thousands of years did that take? 5?

Further, I rather loved the Segan movie 'contact', for the part wher

Re:Logic vs Faith

[david_thornley]

Okay, to do the parsing:

The original poster's version says "if evolution() { u = monkey++; }", which means that monkeys increase in value, while "u" is assigned the old value of "monkey". The second substitutes "u = ++monkey", which means that monkeys increase in value, while "u" is assigned the current value.

So, the original is that, if evolution exists, monkeys evolve past you; the second is that, if evolution exists, monkeys and you evolve the same.

It's unfortunate when a C syntax joke has to be explained on /.. Some of you need to stay away from xkcd.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[alexgieg]

Scientists who disagree do not burn each other at the stake, or begin wars of extermination against those who advocate alternate theories.

Maybe not, but notice that, the way you put it, there's still a requirement for both parts to agree on principle on the validity of science and of the scientific method.

What would scientists do if, say, a political movement grew around the idea of "separation between science and state", arguing that the scientific method is just a philosophical concept, and thus the government, since it must be neutral, must therefore refrain from placing public money at the service of any specific philosophy, be it through teaching to children, be it through officially-sponsored research?

My bet is that scientists wouldn't take it lightly. And were they in sufficient numbers, and with sufficient political power, and the "anti-science" folk growing in numbers by leaps and bounds, who can say the scientists wouldn't pursue a more... definitive... solution to the problem? Knowing human nature, I surely won't say they wouldn't.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[fbjon]

Religions derived from Mosaic beginnings are based on intolerance and exclusivity. So are the browser wars based on intolerance and exclusivity, since they're derived from "Mosaic beginnings"?

Re:Logic vs Faith

[cHiphead]

I'm inclined to say that faith has been effective in keeping peace, its the organized and centralized power structure in a religion that has done well disturbing that peace...

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that's some pretty impressive double speak and bullshit. Are you in Marketing by any chance?

You don't have faith that words mean the same thing in multiple sentences. They either do or they don't. That triad works because of the logic underlying each of those statements or propositions.

All of class A have the property B.
X is an instance of A.
Therefore, X must have property B.

If you used words that have multiple, different meanings, it wouldn't work, regardless of your faith in their immutability.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[polar red]

faith is a tool: it keeps the people ignorant, uncritical and divided... (just as nationalism does: that's the new tool)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[cHiphead]

No, arrogance is what keeps the people ignorant, uncritical, and divided. Faith in and of itself can keep an individual sane. I guess its along the lines of an individual being smart, but that same individual in a large group can be very dumb. Its got nothing to do with faith in and of itself, its the outside influences and self inspired arrogance that brings those things about.

Proclaiming that its a tool shows you either haven't really considered what faith is, have had negative experiences with someone who was using their faith as a justification for an argument, or just don't give a shit what faith at its core is and what its can be. I will agree that arrogant faith can be worse that arrogant 'unfaith'. But don't blanket the idea of faith as a negative, its disrespectful. Do unto others and all that jazz.

Cheers.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[alexgieg]

Wow that's some pretty impressive double speak and bullshit. Are you in Marketing by any chance?

No. That's the effect of 3 years of Philosophy College.

You don't have faith that words mean the same thing in multiple sentences. They either do or they don't.

So, you trust, have faith and hold a strongly belief in the principle of non-contradiction, eh? Good to know! ;-)

That triad works because of the logic underlying each of those statements or propositions.

What if I challenge you to prove this "underlying" you talk about? Yep, you'll have to use logic to prove me logic, thus producing a tautology.

No, my friend. It's an assumption, or an axiom, if you prefer. In any case, something you either "accept", or don't. Now, exchange the word "accept" for one of its synonyms ("belief", "trust", "faith" etc.) and you'll see where's the problem. Waving it away won't do it, sorry.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

You can prove the existence of all the numbers without taking anything on faith. It's been a LONG time since number theory class, but it goes something like this.

Some number MUST have the property that when you add (or subtract) it to(from) another number there's no change. Call that "zero"

Some other number MUST have the property that when you add it or subtract it, it does change, by some fixed amount. Call that "one"

Now, you can prove that 1-1 = 0

And, you can say, what must 1+1 be? Something else, called 2,

from there, off you go.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute, but no. Experience and the practicing science and says he is correct.

1) Clicking on tinyurl has been used to hide bad links in the past...
2) Especially so on slashdot...
3) Even more so if someone has taken the time to post a warning.

It's not faith, it's experience and the weighing of evidence.
If I have clicked on 20 suspicious links in the past, and they all turned out to be trolls, and this link has similar observable criteria, then I can reasonably expect that this link too, is a troll. I could be wrong, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

This is how science works.

Faith says, don't bother examining the evidence, do what I say because I said it. And usually by extension, examining and evaluating evidence is bad and insulting to me, and you must be with the terrorists if you dare question my commands. But I digress...

Re:Logic vs Faith

[mrbluze]

Unfortunately, some religious groups feel that their beliefs about supernatural matters are on par or superior to knowledge about the physical world. [...] these groups ask their members to believe one thing and know another. This is not a healthy attitude, and causes psychological and social strife I feel pretty strongly that such religious organizations are doing their members a disservice and should be called to task for the harm they are doing.

This has more to do with defective personalities than belief systems. Cultists and others with malevolent intent deliberately contradict widely accepted fact to distinguish themselves from everyone else, backing up their stupid claims with conspiracy theories or some kind of sophistry.

Decent organized religion rarely has this problem and scientific progress continues, albeit in a shaped form (eg: ethically).

Yet amazingly, sometimes the 'kooks' are right by mistake, such as the JW's who refuse blood transfusions. Actually they end up having overall better survival rates than those that do receive blood transfusions.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[greyhueofdoubt]

Ideas like the big band theory and evolution are accepted and taught at catholic institutions...


Man, I'm sorry- I agree with your post and everything- but that was the funniest typo I've seen all day.

J.C. and his Big Band play "Once, twice, three times a savior" tonight at the Odeon.

-b

Re:Logic vs Faith

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Logic is something mostly objective, and provable in a mathematical sense.

Logic is "provable in a mathematical sense"? What in heaven's name are you talking about? Logic is the tool by which you prove things. You can't prove "logic". In fact, I challenge you to either "prove logic in a mathematical sense" or admit that you just strung together a bunch of long words to give yourself an air of authority. (It worked, you were modded up.)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[The Famous Brett Wat]

I think the problem is that some people aren't committed to finding out the truth, whatever it turns out to be. There are some religious organizations, such as those promoting creationism that are using intellectually dishonest arguments and some outright lies to spread a world view that has been thoroughly disproven for hundreds of years.

It's not true that any particular world view has been disproved. It's not even true that some other world view has been more dominant for "hundreds of years". Charles Lyell popularised the principles of uniformitarianism starting in 1830, and Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. Young earth creationism was the dominant position until these works had a chance to penetrate mainstream thought. Long-age naturalistic evolution is still slightly less than one hundred and fifty years old as a respectable scientific theory.

This would be a minor correction on my part if not for the overall tone of your post, which harps so heavily on the dishonesty of your ideological opponents, and implies that you and your like-minded peers have such a great commitment to truth and accuracy. I'm not going to accuse you of lying to promote your cause (I don't think you're a liar -- just sloppy), but it's only fair to draw attention to the unmitigated hypocrisy in your post.

I'll leave it to someone else to address the other problems.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

if evolution(){
            u = monkey++;

            if( noSoul()){
                  throw new NoFuckingHopeException();
            }
            else if( noGod()){
                  throw new LifesWorthlessGameException();
            }
}

Re:Logic vs Faith

[kurzweilfreak]

Any government that would be stupid enough to do such a thing wouldn't last very long as it would soon descend into the mire of third-world existence and place itself at a technological disadvantage that would most certainly lead to its demise. The fact that you and everyone else who joins in made your post on a computer through the internet shows implicit subscription to the philosophy of science. Name one technological invention or innovation that has come about through the application of theology or faith?

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like Perl 6 syntax, because of the lack of braces around the condition.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Eli Gottlieb]

Religions derived from Mosaic beginnings are based on intolerance and exclusivity. Well screw you too.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[QuantumLeaper]

I'm not a Monkey, but an Ape, last time I looked I didn't have a tail.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

....For thousands of years, faith has not been very effective in keeping the peace.......

Neither has science. If anything, all science has done in that department is given one single human the ability to kill more fellow humans than was ever possible in the "dark ages" before the "enlightenment" of science came along. One person now has the ability to push a button and wipe out millions. Some call that progress. I suppose it is, but not toward peace.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[polar red]

But don't blanket the idea of faith as a negative, its disrespectful. D 10000 years of killing is enough to justify distrust in religion.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

......Faith is subjective, mystical, and can have the appearance of utter hogwash to someone not participating therein........

This idea was expressed centuries ago by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned."

For context read that whole chapter.

Some human experiences, especially those of a spiritual nature are hard to communicate to others and may seem non-sensical. Even in the physical world this is sometimes hard. How do you describe the taste of a banana to someone who has never eaten or even seen one? It's not easy.

The best way to find out what a banana tastes like is to BELIEVE, that is trust someone who has eaten one, enough to want to try one yourself.

David, the writer of Psalms give that invitation in reference to God in Psalm 34:8:

"Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him."

Faith is the ability to trust, even if our limited human logic fails. A little child doesn't apply logic to see whether his/her Dad is able catch him/her if he/she jumps out of a tree into his open arms.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[ardle]

Are you saying that a Christian's actions are dictated by dogma, not their personal sense of values?

Re:Logic vs Faith

[ProfessionalCookie]

Heehee- but monkeys are funnier to talk about that apes!

Cheers!

Re:Logic vs Faith

[cHiphead]

Point taken, but I think we only have about 5,000 years worth of fairly documented killing.

Thinking about it, I doubt most of the killing was done due to the religion itself, it was due to the fear and greed of individuals that happened to be associated with a religion at a particular time.

Cheers.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

Logic does not generate ideas to believe in. If that were true, no experiments would ever have been necessary and we could have deduced the nature of the universe just by thinking hard about it, which is absurd. Science is no more logical than religion.

Logic cannot discredit the content of thought, just how those thoughts are connected and whether conclusions about them are acccurate. "All unicorns have hoofs" is just as logical as "All planets have mass" which is just as logical as "No planets have mass".

Nothing prevents me from imagining a unicorn; thus, logic tolerates the idea. Furthermore, no law of deduction prohibits me from believing in a unicorn; thus, logic tolerates faith in them.

Whoever you people are who keep insisting logic somehow tells us WHAT to believe, you know nothing about logic at all. You just like the word because you think using it in every sentence about science makes you sound smart.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

if evolution(){
            u = monkey+1;
}

Fixed.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[ardle]

some religious groups feel that their beliefs about supernatural matters are on par or superior to knowledge about the physical world This is because so many members of these groups depend on these supernatural matters for their livelihood ;-)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[mrjb]

One person now has the ability to push a button and wipe out millions. Some call that progress. I suppose it is, but not toward peace. Arguably, the goal of science is to create bigger explosions; At this point, the explosions are simply not yet big enough. But once we manage, I'm sure we'll have peace from that point on. By the way, kudos to whoever did that Big Bang thing.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Hognoxious]

One person now has the ability to push a button and wipe out millions. Some call that progress. I suppose it is, but not toward peace.

Not so sure. In the event that anyone does drop the big one, I doubt there'll be much fighting for a considerable time afterwards.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

Any government that would be stupid enough to do such a thing wouldn't last very long as it would soon descend into the mire of third-world existence and place itself at a technological disadvantage that would most certainly lead to its demise.

But enough about the Ayrabs...

Re:Logic vs Faith

[star_aas]

That is incorrect. It should be u = ++monkey; :D

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

if (man.hasFreeWill()) {
  God.setOmniscient(false);
  God.setOmnipotent(false); // If he is unable to write on a piece of paper what I'll be doing next week, then he is not omnipotent
} else {
  throw new LifesWorthlessGameException();
}

right back at ya ;)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

if evolution(){
            u = monkey++;
}
else {
            u = sinner--;
}

Re:Logic vs Faith

[JavaRob]

That is incorrect. It should be
u = ++monkey; :D ...

That increments monkey.

Assuming we wrongly believe in goal-oriented evolution in the first place, you'd still need something like
    u = monkey + 1;

Re:Logic vs Faith

[alexgieg]

The fact that you and everyone else who joins in made your post on a computer through the internet shows implicit subscription to the philosophy of science.

Not really, or rather, it depends. There are basically two postures in philosophy of science. One is the so called "realist" position, which understands that unobservable conceptual entities (atoms, particles, DNA, space geometry, natural selection etc.) exist as stated by theory. At times when science is expanding in predictable ways and tons of news discoveries are being made and technologies built upon then, it's common for scientists to adopt it. On the other hand, there is also the so called "instrumentalist" position, which understand that these same unobservable conceptual entities, although in themselves useful because they aid research, are nevertheless pure tools, useful ways to describe real world phenomena, but whose actual existence we have no way to determine. This is an approach usually adopted by scientist themselves when lots of changes are happening too fast, and long established theories are going down fast while very strange alternatives are being simultaneously proposed.

A good argument in favor of realism is that usually theories lead to new discoveries that weren't predicted by them. The realist will argue like this: "See, if these things didn't exist, if they were merely an useful way to describe what we actually see, but not real in themselves, how would they lead to such new and unpredictable discoveries?" The instrumentalist will agree that it's really very nice when this happens, but he'll point that it nevertheless is a very rare event, so rare that it can be explained away by way of chance.

Myself, I think instrumentalism to be the most strictly rigorous way to look at science. The downside is that the "wow!" reaction we feel when reading about science comes from a realist approach to it, and thus, if you deny realism, you also end up denying this reaction.

Name one technological invention or innovation that has come about through the application of theology or faith?

Well, as far as technology goes, if you adopt instrumentalism you don't automatically link technological advancements to conceptual entities posed by scientific theories, taking both technology and science as independent fields, with science working "merely" as a very huge source of suggestions and insights upon which engineers can develop "actual" things. A realist, on the other hand, wouldn't accept this and say that, if technology works, and if it's based on some scientific theory, then that technology is an actual proof of the truth of that theory. To this an instrumentalist would answer that this isn't so, because many inventions in the past were based on wrong theories, and they nevertheless worked and kept working even as theories changed around them, with the new theories themselves having the trouble of taking into account the existing technology.

So, an instrumentalist would conclude, it's the other way around: technology comes first, then a scientific theories follows it, suggesting then new ways in which engineers should work, what leads to new technological discoveries, which in must be taken into account by new theories, and so on and so forth.

In regards to inventions or innovations brought about by theology or faith, if you're thinking about machines and the like, there aren't many, sure. But then, you won't find theology or faith much interested in material matters, so this isn't really a surprise. On the other hand, however, on the fields where theology and faith have practical as well as theoretical applications, such as social organization, interpersonal relations, techniques of discourse, pure mathematics, pure logics etc., then you'll find a very extensive list of innovations and even, yes, inventions. They're just on different fields than those where science operates. And in some case, such as the many Middle Age advances in logics, they are t

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

.....I doubt there'll be much fighting for a considerable time afterwards.......

Wrong, unless there is only one person left. If there are two or more remaining, there will be disagreements than can and often do escalate into war.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, this won't work

u = monkey++;

means the same as
u = monkey; monkey++;

And

me = ++monkey; :)

Re:Logic vs Faith

[polar red]

a very high % of those disagreements are about religion

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Boronx]

You are confusing the arbitrariness of symbols with faith.

You can actually prove 1 + 1 = 2 empirically. All you have to do is look at two things and see that they are one thing and another thing.

This works for a particular concept of 1, +, =, and 2. Of course some there are other ways of thinking about those symbols that can make the statement unprovable or even false!

Re:Logic vs Faith

[mrami]

Dinner got in the way of my reply, sorry.

First, when I say faith, I'm using the definition "belief that is not based on proof".

Now... The one thing and the other thing you see in your example above are constructs of your mind. Apples don't exist except as we apply the concept of "apple" to a collection of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. So your proof above amounts to saying one mental construct in your head "1+1=2" agrees with another set of mental constructs in your head "apple apple == apple apple". You're self consistent. Woo hoo. "black == green && green != white therefore black != white" is self consistent, too.

Your example doesn't even touch the zero construct, which is hard to say is empirical since there doesn't appear to be a true void in this universe. What, zero seems obvious to you? It actually has a checkered history of acceptance (see Wikpiedia): "Records show that the ancient Greeks seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number: they asked themselves "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the Medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum."

How long did it take for imaginary numbers to become accepted because they seemed to have no touch with reality? (ans: approx. 200 years, but still better than zero's fate). I wouldn't say math is pioneering in taking things on faith, but the usefulness of math has always overridden empirical concerns.

Our concept of math is guided and informed by experience, but it is independent of it. We happen to live in a space that is pretty Euclidean locally. So when we measure a circle's circumference and its diameter and take the ratio, it comes pretty close to pi. If we lived in a highly curved space, that ratio would have a different value. Possibly much different. But that wouldn't affect the value of pi. Pi is completely independent, and no amount of empirical data will ever convince a mathematician to give it a different value. To a mathematician, pi is beyond material concerns. Sound kinda religious?

In closing, I'll just quote Albert Einstein: "How can it be that mathematics, being after all product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" He didn't know the answer to that question, but he had faith (probably blind faith) that math would lead the way for him.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[sentientbrendan]

I was being sloppy about "hundreds" of years having passed. There is more than 1 span of one hundred years having passed, but fewer than two, so it's ambiguous if that counts as a plural (to me).

As far as things being disproven, it is possible to falsify a premise of a valid argument if the conclusion can be shown to be false. Falsification works deductively, so in a specific sense you can disprove a theory, whereas you cannot prove a theory, since verification of theories works inductively.

However, this of course ignores that in the real world there is always more than one premise, and so what exactly has been shown to be false can be ambiguous. This leads to an underdetermination of science. There's always more than one way to explain the world, and we largely pick the explanation not on empirical grounds, but on which theory is simply, which one makes more predictions, which one is aesthetically nicer, and politics plays a part too.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[sentientbrendan]

>>some religious groups feel that their beliefs about supernatural matters are on par or
>>superior to knowledge about the physical world
>This is because so many members of these groups depend on these supernatural
>matters for their livelihood ;-)

Church provides a social service to members. They are the centers of the community, and they both provide a support network and help to establish social norms. In japan, where most of the country has abandoned literal belief in the gods, the Shinto temples are still well patronized because of these services. I doubt that churches really need the supernatural to succeed, they just need ritual and authority within the community.

I suspect that the conflict you see between religion and science is a symptom of the deeper problem that most of society just doesn't understand science, and largely see it as a rival religion. That some sects see science as a religion is evident in their basic strategy with regards to science, e.g. take on the trappings and rituals of science in order to gain some of its power (christian scientists, intelligent design, etc), and try to come up with competing miracles (faith healing, speaking in tongues, etc) to overshadow science's numerous "miracles" (television, cars, electric lights, etc).

Re:Logic vs Faith

[spun]

No, because it makes no sense to kill others. Killing you does not profit me as much as having you alive. With two or more people, each of us can specialize and produce more than either one of us could alone. We can also look after each other when we are sick, or otherwise weak. Disagreements can only strengthen both of us, as we are forced to question our assumptions and come to stronger positions. Science and logic provide us with the means to arrive at that which is truly beneficial to us. Buddha and Lao Tzu were scientists, and founded philosophies that had the moral strengths of religion, without the weaknesses, because they both said, "Don't accept anything anyone, even me, says unless it agrees with your experience and common sense."

Re:Logic vs Faith

[spun]

I've trusted enough to accept Christ as my personal savior, back in the day. You know what I got? Jack shit. Absolutely nothing. Well, not nothing. I felt like a chump for believing such fairy tales. Then I found eastern philosophies and I got mystical experiences and peace of mind, all through practices anyone can try and verify for themselves. The existence, or lack thereof, of God, a personal soul, or an afterlife is utterly unimportant to me now. Those kind of questions are only important to someone who sees themselves as fundamentally separate from the world. I know that I am one with the unending chain of cause and effect. That is enough to provide me with total, utter, and complete peace of mind.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Lord Kano]

One can reconcile them by recognizing that they're not competing interests.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence or actions of a supreme being.

Religion isn't about observation and experimentation, no thinking person would ever attempt to use religion as a replacement for science.

LK

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

> There are some religious organizations, such as those promoting creationism that are using intellectually dishonest arguments and some outright lies to spread a world view that has been thoroughly disproven for hundreds of years.

Can you cite your sources? I don't think so (stop spreading truthless propaganda) ;)

> I think it is true that science and religion can easily coexist in general. However, science cannot coexist with people who are not committed to discovering the truth. A person cannot be a scientist or understand science without a commitment to the truth.

I thoroughly agree; but in what manner is evolution "the truth", or even science?

> In my mind is is clearly the responsibility of any religious organization to mend their religious doctrine so that it does not conflict with facts that are known about the world.

What are you referring to as "facts"? And more importantly, what doctrine contradicts those "known" fact you speak of?

> Ideas like the big band theory and evolution are accepted and taught at catholic institutions, and of course there is no mention of a geocentric model of the universe anymore. Many protestant denominations have made similar changes.

If your referring to the BBT and evolutionary "theories" as "facts", you have a misunderstanding of the word "theory". True, many Christians choose/have chosen to be ignorant of natural processes and why & how things work (generalizing here), blindly believing whatever they are taught, but how is that any different than them blindly believing what they are taught about the BBT and evolutionary "theories"? The fact that these "ideas" are taught as truth shows the ignorance of our society. It's sad that some (far from all) of the Church is abandoning their foundation, but that's mainly because about the only "scientific" view they're taught from the time they begin Kindergarten is evolution/BBT, which, by the way, is all but crammed down their throat. They rarely ever get a chance to hear from the Creationist side, because many of those who attempt to introduce the subject are quickly shot down and made to look foolish (much like I'm assuming many of you will attempt to do me). If their belief is truly "infallible", what do evolutionists have to fear should Creation ever be taught in public schools?

> Unfortunately, some religious groups feel that their beliefs about supernatural matters are on par or superior to knowledge about the physical world. They ask, why should we have to change our beliefs just because we know otherwise? Instead, these groups ask their members to believe one thing and know another. This is not a healthy attitude, and causes psychological and social strife I feel pretty strongly that such religious organizations are doing their members a disservice and should be called to task for the harm they are doing.

It's so easy to tout about when you feel secure in numbers. By religious groups, I suppose you mean organizations such as AiG (www.answersingenesis.org)? I would hardly say the research they do is solely into the "supernatural". Don't believe me? Think all Creationists are ignorant and reject science? Check em' out yourself; there's no better resource on Creationism.

I'm personally tired of the the over-exaggerated hype evolution has been receiving; it's not scientific "truth", it's a modern religion. Think I'm wrong? How much "faith" does it take to believe in something nobody has ever witnessed in a natural environment? I'm not disputing natural selection or micro-evolution by any means, only macro-evolution. Don't give me that I don't believe evolution, I accept evolution nonsense; if you haven't seen it, you have faith it happened, thus you "believe" it. It isn't the truth, but merely a "theory" that survives mainly (almost solely) because if evolution didn't take place, there would most certainly have to be an intelligent Creator; and if there is an intelligent Creator, there must be morals by which on

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Boronx]

An apple is independent of my idea of an apple, and there's undoubtedly an objective definition that would distinguish one apple from another and the rest of the universe without assuming the concept of "apple", but if you like you can look for two objects that aren't aggregates.

Einstein said a lot of things that were stupid. Mathematics is not independent from experience, it began as a way of abstracting from experience, then people started applying logic to the abstractions.

Mathematics is just deduction from assumptions. Mathematical structures and proofs are logical. Does math conform to the universe? Well, no, not all the time! A mathematical construct only tells us anything about the universe if it's assumptions bare some relation to the universe. So what are we really saying when we remark how closely we can use math to describe the universe? We're just saying that the universe, in a close approximation, is logically consistent, that there are definable rules that seem to work almost all the time.

But is the universe really mathematical, or is math merely a pretty good method for looking at it? This gets to another stupid Einstein quote: "God does not play dice." (Einstein was smart and he laughed later at the stupid stuff he said)

Apparently, God plays dice. What does this mean for Math? When a waveform collapses there is no logical way to determine how it's going to collapse, or to explain after the fact why it collapsed that way. So for every event in the universe we have a nearly perfect mathematical theory about its probability, but no theory and no prospect of a theory about why or how that particular event happened the way it did.

Your example doesn't even touch the zero construct,

  Zero is just another label. The ancients knew what 1 - 1 was, even if they didn't have a number for it. Part of the reason 0 has become popular is that it didn't break the old truth that 1 - 1 is nothing, it just made writing it down easier and led to more rigorous and expansive thinking.

they asked themselves "How can nothing be something?" This is just the Greeks conflating the idea for the thing (or in this case, the lack of a thing), a problem they seemed to have had a lot. I don't blame them. Back then, a person might master a fair fraction of society's knowledge in his lifetime, and those that did must have seemed to themselves like intellectual gods.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[mrami]

Heh. If you're just going to dismiss Einstein, then you obviously have no interest in trying to understand my argument. I quit. You win, dude.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[__aailob1448]

Interesting post. I agree with many of your points since I disapprove of religion needlessly curtailing a man's freedoms.

It's possible to not baptize your children now or what-ever, and not be effectively stoned to death or burned at the stake. How many thousands of years did that take? 5?

That is incorrect. There were always places where one could follow his own beliefs, provided he did not "disrupt" society doing so. This is no different than not being able to legally be a polygamist nowadays, or sacrifice cocks on the sidewalk.

Yes, the world could be free-er, but no, this isn't the first time people are "free from the shackles of organized religion", not by a long shot.

Personally I'm disgusted with the current state of Religion, so I (similar to Dawkins) have little value in 'respecting it'.

If, as you claim, religion is an invention of Man that has proven useful to his survival over generations, then what you are really disgusted with is human nature. Religion is simply a reflection of it, capable of great good and great evil. Maybe eliminating religion completely would not make the world a better place. Plenty of men do not need religion to tell them to have sex with 13 years old or beat up homosexuals and blacks. Discrimination will continue.

So, people suck, what's new?

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

....unless it agrees with your experience and common sense......

You know that you cannot live that way. You have to accept, to believe the experience and knowledge of others in almost every area of life. You get in that car or airplane the first time, because of the experience and common sense of others, not your own. You've had teachers, including Buddha and Lao Tzu whose experiences and precepts you accept because you simply BELIEVE them, not because you KNOW whether they are truthful or not.

(....Disagreements can only strengthen both of us.....)

This is true if it is done in love and respect, but not if done from selfish ambition. Does your belief give you a truly satisfying answer to the four questions, especially the last one?

Jesus promised: "Because I live, you shall also" and proved it by rising from the dead. Buddhism and Taoism don't even make the claim of the founders of those religion's being alive and promising this life to their followers also. All other religions have a founder still in the grave. Only the tomb of Jesus Christ is empty, because He alone is alive, today. That is why I believe in Jesus. He is different than all the others.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn from the bible why people are being tortured or killed, they shall awake from their grave if they pass the tests. Every non-believers deserved eternal torture, praise the all-mighty, he loves you, don't ask why, there's no why, you ask why because you don't believe, and that forfeit your ticket into the heaven, only believers will see him walking out of the tomb, because he chose only to materialize himself to them, and stay away from non-believers, they'll say you're having a hallucination and throw you into the hospital...

Re:Logic vs Faith

[maraist]

If, as you claim, religion is an invention of Man that has proven useful to his survival over generations, then what you are really disgusted with is human nature.

Yes and no. It's not that I'm disgusted with the worst in mankind, I have no problem with 'a few bad apples' who take action on their impulses - statistically this is an almost certainty. I have a problem with the endorsement, adoption, and the arrogance of self-riteousness for something that a person with not too much intellect and consideration can see right through.. I'm frustrated that so many DON'T see right through, and subsequently become indoctrinated.

Once they're indoctrinated, I no longer fault them. There have been several articles on slashdot about the human need to make their world-view true, no matter what the facts say.. To rationalize the short-comings of their world-view. To see their opposition as complete opponents that should never be given a break. Republican v.s. Democrat.. One religion v.s. another. So once you're in a religious circle, all the short-comings that upset me so greatly are only minor details, easy to wisk away.

But while I don't fault the inductee, I DO see right through many of the pastors and politicians who in all likelyhood are NOT indoctrinated, but are abusing the mindset of the flock for personal gain. This is just insult to injury to me. The tel-evangalist who solicits millions, in donations that go to their gold-plated bath-tubs. The politicians who pander to the cultists, yet don't act in any way that sounds religious (no humility, no reverence, no generosity, no forgiveness, no respect for members outside their mindset). Granted many politicians are genuinely religious (several were pastors or from a religious background).

I have no problem with a person being indoctrinated - maybe their life has been really miserable, and religion is the only thing that's ever given them hope. I don't want to take that away from people. But I do wish to fight in the public circle against political and public-school-system indoctrination. It's as if we were being forced to all play (and pay for) the lottery, so that the few that 'need the hope of a better tomorrow' can be placated.

The main delicate issue here is that a person that IS part of the indoctrinated circle doesn't want their child's mind 'perverted' with other mind-sets. A happy child is a naieve child (as I can personally attest to). So the four options that can appease everybody: Segregate the classes (religious-focused science classes/hard-core science classes), make religious people home school, make the atheists home-school, or don't teach the contentious topics, and say this is for your homework, take book A or book B home with you and work with your parents.
Finally we can do what we do now, which is fight to force one side or the other to compromise.

No really good solution, I would say.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[amRadioHed]

....For thousands of years, faith has not been very effective in keeping the peace.......

Neither has science. Irrelevant. Many religions claim to be a way to bring about peace and so we may judge them on their ability to do so. Science makes no such claim so while it would be nice if science did bring about world peace we can't be critical of it for not doing so.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to have "logic" is "given" by the god, god could have short-circuit the logic so that everyone just believe, no question asked, but that'd mean the hell is a wasted construction and no one will ever go there...

God created man in his image, and man is given the "freewill" and the "freewill" includes the ability to do something that god perceive as evil, which means god created a product with evil-ness, how can a perfect god created a product that's a failure? -- don't ask a question, there's no why, god wanted to test you, just believe and you shall go to heaven.

You may do all evil things as you wish, as long as in the last minute you accept god, and god will accept you to the heaven, praise the all-mighty! muahahaha

Dump everything created by people as the consequence of asking "why", they're non-believers and they're evil, others may tell you that's "stupid", but you know that's "faith", just believe...... muahahaha

Re:Logic vs Faith

[Boronx]

Read past my second statement I didn't just dismiss Einstein, I give my reasons for thinking his quote wasn't well thought out or well informed. I'm also personally tired of people taking it as given that, just because Einstein was the greatest genius ever known, he never said anything stupid (or they are fully aware of what he meant or the context in which he said them).

Re:Logic vs Faith

[spun]

No, Jesus is not different from all the others. You haven't seen his tomb, you have no idea if he rose from the dead or not. And I can and will live that way. I don't accept Buddha's teachings out of faith, but out of direct experience. My experiences, not my belief, give me all the answers I'll ever need. I feel sorry for you that your logical faculties have been so eroded by the damaging teachings of your prophet that you can't even trust your own experience, you have to have blind faith. That's just sad, to see something as glorious as a human mind reduced to such a state.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

.....No, Jesus is not different from all the others. You haven't seen his tomb, you have no idea if he rose from the dead or not.......

One difference is that Jesus claimed to be God come to Earth and rise from death. He claimed to be THE truth and the only way to come to God. Buddha made no such claims. If those claims of Jesus are false, He was the biggest deceiver or self deceived, most arrogant person that ever trod this planet. Yet this Jesus affected human history, art, architecture, music, governments and numerous other aspects of human life, more than all the other founders of religions put together. Every calendar testifies of the centrality of His appearing.

You have staked your life and destiny on Buddha, I have done the same upon Jesus. After we both die, each of us will find out who made the better choice. We will then know whether Buddha's or Jesus' teachings were according to reality. We may both go out of existence, according to Buddha or I will be in heaven with Jesus and you will be with Buddha, wherever he is, somewhere in the outer darkness. As I see it, you are taking the far greater gamble with your eternal destiny. Assuming (believing) that Jesus is right, rather than anyone else is a far safer approach.

Better take another careful look at the person of Jesus and His claims and teachings before you die. You have no guarantee of even waking up tomorrow, so you might do this today.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[spun]

Seriously, I've looked into Jesus, his teachings, and the claims that others have made for him. Jesus wrote nothing himself, unlike Buddha who wrote tons himself and made sure his disciples understood him completely. All we have to go on in Jesus case is the imperfect human understanding of his followers.

Not every calendar testifies to the centrality of Jesus appearing, and they all get it wrong. He wasn't born when the calendar says he was born, all modern biblical scholars agree on that point: the calendar is off by about 3-5 years as to the year of his birth, and no one knows the month, although we know it wasn't December!

Given that I have seen plenty of arrogant fools make outrageous claims such as "I am God!" but I have never seen anyone rise from the dead, it seems logical to me that either Jesus was an arrogant fool, or (more likely) his followers badly misinterpreted his message, he got himself killed before he could make his message understood, and his followers went into his tomb and stole the body in order to impress the gullible.

If the story of Christianity is true, I would rather go to hell forever than be a part of it, thank you very much. The God of Christianity disgusts me to my very core. He is a liar, a killer, and a psychotic egotist. How could infinite punishment for a finite sin be reasonable? How can God be omnipotent and still allow evil? You can make up all kinds of excuses, but it boils down to the fact that God is either not omnipotent, or he wants evil to exist, and I want no part of anything like that. I don't give a rat's ass what his divine motivations might be, or his mysterious reasons. being omnipotent, he could have made a world where humans have free will, but there is no evil. If I can easily imagine how that could be done, an omniscient and omnipotent being could have too. Why would an omniscient being (who knows what we are going to choose, based on the circumstances of our life) choose to punish us for what he knows all along we are going to do? Why would an omnipotent being need us to beg for forgiveness?

I would have to give up my own sense of the world, of logic, and of morality in order to believe in Christianity. I would have to give up all that I am, for what? The slight chance that I will get into heaven to spend eternity with a being I neither like nor respect? No thanks.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[smittyoneeach]

Fair enough.
I think I would have said "argued in relatively unambiguous terms compared to faith".

admit that you just strung together a bunch of long words to give yourself an air of authority

Well, I certainly can't stop you from casting aspersions on my motives, but if you look at the whole post, one hopes that you'll see the attempt to draw a contrast between two concepts.
The concepts themselves are overloaded to the point that you can't effectively communicate an idea in a concise way.
Or, as you note, the mod points may indicate that there was some success in the endeavor.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

....and his followers went into his tomb and stole the body in order to impress the gullible......

It's obvious that you never read the resurrection accounts carefully. After Jesus was murdered His disciples scattered and were rightfully scared to show their faces. They were holed up behind locked doors. There was also a Roman guard placed at the tomb to prevent anyone from the outside removing the body. Until Jesus personally appeared to them, the disciples were a disheartened, scared bunch of men. At every meeting, after the resurrection, Jesus ate some food with them, to show that He was not some immaterial hallucination. He even made them a breakfast barbeque.

The fact remains that Jesus has had more impact on this planet than any other religious founder. The fact that He was born, not the exact date is what matters.

(....being omnipotent, he could have made a world where humans have free will, but there is no evil.......)

A lot of philosophers have wrestled with the question of why evil. I think that first evil must be defined. To me it's like darkness, which is simply where there is no light. Evil is a place where there is nothing good, or leave out an "o" there there is no God. A being who can truly choose, must be able to choose light or darkness. Right now, we live in a world where good and evil are inextricably intertwined. Everything has the light and dark side, the ying and yang, as some home put it.

Someday, these two will be separated. Those who now choose light, will remain in light and those who choose darkness now will remain there. We ALL have chosen darkness, in the sense that we want OUR will to be supreme, rather than submitting FREELY to the will of God. God could have left us all in the darkness we chose for ourselves. Being in darkness and death so long, we have gotten used to it. We now hate the light, and flee, similar to the creatures from an overturned rock scurry back into darkness. Jesus said He is the Light of the World.

God made a way in Jesus for anyone WILLING to surrender that free will to the supreme will of God. We are not ABLE to do this, apart from His grace, anymore than the creatures under the rock are able to be in the light. It takes a change in us, as it would in that crawly creature, that only the Creator can make.

There can be only one supreme will. Whenever there are two or more wills, the others must submit or else there is the likelihood of conflict and no possibility of love. We see this in marriage. One partner must submit in love to the other. If neither gives, then there is separation, divorce. Even though God has made us, He doesn't force us to love, trust and obey Him, but merely tells us what the consequences would be, if we choose our own will -- namely death, separation from Him, the source of life.

I think that if God would allow you to spend just a day in hell, the place where there is no good whatsoever, and then come back here, you might revise all your thinking.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[spun]

No, I would not change my thinking. I would rather suffer eternal torment than give in to a bully. To me, the God of Christianity is evil. The fundamental morality of Christianity is hopelessly perverted. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be an ass about this, but it is how I honestly feel. The thing is, most of what you say has value if you know how to correctly interpret it. You parrot back sayings like "We ALL have chosen darkness, in the sense that we want OUR will to be supreme, rather than submitting FREELY to the will of God," without, I think, understanding them. In one sense, that phrase is absolutely true, but it has nothing to do with the Christian concept of a personal creator/savior God. It is a psychological metaphor relating to a mental virus that nearly every human is infected with. It is made up of three parts, a Judge, a Victim, and the Book of Law. We place judgments on the universe, rather than using our free will to accept what is, and any time we or the universe fail to live up to what our personal Book of Law says should be, our Judge part punishes our victim part. We chose to let the virus in, and it is the virus that wants to remain supreme.

I've been to hell. I've also been to heaven. I don't need to dwell in either. When I die, I will simply go away. Eternity in heaven sounds boring as hell when you've seen what I've seen. I've seen everything, and been everyone, for all time, in all possible universes. You could do it too, anyone can. After that, one is pretty much content with 'game over' after one's physical body dies. I know you must think I'm full of shit, but I don't really care.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[arminw]

....I know you must think I'm full of shit.....

No, most definitely not so.

Nothing goes out of existence in this universe, only changes form. We all, including you, are indeed infected with a virus. The Bible calls it SIN and outlines the steps God has taken to eradicate it.

I hope, that before you die, you WILL meet the REAL Jesus, rather than some caricature you may have in your mind.

God knows who you are and I'll add you to my prayer list.

Thanks for the discussion.

Armin

Re:Logic vs Faith

[spun]

Nothing goes out of existence, only changes form, eh? Okay, then self changes form into non self. All the matter, energy, and information that make up 'you' may still be there, but 'you' as a coherent pattern cease to exist when the conditions giving rise to that pattern change. As God created sin in the first place, I don't understand why God would then 'take steps' to eradicate it. Why would an omnipotent being 'take steps' anyway? They would just say, "there is no sin" and there would be none.

One can have free will without the possibility of sin. For instance, can you choose to fnargle a drimp? No, because those words are meaningless in our universe, even though they may have meaning in another. An omnipotent God could have created a universe where it was as impossible for you to choose to sin as it is for you to choose to fnargle a drimp.

As I've been nothing but confrontational, and you've been nothing but patient, I feel that I should add that although the inherent morality of Christianity sickens me, most of the Christians I've met have been very moral and compassionate people.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

When you're using logic, you typically have propositions and you end up proving those propositions true or false. So logic is about deciding whether or not X is true or false.

How does your notion of faith work? Do you have faith in X where X is a proposition like "God exists". Or is X a state of affairs, or some kind of object, so you'd say something like "I have faith it'll work out in the end". Or is X something from a completely different class?

The reason I ask is this: there are times when people seem to have faith in X, but then scientists say X is false, and we end up with a conflict. This conflict doesn't come about because someone has decided to pit logic vs. faith. It comes about simply because two different groups say opposing things. So what I want to understand is what you do when you have "I have faith in X" and "X is false". Maybe this could never happen because faith doesn't apply to the things logic does. But I don't know, after all there are lots of people who seem to have faith in "Creation".

Re:Logic vs Faith

[smittyoneeach]

My personal opinion is that there is no conflict between Creation and the Bible.
Apparent conflicts arise when the interpretation of the truth of the Bible becomes excessively literal.
That said, I don't think Evolution is something in which you can have 'faith' in the same sense. It's a theory, and a moving target: if you don't like it, give it a month or two, and they'll be saying something else.
For me, the whole conversation is a bore. Evolutionary theories cannot be 'proven', either. Go in the lab with the periodic table of elements, and generate self-replicating life. Then I shall be quite impressed.

Re:Logic vs Faith

[MrResistor]

I would rather suffer eternal torment than give in to a bully.

Well put. I seriously wonder how people can go around spouting all this "God is great!" BS and then follow it up with descriptions of behavior I wouldn't tolerate from a toddler. If he's really the "one, true God", then what is he so jealous of? If doing my best to be a good person isn't enough for him, then he can kiss my ass.

Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Secrity]

Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all. This may be an attempt to bring a god into the classroom.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[AndGodSed]

Into the SCIENCE Classroom. There are religious classes as well...

Be that as it may, remember this book was not (afaik) written by religious people, but by scientists. The flip side is that it may be an attempt to bring science into the church. Should I also fight tooth and nail against that?

I think it is time that something like this has been done. I am tired of the pointless to-ing and fro-ing going on, and it is time Christians (I mention them since I am one, other religions can speak for themselves...) realise that acceptance of science (yes it is that bad sometimes) let alone the study of evolution does not mean abandoning of their faith.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not entirely a bad idea to mention religion at school. I'm not talking about general education of the principles and values as dictated by other religions than christianity, which is a prerequisite to understanding other cultures, but rather, I'm talking about the fact that we haven't been able to explain everything with science yet, and that this is the reason why many people believe in a religion. I think it's a good thing to explain how science has devised answers to questions that could only be answered by religion in the past, and that it has actively caused a major paradigm shift even among religious people themselves. Draw parallels between the old and the new, and people will understand how science alters thinking.

I'm an non-religious person who believes that religion is a very important thing to know about. Depending on how you teach it, it doesn't have to "replace science" or otherwise distort a student's mind. Religion is simply a part of the whole picture, as it always has been, and I see no point in ignoring it because it supposedly is a danger to modern, scientific thinking.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[univgeek]

In my science text-book (in India), the section on theories of creation of life simply went in the following order:
1) Creation by God (ID) - not the Christian God :)
2) Spontaneous Evolution
3) Pre-existing life
4) Evolution

It stated simply that 2, and 3 were dis-proved by the following experiment, and then went on to explain evolution in detail. No more fuss about ID. Of course no statements that Evolution is *just* a theory either.

I think that such a mention of theories is very valuable in explaining the rise of evolution as a theory that is the prevalent scientific consensus.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Public education...should not mention gods at all.

It would be rather hard to teach Theology.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[PFI_Optix]

If public education makes no mention of God, the students take it upon themselves to do so, typically in the context of "no, God did it." By proactively addressing the relationship between religion (God) and science without making an opinionated statement on the matter, science teachers can disarm a lot of anti-science arguments, thus preventing disruptions in the classroom.

My wife teaches science in public schools, by the way. She takes 15-20 minutes early in the school year to address why religion and science don't have to be at odds, and why students don't need to jump in with comments about God every chance they get. It makes a huge difference in how these kids behave, and even in how they accept the material presented.

She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[ezzthetic]

I have no problem bringing god into the classroom.

Just as long as it's one of the Elder Gods of H. P. Lovecraft.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[RobotRunAmok]

Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all.

No, public education -- in the US -- cannot advocate a particular religion over another. It can mention God all it wants, and pretty much has to if it wants to prepare children for "life out there," or merely teach history.

You zealot atheists are no better than the right-wing fundamentalists. The only difference between the two groups is that the fundies are usually better informed and educated.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[jellomizer]

Good idea lets ignore a factor that has been guiding human culture and progress for thousands if not millions of years... The concept of god(s) has been and still is a major influence of most areas of studied. The concept of god(s) has helped man advance in science just as much as it hinders the advancement of science. much of our core mathematics were learned so we could build large and solid monuments to god(s) or help people go closer to become god(s). In the search for god(s) people will go out into the world and attempt to be observant on what is going on around them in hope to find god(s). The problem today especially with evolution is a lot of people against it haven't full read the bible and opened their minds up to a point where especially the older stories are more literary truth then factual truth. Adam and Eve isn't a guide on how God Created the world, it is about how mans search for knowledge has brought them pain but they are never able to go back to the bliss of ignorance. if you are going to take it literally then why arn't there people stating that sky is still an ocean. Or bitterly arguing that the earth is at the center of the Universe. But to keep god out of the learning process in public education is a great disservice. to the community because god(s) have been an influence for a long time.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[stewbacca]

Yep. The article evokes "slippery slope" fallacies for me.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[director_mr]

I would think that if you ignore the concept of God, you are going to have a really hard time explaining history, current events, and a rather large part of culture and society at large. Not mentioning that would do a huge disservice to the education of any student. It is possible to talk about the idea of God without proselytizing and treating the various viewpoints with respect and intelligence, despite that not happening often on the internet.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[binpajama]

Sacrilege! Sacrilege! His sacred noodly appendages shall smite them down!

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[dragonrouge]

I wholeheartedly agree! I mean obviously there has always been conflict between religion and science. Who would want that? This is a weird and scary discussion. And by the way whose concept of god is not in conflict with science? The Southern Baptists, Arian Nazi church of white Ubermensch. Freedom of religion means you belive what you like and practice how you want at home or at your church. Does'nt mean you have a right to adjust reality.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what you get when there is no scientific education about religions in public schools. Comparative studies of religions is not a confessional subject.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[metlin]

If public education makes no mention of God, the students take it upon themselves to do so, typically in the context of "no, God did it." By proactively addressing the relationship between religion (God) and science without making an opinionated statement on the matter, science teachers can disarm a lot of anti-science arguments, thus preventing disruptions in the classroom.

Why?

It is none of science's business - by obviously bringing religion into science, your wife is one of the culprits responsible for fostering thoughts on god and religion. And what's this whole thing about not making an opinionated statement on the matter? Is your wife a science teacher or a religious nutjob proselytizing to her students?

My wife teaches science in public schools, by the way. She takes 15-20 minutes early in the school year to address why religion and science don't have to be at odds, and why students don't need to jump in with comments about God every chance they get. It makes a huge difference in how these kids behave, and even in how they accept the material presented.

Yes they do. Because religion has been responsible for discouraging and killing scientific thought and scientists from days gone by until this day. Christianity more than most, but all religions are equally culpable.

Way to go.

She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?

Hah. That explains a lot more. Religious nut indeed.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

Education is meant to EDUCATE. You inform children the trues that the human being has been able to understand until now.

I assume you mean the 'truths that mankind has so far come to understand'?

One of those trues is: The supernatural doesn't exist. There is no god or anything like that.

I see. And where has this been proved true? How exactly are you going to perform an empirical experiment on that which is not bound by the laws of nature?

If you tell them that it's ok to believe in god you are LYING TO THEM!!!

So should we start locking up all those evil people who believe in God?

Besides which, she wasn't telling them to believe in God; she was saying that science has nothing to say about God and there is no conflict there, which is quite reasonable.

You tell children about santa and all that shit. The tooth fairy.

Actually, I know quite a few Christians who don't because they don't want to lie to their kids.

That's religion for children.

No, knowing and following Jesus as personal lord and saviour would be religion for everyone, including children.

You introduce them to magical thinking, to blind faith. Than you take away that illusion, and replace it with a more horrible one that serves the same purpose.

Jesus gives me money if I lose teeth? That's a new one. Don' think Santa rose from the dead and can forgive my sin either.

Would you let a child above the age of 10 believe in Santa, The Tooth Fairy, That Mickey Mouse is real, etc?
NO.

Copying and pasting from Dawkins doesn't make you look older or smarter than you are and just means you repeat his errors. People above the age of 10 don't start believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. People of all ages and backgrounds start believing in Jesus. That should be a subtle clue that they're rather different. Christianity having a basis in historical events would be another.

Then teaching them that god doesn't exist is PART of public education.

Assuming you're American, I'm pretty sure that would be a violation of the Constitution.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

You snide agnostics are no better than the right-wing fundamentalists. The only difference between the two groups is that the fundies have better personal hygiene and grammar.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[IkeTo]

> Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all.

I beg to differ. Public education should not include god *in the way it happen now*. But public education should include god, or more exactly, gods, because they are there in all literature. Students should understand that different parts of the world have, historically, has a very different idea about how the world starts out to be. They should know how different Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other people view the world. It should not be just a single word saying "Catholic", "Hindu" and "Nui Wo". Instead it should be the essence of theory that they believe. And then it should be compared against what scientists currently believe in. Most importantly, it should be made clear that there is no clear winner, because early people lacks the knowledge that we currently possess.

And science education should go one step further. It should give some sort of explanation about why religion is there. The combination of biological, historical, political and scientific interplay that generate religious everywhere should be explained. As well as the reason why it is still there.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of reading on the bible all day long, I suggest you spend some of your time on learning some of the key principles of reasoning and argumentation. Your whole post is one big incomprehensible fallacy, my religious dinosaur friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory#The_key_components_of_argumentation

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[dr_dank]

She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?

Not only that, but a Slashdotter with a wife? It's a two for one stereotype busting bargain!

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[northstarlarry]

Teacher: "Class, you may have noticed on the course syllabus that we are due to begin learning about evolution today. However, I think it's important to get a sense of humanity's place in the universe, and so we're going to take a short digression today into the significance of all our lives. Namely, [turns off lights and displays first slide] as morsels of food for Great Cthulhu." [Slide depicts the dread god devouring the earth.]

[Some whimpering and gasping is heard among the students.]

Teacher: "Cthulhu fhtagn!"

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

It's easy to post links, but takes actual thought and reasoning to engage with an argument. Belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa was alleged to be equivalent to belief in God. Given that adults do not believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa, yet adults come to believe in God, even if they had no exposure to him in childhood, what is the basis for such an allegation? Or is it just a glib attack with no substance, as I suggested? Rather than linking to Wikipedia, why don't you point out my fallacy, or even better, engagement with the issue and bring forth your own argument.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[bigpicture]

Oh Yea, the whole of the observable Universe and everything in it came into existence all on it's own. It even cultivated intelligence??? when this attribute did not originally exist.

Then this intelligence ponders the laws under which the Universe came into existence, and came up with "cause and effect" scientific laws? And also scientific laws of conversation, that pretty well say that nothing is either created or destroyed, just transformed. Then they have the Scientific theories of evolution, that require time in the equation. (before and after problems) The problem posed by this (time)is at some point you have to use regression. We have the "Big Bang", and that's where it all began. BUT WHERE DID THE MATTER IN THE "BIG BANG" COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS BEFORE THAT??? Oh!! we had the "BIG CONTRACTION".

Can you not see the dammed paradox here, in these two diametrically opposed ways of Scientific??? thinking. (conservation versus evolution theories) Scientific dogma created by "closed systems" of thought is no more credible than religious dogma created by "closed systems" of thought. They should ban both of them from the schools, particularly science, because it masquerades as the "one right way", when it is not even close to accurately describing Reality.

Because Science also creates illusions, by refusing to address the central question, of "what is thought?" "what is intelligence?" Why can it not apprehend the nature of anything that is without bounds (that is not "closed") such as Infinite Space, Endless Time, Instantaneous Speed or interaction, etc etc. Why does thought always need "closed Systems" of dualities to operate in?

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Rankiri]

That assumes I want to spend my time explaining something to somebody who, most likely, has no interest in listening to me in the first place.

He: "If you tell them that it's ok to believe in god you are LYING TO THEM!!!"
You: "So should we start locking up all those evil people who believe in God?"

Where exactly did the original poster propose that? Straw Man. You're arguing against a position you created specifically to be easy to argue against.

He: "You introduce them to magical thinking, to blind faith. Than you take away that illusion, and replace it with a more horrible one that serves the same purpose."
You: "Jesus gives me money if I lose teeth? That's a new one. Don' think Santa rose from the dead and can forgive my sin either."

Again, you're completely skewing the poster's original statement... You know what, the more I re-read your post, the more I realize I really don't have time for this. The downright unintelligibility and illogicality of your arguments was the only reason for my previous post. You clearly don't have any desire to follow the links, and I have no real desire to reason with unreasonable. Take care.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[ultimate_fish]

"Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all."

I almost entirely disagree with you. You're right that science education shouldn't mention deities at all, just as sport, woodwork and food probably shouldn't be touching on theology, faith and belief or morals and ethics. But to suggest that children shouldn't be educated about religion at all, something that profoundly affects the lives of the overwhelming majority of the planet's population, is just plain stupid.

I'm not talking about preaching... I'm talking about teaching religion/s as a subject. That's a very different and perfectly sensible proposition.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Linking to Wikipedia is an act of faith in and of itself. You never know what kind of crap will be there.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Vadim Makarov]

Critically evaluating one's beliefs takes a certain amount of intellectual effort. Some beliefs require less of it, some more. The difference between Santa Claus and religion is that the latter requires a much larger amount of personal work to sort it out than the former. Many people never get that far, or lack the motivation to get far enough to understand religion.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[spazdor]

Alright children. If you'll open your textbooks to the Page Man Was Not Meant To Read, we'll begin with the Physics Lesson Man Was Not Meant To Learn.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[cluke]

Science has addressed, and continues to address, those very questions. Looks like you aren't listening to the answers - perhaps because you don't like the implications?

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Rankiri]

Let's be reasonable here. Firstly, the articles do deal with the basic axioms of argumentation, and, secondly, people who counter-argue criticism of blind faith with "Jesus gives me money if I lose teeth?" will likely have no use for better references anyway.

Also, in regard to "the difference between Santa Claus and religion is that the latter requires a much larger amount of personal work to sort it out than the former": Santa Claus may as well be a considerably more simplistic figure in comparison to [insert your favorite messiah's name here], but, nevertheless, people who believe in god's existence actually refer to the very same arguments that are used to defend Santa Claus' existence to little children. I'm sorry I can't fully engage in this discussion from work. If you truly wish to understand my position on this subject, this [hastily googled] article seems to describe it pretty well:

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/12/popular-delusions-v.html

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

Where exactly did the original poster propose that? Straw Man. You're arguing against a position you created specifically to be easy to argue against.

It was a hyperbolic response to the tone of his post which was pretty much foaming at the mouth animosity, though there was a serious point behind it: the claim was made that it isn't ok to believe in God, so what do you do to people who do believe in God? If it isn't ok to believe in him, what are the consequences for doing so? Is it merely unacceptable in education, is it socially unacceptable, or is it so unacceptable to society that Christians should be seen as a threat and locked up? What I said was perhaps a little provocative, but there was reasonable question behind it that has serious consequences for individual religious rights.

Again, you're completely skewing the poster's original statement...

Really? The claim was made that faith in God serves the same purpose as believing in Santa and/or the Tooth Fairy. I pointed out that they do significantly different things and faith in them has significantly different consequences. It was basically a challenge to justify the original claim when it seems patently absurd. How was that skewing his position?

You know what, the more I re-read your post, the more I realize I really don't have time for this. The downright unintelligibility and illogicality of your arguments was the only reason for my previous post.

What is unintelligible about asking in what way God is similar to Santa and/or the Tooth Fairy? What is illogical about pointing out that people come to believe in God as adults, whereas they don't come to believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy, which suggests a fundamental difference between the two, meaning that comparisons are glib and insubstantive? You've made a lot of accusation, but failed to address the issues I've raised; is that because you have no answers?

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

And plenty of people critically evaluate their beliefs with a great amount of intellectual effort and still believe in God.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[NoOneInParticular]

All it shows is that people are very susceptible to recognition. An adult that says he beliefs in Santa will get laughed at, an adult displaying a faith in Jesus will be welcomed in the flock.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[porcupine8]

Sorry you're getting so many idiotic responses. I think your wife is serving her students well by taking such a proactive approach. I remember when I was in high school, the science teachers avoided the subject altogether and the religious students banded together to wear shirts that said "I believe in the Big Bang... God said BANG and it was!" on the days we talked about evolution. These students just resolved ahead of time not to listen to anything about evolution and so didn't even know what they were arguing against.

When I talked to people individually, I was often able to convince them that at least some parts of evolution weren't necessarily contradictory to their beliefs. If the teachers hadn't been scared to address the issue in their classroom at all, it's possible that a lot of these students would have gone in with a more open mind and actually learned something in the first place - even knowing what it was they were against would have been a major improvement, IMO.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

Let's be reasonable here. Firstly, the articles do deal with the basic axioms of argumentation, and, secondly, people who counter-argue criticism of blind faith with "Jesus gives me money if I lose teeth?" will likely have no use for better references anyway.

I wasn't countering a criticism of blind faith; I was countering a glib and shallow comparison. Furthermore, calling Christianity 'blind faith' is an assumption that places you within a circular argument. A cursory glance at the opening chapter of Luke (among other places) reveals that the writers of the Bible were very keen that people who have reasons to believe, evidence for their faith. The Old Testament is full of exhortations to remember what God has done. Faith is a response to the actions of God.

Also, in regard to "the difference between Santa Claus and religion is that the latter requires a much larger amount of personal work to sort it out than the former": Santa Claus may as well be a considerably more simplistic figure in comparison to [insert your favorite messiah's name here], but, nevertheless, people who believe in god's existence actually refer to the very same arguments that are used to defend Santa Claus' existence to little children.

That's an absurd claim. People don't point to historical events to prove Santa exists; they do point to the historical evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection to prove Jesus exists.

If you truly wish to understand my position on this subject, this [hastily googled] article seems to describe it pretty well: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/12/popular-delusions-v.html

That article was appallingly unrepresentative of Christian views of God. It's one thing to read a claim about what someone believes and quite another to read/hear it first hand. If you want to argue against what Christians believe and their reasons for doing so, and this website truly represents your views, I suggest you look at what knowledgeable Christians have written on the subject, otherwise you are attacking a strawman. Get a systematic theology out of a library and read it. Take a look at Calvin's Institutes (free online) or some of the confessions of faith of major denominations. There are great sites that collect the work of scholars past and present such as monergism.com. You won't find any argument from divine hiddenness there, or any argument from desire. On the contrary, you'll find a lot about revelation, history and know-ability.

Dawkins may love the comparison between Santa and Jesus, but any examination of scholarly Christian work shows just how glib and irrelevant the comparison is.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

What about countries where believing in Jesus will get you killed? Quite a few people become Christians as adults in places where there are far more serious and deadly repercussions than believing in Santa. Again, your comparison is glib.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?

Interesting. I think though the main problem is not with people like her, but people who would claim that what you described her doing above BY DEFINITION means she cannot be devout. They are the serious problem.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Scrameustache]

Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all. ...and then Benjamin Franklin bravely stole the the secret of Mjolnir from Thor, and with it he forged the first lightning rod.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Rankiri]

This Kim Stanley Robinson quote, though taken from a work of science fiction, is (at least in my not-so-humble opinion) very much valid and quite relevant in regard to your views on the historical figure of Jesus. Hope you'll find it an interesting read.
--------------

John said, 'You must know that the gospels were written decades after the event, by people who never met Christ. And that there are other gospels which reveal a different Christ, gospels that were excluded from the Bible by a political process in the third century. So he's a kind of literary figure really, a political construct. We don't know anything about the man himself.'

Phyllis shook her head. 'That's not true.'

'But it is,' John objected... 'Look, there's a history to all this stuff. Monotheism is a belief system that you see appearing in early herding societies. The greater their dependence on sheep herding, the more likely their belief in a shepherd god. It's an exact correlation, you can chart it and see. And the god is always male, because those societies were patriarchal. There's a kind of archeology, an anthropology--a sociology of religion, that makes all of this perfectly clear--how it came about, what needs it fulfilled.'

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[0xdeadbeef]

Well, you convinced me. I guess we should start locking up Christians.

Ok, seriously, the difference is, to a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy deliver. Their existence is verified by physical evidence and the predictability of the phenomenon.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Scrameustache]

My wife teaches science in public schools [...] She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh? So much for nightmares! ;-p

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Vadim Makarov]

And plenty of people critically evaluate their beliefs with a great amount of intellectual effort and still believe in God.

Well, human intellectual abilities are limited. Unfortunately, in our time, at the present state of civilization development, issues leading to understanding of religion still pose a real challenge to the mind. It's challenging enough that a good fraction of people fail to understand despite the effort.

Ask a five-years old whether he thinks Santa is real, and why. A few children of this age will say he is, and offer explanations, which may be based on a critical evaluation according to their present level of understanding the world (e.g., Christmas gifts do appear below the tree in the night, NORAD tracks Santa's flight, you can go to Finland and meet Santa, I've seen a Santa in the shopping mall).

Regarding religion, some people never mature their understanding of the world to the point of cracking it -- even though the information is available.

To get nearly everyone in adult population believe something, that something should be present in daily life and be absolutely impossible to ignore. To give an example, two millennia ago nearly everyone believed the earth was flat. It was flat, according to all people's daily life. They didn't travel far enough to notice earth roundness, they didn't have accurate maps, they didn't use clocks accurate enough and didn't travel fast enough to notice difference between "time zones" (sundials don't count, as they are tied to sun's position in the sky). Poeple didn't have instant communication between different locations of earth. To sum up, the flatness of earth was a fact of daily life. Some sailors surely noticed that the masts of an approaching ship appeared in sight before the hull, but -- who knew for sure why this was. Some did look at Sun elevation angles. Some did astronomy. But those were few.

Fast forward to the present day. You get reminded that Earth is round literally every day. Travel, news, politics, global issues, communication, business, culture. It's in your daily thoughts. You CANNOT miss this -- this is a part of your life. Aside of a few aboriginal people and a few retards, nobody misses the fact.

Now, what would it take to make religion such obvious a fact as the flatness of earth is today? I'm speculating, but perhaps one possibility is that in the future brains get scanned, converted into digital information and run on another hardware in virtual reality, thus becoming the state of intelligent life. It may come with realities of life that make religion obvious. Or something else enters our daily life that makes religion obvious. Things sufficient to understand religion have to be ever-present in everyone's life if this understanding is to happen.

Cheer, this is the progress of civilization.

As a side note, it seems to me that today the only near-guaranteed recipe to understand religion is to be a top-notch physicist. Any other occupation does not necessarily make it obvious.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[bigpicture]

And what ARE the implications? That you replace one "system of thought" (religion), for another "system of thought" (science) one dogma for another dogma and neither one comes even close to representing Reality. Did you ever consider that it is thought itself that corrupts Reality? Because thought always needs a "closed" system to operate in, where there are just limited inclusions, and major exclusions. That reality might just be a totally "open" system where there can be no exclusions, or just chosen inclusions? Don't you think that maybe the crossroads that Quantum physics is currently at, may be because of this very question? Or that the very theories which seem to imply that there is no God, are only mental conveniences, so the BIG (first cause) question never has to be broached, or can be kept silent.

Science seems to be about "cause and effect" that every "effect" is somehow preceded by a "cause", and yes simple observation would seem to support this. So that would suppose that there was a very FIRST cause, or that there was no BEGINNING at all. This poses a little bit of a dilemma, because then you have the questions of either "what is the nature" of this "first cause"? Or since the implication of "endless time" (time just seeming to be a "before and after" mental ordering of things) brings the "cause and effect" theories into question. To use these kinds of "systems of thought" things have to be circular, closed, or bend back on themselves, including the "systems of thought" themselves. Reality just might be a lot simpler, and less corrupted than this.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[log1385]

Why shouldn't god(s) be mentioned in the classroom? It is important that kids learn about the beliefs of others. I agree that the existence of God can't be taught as a fact in the classroom, because belief in God is a matter of faith, and not of science. Science can't prove that there is a god, nor can it prove that there is no god. As long as you don't brainwash kids, discussions of God should be welcomed in the classroom.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny?! Seriously, the OP has taste, unlike you gay moderators!

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[mahlerfan999]

your wife is one of the culprits responsible for fostering thoughts on god and religion. Oh no the thought police!! I guess fostering intellectual discussion on an important topic such as science vs. religion is somehow bad?? Look-- children already have opinions (most of them misguided) about this topic from their parents. Burying your head in the sand is not the correct solution. The sad truth is that many people have this terrible misconception that science is a cabal of militant atheists out to prove religion wrong. A brief lecture and essay questions at the beginning of any science class goes along way to make people more open minded and tolerant towards science. In the beginning of the class I taught, I assigned homework on the topic and discovered that nearly all of my students thought that science is in opposition to religion, many claiming that scientists try to prove that religion is wrong! This is an issue that won't go away if you ignore it.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Enigma2175]

She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh? A devout Southern Baptist taking about religion in a science classroom? Sounds dead-on to the stereotype.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Vadim Makarov]

Okay, I have overlooked another crucial difference between Santa and religion. Both Santa and religion may use the same arguments, but the difference lies in the phenomena they explain.

Santa explains the phenomenon of gift appearance according to child's wishes. Later in the life, the child learns where the gifts come from, and there goes Santa. (Or, on a nostalgic note, as it was in my case, I learned where the plastic New Year tree was stored all year long. It was stored in a communal woodshed, and who was bringing it home in late December was not the Father Frost but my grandpa. I was shown around the woodshed about age five.)

Religion explains larger questions about nature and life. (Amongst real things religion also claims to "explain" many phenomena that are, to our best scientific understanding, random, and "gives purpose" while there seems to be no such thing as purpose in nature.) Science explains the nature and life, but -- here comes the difference -- many people do NOT learn science in adult life deep enough to convince them it does explain everything way better than religion. Well, maybe in the future that will be the case, but right now deep scientific understanding of nature is not needed in most people's lives.

So, one difference (which I've missed) is that gift shopping is ubiquitous in adult life while deep scientific understanding of nature is not. Another crucial difference is that the theory of gift shopping is simpler than science. Both differences make for a different amount of intellectual effort required.

Admittedly, one can also be, independently of the above argument, sceptical towards religion based on the number of incompatible different religions on the globe and on the known history of religions. I assume that this also requires an extra intellectual effort to learn.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Hooya]

> Given that adults do not believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa, yet adults come to believe in God, even if they had no exposure to him in childhood

rAmen! I, too, came to believe in something i had no exposure to in my childhood. therefore it must be real! PBUH my friend.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[NoOneInParticular]

Martyrdom has, for some reason, appealed to many people through the ages. Being a martyr for Santa is just silly, martyrs for Christ/Allah/SFM would get you instant recognition and a place in heaven/noodlespace.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[gnuman99]

People of all ages and backgrounds start believing in Jesus. That should be a subtle clue that they're rather different. Christianity having a basis in historical events would be another.

Yes. It is called mass delusion.

You believe it because so many others believe it. After all, how can all these people be wrong, eh?

Use examples from the past. Greek gods and Roman gods would be one. Egyptian gods another. Also Japanese emperor is a god figure as well. No one believes any of these anymore, yet not so long ago, A LOT of people believed it and you would be killed for saying different. A LOT of people can't be wrong. All current religions are just a natural continuation of the past religions. As people outgrew their deities, we needed to create more powerful ones.

Why do we believe? People can't accept futility of their lives. They think they are special and try to justify it with religion (eg. afterlife and "god's will").

Finally, people do not just start to believe in a religion. 95%+ percent, they are indoctrinated into that religion from a little kid that can't think for themselves. Then they stay in that religion mostly out of fear - leave and maybe get the wrath of god as preached by almost every religion so most don't want to take risk like that. This explains the lack of mobility from one religion to another.

Aside: Santa has a basis in historical events that are a lot closer than 2000 years yet look what happened to that. Santa now lives in the North Pole, sports a Coca Cola suit (yes, they made it red), and eats cookies and milk. Santa, from real facts to current myth seems to mimic the so called "religious historical facts" quite well.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Imposing her dogma that there is no conflict between religion and science is not 'fostering an intellectual discussion'. The original poster didn't say they have an intellectual discussion about the relationship between science and religion. He said she tells them that there is no conflict before they even start on the topic.

Sounds closer to 'brainwashing' than 'fostering intellectual discussion' to me.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

You zealot atheists are no better than the right-wing fundamentalists. The only difference between the two groups is that the fundies are usually better informed and educated.

There is much more evidence against this assertion than for it, but I don't expect you to care what the evidence does or not support.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

Interesting author though he may be, he is not an authority on Christianity. The gospels have far better historical credentials than the vast majority of texts from that era. If judged by any reasonable historical criteria such as date of earliest manuscripts, number of extant manuscripts, they're leagues ahead of various histories of the time. And the quote about other gospels is laughable. They were excluded precisely because they were written centuries later, didn't fit in with the established facts, and were written by known cults to further their agendas. Don't go to a sci-fi novel for hard facts about history and theology, you'll just be misinformed.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

Yet an adult is not convinced by that evidence because they have other data which provides a better explanation. Those same adults who can evaluate the existence of Santa critically can evaluate the identity of Jesus as the Son of God critically and come to the conclusion that it is true.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

As a side note, it seems to me that today the only near-guaranteed recipe to understand religion is to be a top-notch physicist. Any other occupation does not necessarily make it obvious.

I'm sorry, but I read Physics at Oxford and even to me that comes across as elitist. It certainly runs contrary to the Christian faith. Jesus emphasised that there was no need for great intellect to follow him and a certain degree of childlikeness was even helpful. Christianity is not simply about intellectual pondering; it is about following Christ and the bar in terms of intellect and understanding is set low. Growth and further understanding is encouraged, but the bar is still set very low because salvation is open to all.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

When they flee the country in far of their lives, I hardly think that martyrdom was high on their list of priorities. Once again, the comment is glib and shows no indication of having seriously thought through the issue.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Pseudonym]

Sounds closer to 'brainwashing' than 'fostering intellectual discussion' to me.

And there are those who argue that talking "evolution" without "equal time" for "alternatives" is also "brainwashing".

If it helps, that science and religion need not be in conflict is an empirical fact. All the evidence that you need is the thousands of scientists who are religious.

Not so empirical is the observation that to the extent that there's conflict between "science" and "religion", it's all due to a minority on both sides. On one side, there are a minority of religious people who have a problem with bits of science (e.g. evolution) without realising that science is fairly coherent, and you can't pick and choose like that. On the other side, and mostly in response, there are an extremely small number of strident Atheists like Richard Dawkins lobbing a smnall number of (admittedly, best-selling) books in the opposite direction.

And yes, I do think that those who have a problem with bits of science are in the minority. Your perspective can be skewed if you live in the US "Bible belt".

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Pseudonym]

Because religion has been responsible for discouraging and killing scientific thought and scientists from days gone by until this day. Christianity more than most, but all religions are equally culpable.

An essentially identical argument, from the other side, is that Atheists and "evolutionists" (whatever that means) have been responsible for killing more people worldwide than Christians, thanks to the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin.

Both arguments are wrong, and for the same reason.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

You believe it because so many others believe it. After all, how can all these people be wrong, eh?

I never said that. I never said that popularity was any reason for believing something is true. I put history and demographics forward as reasons to believe that belief in Santa and belief in Jesus Christ should not be compared because they are of a different nature. Most of your post is therefore a strawman.

Finally, people do not just start to believe in a religion. 95%+ percent, they are indoctrinated into that religion from a little kid that can't think for themselves.

That statistic is complete and utter nonsense, especially in this day and age and certainly doesn't go anyway towards explaining how grown adults with no exposure to Christianity become Christians and certainly doesn't address the issue I was discussing i.e. is belief in Santa comparable with belief in Jesus Christ.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Citizen of Earth]

mostly out of fear - leave and maybe get the wrath of god as preached by almost every religion

Yes, but they are already going to face the wrath of the god(s) of every religion except for one. What's one more? He'll only be getting the charred ashes after the other gods are through with you anyway.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Rankiri]

"Don't go to a sci-fi novel for hard facts about history and theology, you'll just be misinformed."
You know perfectly well I didn't use this quote because I considered it a reliable source of information. If you don't...well, you should... In contrast to the "I know the holy book of my choice is true because the holy book of my choice tells me it is" mentality that is inherent to most schools of religious thought, I do not take the fiction I read that seriously. If you want better quotes, here's a couple.

"While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely when early gospels (and parts of them) were written, it is impossible to determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be established between the text and another writing or event from a specific, known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely lacking from the time period when the gospels were written." ...

" Only two known events are helpful for determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64 C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus' siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44, 21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event. John 21 must have been written after Peter's death, but the final chapter may have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written. There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John 1-20. The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels." ...

All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody's guess. Two gospels must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody's guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing more concrete than each scholar's impression of precisely when small stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences of opinion with such subjective analysis."

As for the other part of your statement, for a religious person you sure don't seem to know that much about the history of your own religion. Don't worry, you're not alone.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/timeline_04.html
"In ancient times many other Gospels existed--perhaps as many as 30. Some of them might have been as popular as today's canonical quartet. But the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have survived to become keystones of the New Testament.
Their prominence is due in part to St. Irenaeus, a second-century bishop of Lyon in Roman Gaul and an aggressive enemy of texts and beliefs considered to be heretical. In an attempt to unify the church he declared Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John the only Gospels that Christians should read. For Irenaeus the number four was extremely important: there were four directions, four winds, and he reasoned that there should be four separate gospels as well."

I'm not even going to touch The Old Testament. For all we know, it may as well have been written by Aristotle, Pluto, or one of their evil twins.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[GWBasic]

Public education, science education in particular, should not mention gods at all. This may be an attempt to bring a god into the classroom.

The concepts of god, gods, and religion are important and widely-spread social phenomenon. Ignoring them in public education is just as bad as a public school teaching that "Jesus actually walked in water" or "The Bhudda was born in a lotus leaf".

Why is this? The US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."; therefore stipulating that public schools can "not mention gods at all" is both censorship and establishing the absence of gods as the state religion.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[archnerd]

I hope you wouldn't carry that statement as far as my elementary school did. In history class, they taught us that the pilgrims organized the first Thanksgiving in order to give thanks to the Indians.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Boronx]

She's also a devout Southern Baptist. So much for stereotypes, huh?

My brother had a devout evangelical teach his biology class in High School. On the week they were supposed to talk evolution, he showed "Cliffhanger" with Sylvester Stallone instead.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you said that she's teaching in an area where it's commonplace for kids to shout down science in the name of God. It's no surprise that inhabitants of such a place tend to be Southern Baptists, no matter what their opinions of science are.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are those who argue that talking "evolution" without "equal time" for "alternatives" is also "brainwashing".

"Equal time for all alternatives" is a really bad suggestion for how to run a science class. Should they also teach all of the ancient Greek myths as alternatives? How about the explanation from some Hindu scripture that mercury is the leftover jizz of the God Shiva banging one of his consorts and then spewing his seed all over the world. Should that be among the alternatives for the explanation in Chemistry class for the unusual properties of mercury (hg)? How about aboriginal explanations of wind in meteorology class? Don't forget the Norse Gods! And what about Cthulhu?

Or perhaps what those people really want is to teach science and one specific alternative out of the thousands of alternatives, the Christian alternative? Actually, they'd generally rather not teach science at all, since we know that the intelligent design community is just the latest incarnation of the creationist community, and they surely do not believe in science, despite their protestations to the contrary.

Regardless of whether people think that all alternatives should be taught, science classes in US public schools are not supposed to teach religious beliefs. If you want to have your child taught that mercury is Shiva's leftover jizz or that the cause of thunder is battling Gods or that the explanation for the apparent evidence for evolution is that a God faked all of the fossil records in order to trick us into believing there was evolution, then you have the choice of sending your children to a religious school or a madrasah or whatever non-public form of schooling you desire.

Just don't expect taxpayers to subsidize it!

If it helps, that science and religion need not be in conflict is an empirical fact. All the evidence that you need is the thousands of scientists who are religious.

It's true that some people believe there is no conflict. It's equally true that many people think there is a conflict. An individual might delude themselves into thinking that there is no conflict by ignoring the conflict. Likewise, one might think there is a conflict due to a lack of understanding. Deciding whether two belief systems are in conflict is more than just a matter of polling for the majority belief.

Not so empirical is the observation that to the extent that there's conflict between "science" and "religion", it's all due to a minority on both sides. On one side, there are a minority of religious people who have a problem with bits of science (e.g. evolution) without realising that science is fairly coherent, and you can't pick and choose like that. On the other side, and mostly in response, there are an extremely small number of strident Atheists like Richard Dawkins lobbing a smnall number of (admittedly, best-selling) books in the opposite direction.

Whether it's due to a minority on each side doesn't have any relevance to whether there is genuinely a conflict or not.

Of course, whether there is conflict is likely to depend on the specific beliefs -- the specific understanding of science and of the particular religion. If your religion has the ad-hoc belief that "we accept every scientific fact," then of course there's no conflict. Anything short of that, and there is likely to be some conflict at some point. Of course, at that point, one can deal with those cases on a case-by-case basis and find some rationalization for why there isn't really a conflict after all.

How can there be no conflict between people who believe that everything in the material world is understandable in purely naturalistic means, and people who believe that a being that exists outside the material world, and that he sometimes intervenes in physical reality and causes physical events to occur that would not otherwise occur?

If God has any influence on physical reality at all, then science is wrong, and the material world cannot be understood vi

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Pseudonym]

"Equal time for all alternatives" is a really bad suggestion for how to run a science class.

I agree. I was just pointing out that it's a dumb argument no matter who makes it.

I'm not going to get into the specifics, but I thought this comment was especially dumb:

If God has any influence on physical reality at all, then science is wrong, and the material world cannot be understood via purely naturalistic means.

If God has any influence on physical reality, then science is not wrong. There is no discovery yet found by science that would be invalidated if it were proven beyond doubt that there was a deity, and I can't think of any such discovery.

What science has done is disproven various specific claims. What religion has done in response, apart from the aforementioned minority that we'll get to in a moment, is stopped making claims that science can disprove. This is not a failure of religion, any more than "flip-flopping" (i.e. changing ones mind) is a failure of a politician. On the contrary, ability to evolve quickly is a strength, and the best chance of not becoming extinct.

I agree, but I think the minority is correct.

If someone takes the Bible ultra-literally, Christians call them "fundies". If someone tries to tell other Christians what to believe, Christians call them "cultists" or "sectarian".

I get no end of amusement out of the fact that some Atheists seem to be bigger Biblical literalists and more willing to tell Christians what they should believe than most Christians. It's been said that the term "fundamentalist Atheist" is a contradiction in terms. When I hear statements like this, I'm not so sure.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Prune]

Indeed, science can be used in philosophical arguments that make it almost certain there is no god. See prof. Q.Smith's works on the subject http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_religion.htm

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[yulek]

your arguments are almost as tiresome as your overuse of the word "glib". of course this being slashdot, maybe you mean g[ee]lib. in which case please specify the version.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Faylone]

Really, being told that they shouldn't learn it, you'd have the full attention of the entire class!

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[sheepweevil]

In my high school humanities class, I learned about Islam, Hinduism, Juddaism, Christianity, Buddism, and probably some other religions as well. In Modern European History, I learned about the history of the Catholic Church (which has a huge impact on European History). In Latin, I learned about the adoption of Christianity by the Roman people.

So discussions of God and religion definitely have a place in the classroom. As long as no one is discriminated against due to their beliefs, I would argue that these topics should be considered.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to get into the specifics, but I thought this comment was especially dumb:

If God has any influence on physical reality at all, then science is wrong, and the material world cannot be understood via purely naturalistic means.

If God has any influence on physical reality, then science is not wrong. There is no discovery yet found by science that would be invalidated if it were proven beyond doubt that there was a deity, and I can't think of any such discovery.

You should make an attempt to understand something before you call it dumb, because when you misinterpret what the other person says and then give 'refutations' to positions that nobody has actually put forward, it just makes you look dumb in addition to not refuting the actual position.

Read my words. I did not say "if there is a god, then science is wrong," which you are refuting here.

What did I say? That if god intervenes and changes the physical world, then science is wrong in its fundamental assumption that the physical world can be understood via purely naturalistic explanations, that every physical event that has a cause has a naturalistic cause.

If you still are unable to see the difference between these two positions, then it's not only your reading comprehension skills that are lacking but also your intellect and ability to reason.

I get no end of amusement out of the fact that some Atheists seem to be bigger Biblical literalists and more willing to tell Christians what they should believe than most Christians. It's been said that the term "fundamentalist Atheist" is a contradiction in terms. When I hear statements like this, I'm not so sure.

Wow, this is rich. I love that you call me a biblical fundamentalist because I say that I believe the minority of people who believe there is a conflict are correct and then give specific reasons for my assertion. Most people would think your response is a complete non sequitur that doesn't follow from what I said at all, but you somehow see that I must be a biblical fundamentalist and that I'm trying to tell Christians what to believe.

Anyway, that is strike 2, in which you reveal again and thus confirm that you have no reading comprehension skills.

I made no mention, explicitly or implicitly, about what Christians should believe. What I said was that I believe the minority of Christians who believe there is a conflict between science and religion are actually correct in this regard, and I then gave specific justifications for this belief. Statements about my beliefs and arguments for my beliefs imply nothing about what I think Christians should believe.

Your reading and reasoning skills are atrocious.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Pseudonym]

That if god intervenes and changes the physical world, then science is wrong in its fundamental assumption that the physical world can be understood via purely naturalistic explanations, that every physical event that has a cause has a naturalistic cause.

If you still are unable to see the difference between these two positions, then it's not only your reading comprehension skills that are lacking but also your intellect and ability to reason.

Beautiful ad hominem, BTW! I'm going to assume that you weren't really trying for a logical fallacy, but just getting into the slashdot spirit, which is cool.

Wow, this is rich. I love that you call me a biblical fundamentalist because I say that I believe the minority of people who believe there is a conflict are correct and then give specific reasons for my assertion.

I didn't call you, specifically, a biblical fundamentalist. You said that the minority of Christians who have a problem with science are correct, while evidently not having a problem with science yourself.

I'm not sure what to think of that.

Taking the assumption that all valid conceptions of god are incompatible with science seems like a good thing to do for the sake of argument. There are people who really believe in that sort of deity, and they deserve to be smacked down for it. I'm cool with that.

But why would you assume that's what Christianity is?

Perhaps I should explain where I'm coming from. Regardless of what I personally believe, I was brought up in the third-largest Christian church in Australia, which also happens to be the most liberal. In fact, to give you some idea of where the church comes from, I was talking with my mother over Christmas, and she was commenting about how impressed she was by Rowan Wilson's recent BBC interview. Needless to say, the idea of a god compatible with science is not a foreign concept to me.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[dcam]

Maybe, just maybe, if she is a devout southern baptist she might be teaching a class of devout southern baptist children, necessitating an explanation.

Nah, too simple a solution.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

You mean you cannot rebut my arguments and have nothing left to say? Very well.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Yes, I'm American. I Was born and Live in Argentina, Which is part of America. I'm not from the USA, thought.

I Won't argue with you. You obviously believe in God, which makes you less than human. When you improve your logic as to be considered a Human being instead of a Christian, I'll happily talk to you.

ALMAFUERTE

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

Wow. So humanity is contingent upon having the right beliefs? Maybe Hitler did make it to South America after all.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful ad hominem, BTW! I'm going to assume that you weren't really trying for a logical fallacy, but just getting into the slashdot spirit, which is cool.

Way to completely ignore the substantive criticism I made, which was that you have again misrepresented what I said and argued against something I've never said and do not believe. You conveniently don't respond to that. I'm sure you just coincidentally did not notice it or forgot to acknowledge and respond to it by pretending that there was no substance whatsoever to the words and there was just an ad hominem argument.

I didn't call you, specifically, a biblical fundamentalist. You said that the minority of Christians who have a problem with science are correct, while evidently not having a problem with science yourself.

Here are your exact words, with sentences numbered for reference:

[1] If someone takes the Bible ultra-literally, Christians call them "fundies". [2] If someone tries to tell other Christians what to believe, Christians call them "cultists" or "sectarian".

[3]I get no end of amusement out of the fact that some Atheists seem to be bigger Biblical literalists and more willing to tell Christians what they should believe than most Christians.

In [1], you mention that Christians call biblical literalist fundamentalists. In [2] you define 'cultists' or 'sectarian', for a Christian, as one who tells Christians what to believe. In [3] you talk about atheists, but it seems likely you are referring to me in particular, and you say that I am guilty of what is described in [1], which Christians refer to a fundamentalists (biblical literalist), and guilty of what is described in [2], which is what Christians call cultists or sectarian. Putting them together, I am what Christians would call a fundie and a cultist.

You did say that I am a bigger biblical literalist, which you earlier defined for Christians as 'fundie'.

You said that the minority of Christians who have a problem with science are correct, while evidently not having a problem with science yourself.

No, I did not say that. I was not talking about 'having problems with science', which is a phrase you've just invented. I talked again and again about whether there is actually a conflict between religion and science under specific conceptions of God and whether he intervenes in physical reality or not. By conflict, I mean whether the two systems of belief can be brought together without contradiction. I said that I believe there is, which means that I agree with Christians who also believe there is a conflict between religion and science. I went on to give specific reasons why I believe there is a conflict. All of which you've ignored again and again.

Taking the assumption that all valid conceptions of god are incompatible with science seems like a good thing to do for the sake of argument. There are people who really believe in that sort of deity, and they deserve to be smacked down for it. I'm cool with that.

I wasn't talking about all valid conceptions of god. I specifically mentioned that there is a conflict between conceptions of a God that intervenes in the physical world and affects physical reality and the foundational assumption of science that all physical events that have a cause (excluding, potentially, stuff like quantum events that 'just happen') can always be understood in purely naturalistic terms.

But why would you assume that's what Christianity is?

This entire discussion takes place in the context of an article about "Science, Religion, and Creationism." The creationist viewpoint is that God absolutely does intervene, and is constantly manipulating physical reality. He created the world a few thousand years ago, and planted the fossil evidence to deceive us (or perhaps the great Satan did it). Note also, that I did specifically state the conditions under which I say th

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[Pseudonym]

Putting them together, I am what Christians would call a fundie and a cultist.

I never called you that. Go back and see. I said "some atheists", and never claimed that you personally are a fundie. Indeed, I assumed that you didn't really believe that, and were just adopting that stance for the sake of argument, because this is slashdot, and people do that sort of thing around here.

Having said that, I find it odd that an Atheist would tell a Christian what to believe, particularly if said Christian wants to believe almost exactly what you do (even if they also want to believe some things that you don't). Being brought up as a Liberal Christian, "attack" is not in my upbringing. Christianity has a history of bad experiences with it, and I was brought up not to do that.

You can probably tell that I no longer agree with everything that I was taught in growing up, but I still have a lot of respect for it.

This discussion started when you said And there are those who argue that talking "evolution" without "equal time" for "alternatives" is also "brainwashing".

And this was in response to:

Imposing her dogma that there is no conflict between religion and science is not 'fostering an intellectual discussion'. [...] Sounds closer to 'brainwashing' than 'fostering intellectual discussion' to me.

That there is no conflict between religion and science is the official position of most religions in the US, and also pretty much every scientific body. It is also the official position of every much scientific body that evolution is a fact. In addition, the official position of most religions in the US on the topic of evolution is one of two things: 1) evolution is a fact, or 2) they don't presume to have an opinion on the topic and defer you to the scientific establishment for answers to that sort of question.

You're right, I ignored most of your arguments to the contrary. So long as you realise that you're in the minority, even amongst Atheist scientists, then as far as I'm concerned, you can believe what you like.

I concur that it's probably not "fostering intellectual discussion". But like not discussing Intelligent Design (or whatever creationism is called this week), its purpose is to head off a time-wasting, useless discussion that already-overloaded high school science classes really do not need to get into. The fact that it's also the opinion of pretty much all of the scientific establishment and most religions is a bonus. And like avoiding all discussions of Intelligent Design (previous caveat also applies here), it's not "brainwashing" any more than not discussing "alternatives to evolution" is.

That is: It's the same argument, and it's a bad argument no matter who makes it.

You can have the last word if you like. Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Reductio ad Hitlerum ...

Look, years ago I tried to have logical arguments with religious people, But I finally understood that you don't beleive in god just because of a flawed conclusion, you are so afraid of being free that you need to be slaves to someone. You don't want to beleive, you NEED to beleive.

So arguing with you is pointless. And flamming you is a lot more funny and productive (Productive as in it helps us Atheists to releive the pain of hearing the shit you talk every single day.)

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[JonathanBoyd]

You don't want to beleive, you NEED to beleive.

About this at least, you are correct. Believing because you want something to be true would be foolish. Believing because you are compelled to by the conclusion is much better.

Re:Trying to bring a god in classroom

[ultranova]

I Won't argue with you. You obviously believe in God, which makes you less than human. When you improve your logic as to be considered a Human being instead of a Christian, I'll happily talk to you.

The scary thing about religious debates is that it is often impossible to tell whether someone is trolling, being sarcastic, or serious.

What created the universe?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion science should pursue everything that can be learnt. However science has no way of proving that their is no creator.

For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitional force, magnetic force, atomic etc.

I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.

Re:What created the universe?

[wanderingknight]

In my opinion science should pursue everything that can be learnt. However science has no way of proving that their is no creator. Huh? You don't understand the scientific method. If there's no evidence, it doesn't exist. Asserting "you can't prove it doesn't exist" is a logical fallacy, because there's no evidence of its existence in the first place. That science still can't prove everything today is completely irrelevant.

Re:What created the universe?

[noidentity]

A true scientist wouldn't make up such grand and unprovable reasons for things he couldn't yet explain. Reality is far more interesting than the silly things our minds make up as reasons for it.

Re:What created the universe?

[WaZiX]

For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitational force, magnetic force, atomic etc.

Yeah and if those constants where different, the universe would be completely different and we probably wouldn't be there to describe it as a miracle... That argument is circular because there is absolutely no reason for us to assume the current laws that structure our universe are in any way better then an imaginary alternative.
One thing you also forgot to mention is that the standard model also predicts randomness. If there is randomness in the universe, it is impossible to predict the future, if it is impossible to predict the future, then in no way is it possible for a superior being to intend our existence in this universe, and therefore it is rationally impossible for us to even start thinking that we are the people "chosen" by God.

But back to the topic, it is not the role of science to make irrational assumptions such as the existence of a magical superior entity. Until something tangible brings science towards that assumption of course. It is also not the role of science to give any credit to such assumptions, since all they do is waste time (there is an infinite amount of unprovable assumptions that we can make). This attempt to reconcile faith and science is quite absurd, but it might be necessary, seeing the role the IDers/creationists are taking in the American society. If history is any indication, every time such a fundamentalist movement has gained power in any civilization (Romans, Persians, etc... ), it was followed by a steep decline in scientific progress (just think about how many Persian Nobel prizes have been awarded, when they are at the root of mathematics (the 0, decimal numbering, algebra, astronomy,... )).

In the end, most of the economy is driven by scientific progress, so it's a matter of survival for modern economies to guide their societies towards real, rigorous science.

This of course doesn't mean we should exclude religion, far from it, it just means that we should teach and put a stress on scientific methods, while leaving individuals completely free to make any assumption they want to make. As long as the merits of science are recognized by a society, this society will go forward.

Re:What created the universe?

[Nullav]

For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitional force, magnetic force, atomic etc.

Who's to say there wouldn't be something else if it were differen't? Were there even of these mystical 'force dials' in the first place?

I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.

While we're at it, maybe we just appeared five minutes ago with fabricated memories. Also, gods are omnipotent by definition; there's no 'difficult' miracle'.

Really, I don't see why people get so flustered about 'conflict' between science and religion. For all we know, the universe could just be a bubble, freely manipulated by beings outside of it. It's not like getting 'gravity now repells' into a respected journal makes it happen, nor does spending my life writing a new holy book make a new god; it's all observation and hypotheses.

Re:What created the universe?

[keean]

Actually science can never prove anything, only disprove things. How it works is this... we don't understand something, somebody proposes an idea (a hypothesis), people conduct experiments. If no evidence contradicting the idea is found it is promoted to a theory. However there is the possibility that new evidence can be found at any time that contradicts the theory, and invalidates it. Hence the scientific method can only ever disprove theories... positive proof is impossible as it would require complete knowledge of everthing ever done, or going to be done, which is omniscience, ie God.

For example, Rutherford proposes his model of the atom (a hypothesis), people all around the world conduct experiments, and none of them (for a while) contradict his hypothosis, so some vague time later it gets generally accepted as a theory. Eventually some weird results show up, and people have to propose a quantum hypothesis to explain where Rutherford went wrong - however because Rutherfords model is still useful to understand things in an approximate way, it still maintains its status as a theory.

So here we see infact _all_ theories are wrong, in that they are either inaccurate (but we still use them) or they are yet to be proved wrong by some more in-depth experiment yet to be performed. (note: this itself is a hypothesis, as statistically a theory might be correct by chance, however in an ininitely complex universe, this probability tends to zero)

On this basis, I propose the hypothosis that God exists, If after some time you cannot disprove my hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. Infact as there connot be any proof that God exists (as proving God exists would deny faith, and faith is a necessary part of religeon) what we have is the "null hypothesis", that is something that is by definition impossible to disprove, and therefore God exists! corollary: but therefore He doesn't, because that denies faith.

However we know from above _all_ theories are wrong, so God does not exist. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out the effect on the corollary to my theory, under the assumption that all theories are wrong.

Re:What created the universe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it relevant to point out that stating that because something cannot be proven to be true it must therefore be false is also a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Cheers.

Re:What created the universe?

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitional force, magnetic force, atomic etc.

I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.

Sorry, but you have confused cause and effect.

We are walking around today because the physics parameters are the way that they are. If they had been different, you and I would not be here today, but something else unimaginably different might be.

Re:What created the universe?

[asuffield]

For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitional force, magnetic force, atomic etc.

Numerous hypotheses have been advanced for this, some of which may (or will) become provable or falsifiable when science develops far enough. Your argument is based on current ignorance, not some fundamental limitation of the scientific method.

(One of the simplest theories states that all possible combinations of parameters are instantiated in some universe, and only those which are viable survive; this one would become provable if we found a way to access the others)

Re:What created the universe?

[wanderingknight]

I'm not saying "it can't be proven", I'm saying "there's no evidence". If there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe it. The burden of "proof" is on whoever wants to prove its existence.

Re:What created the universe?

[Oligonicella]

"For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist."

Bad phrase. Source of your error.

As we know it, there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that must have certain values in order of the universe we observe to exist.

Stated that way, you don't need a cause for the "settings".

Re:What created the universe?

[lanswitch]

so you have a theory that all theories are wrong. If you're right, you're wrong.

Re:What created the universe?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's no evidence, then theres no evidence. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Re:What created the universe?

[KDR_11k]

You mean "if there is no evidence there's no reason to assume it exists". That's not the same, science does NOT claim to deliver absolute truths, it only claims to give us tools to manipulate the world around us.

Re:What created the universe?

[mdwh2]

In my opinion science should pursue everything that can be learnt. However science has no way of proving that there is no teapot in orbit around Jupiter.

I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.

And why would he do that? This sounds like an argument against God to me - yes, that this is all done by a single being, or that he would need to resort to some grand illusion, does seem rather ludicrous.

Anyhow, if there is no testable difference between the Universe being as we observe it, or it only having been created 5 minutes ago, who cares?

Re:What created the universe?

[KDR_11k]

Yeah and if those constants where different, the universe would be completely different and we probably wouldn't be there to describe it as a miracle

Or we would be around and wondering why the universe is just that other way.

Re:What created the universe?

[mmcuh]

For example, as we know it there are some parameters in the standard model of physics that have to be set just right in order for the universe as it is currently set to exist. That is for the strength of the gravitional force, magnetic force, atomic etc. We also know that our current fundamental physics theories are incomplete, so those free variables may not exist at all.

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

"... because the scientific method can never be used on god"

Richard dawkins disagree's with you.

Why make concessions?

[geekpowa]

I once used to think that making concessions to people who oppose this branch of science because of their religious sensitivities was a decent and reasonable thing to do.

Public figures like Sam Harris help me realise that they simply don't deserve it. Their position and the means they used to arrive at that position have no merit what-so-ever.

Re:Why make concessions?

[blahplusplus]

"I once used to think that making concessions to people who oppose this branch of science because of their religious sensitivities was a decent and reasonable thing to do."

Either way both propositions are losers when you are outnumbered 10:1, lets face it there are more religious people then atheists, and an atheistic universe isn't very comforting. A short unfair harsh life slaving away at a soul destroying job then death... but I guess slashdotians don't mind it so much.

As much as I dislike religion they are better breeders then the alleged 'rational' people at least in north america.

Re:Why make concessions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Public figures like Sam Harris help me realise that they simply don't deserve it.

Still though, ya gotta like his rendition of Over The Rainbow.

Re:Why make concessions?

[Anonymous Coward]

People make concessions because they're getting threatened. Not by Christians, obviously, that would be against Christianity. But ...

http://harunyahya.co.uk/new_releases/news/Europe_declared_war_on_Islam.pdf

This is Harun Yahya speaking. A Turkish muslim. Read it for yourself. Basically it goes like this : evolution = threat to islam, therefore any muslim has a duty to use violence (including deadly force) to destroy it.

He's certainly right that evolution is a threat to islam, and he's also right that the only reaction to it according to the quran is violence.

So here's the catch. You can whine all you want about being intelligent and being better. However unless you're willing to use violence, just stop now. That's the beauty of violence : it takes away choice. It takes away questions. Using violence in this way is central to islam. So in reality the catch will devolve into this in the next 20 years : either evolution theory dies, or we destroy islam. One is "stupid" according to you, another is "racist" (just terms I think you'd use). So are you stupid or racist ?

And right now you can say "I'm don't accept that choice". However remember what I said about the beauty of violence.

Re:Why make concessions?

[Tablizer]

Public figures like Sam Harris help me realise that they simply don't deserve it. Their position and the means they used to arrive at that position have no merit what-so-ever.

It's not a matter of "deserve". We should focus on helping students think, not punishing proponents. I've encountered some zealotic evolutionists also (such as insisting there's good precambrian ancestor fossils, which is a crock, outside of a one or two phyla.)

Re:Why make concessions?

[dcam]

Why is this a concession? Judging from the small blurb in the article, this is simply recognising that science and religion do not need to come into conflict.

There are Christians who believe evolution happens (and happened). I have a Christian friend who is an academic working in the evolutionary biology.

Re:Why make concessions?

[Paradise Pete]

You make it sound like there's a choice of whether or not there's a God. That's not the choice - the choice is believing or not. I don't think there are too many people who are rooting against an afterlife. But wanting it to be so is not a reason to believe that it is.

Orthogonal concepts

[Per Abrahamsen]

You see logic and faith as orthogonal concepts that supplement each other, rather than as competing concepts.

Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the Bible explains the how, too.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[KDR_11k]

So, why did he? Boredom?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[roman_mir]

Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world. - but it's not true either.

It's easy to imagine that the proto-humans came up with ideas of various super-powers not to explain how or why something is happening, but simply to give a name to a concept. How do you describe the world in the most simple way in a proto-language? You just name everything.

Imagine you are a proto-human (difficult, but probably possible.) You see that the wind blows dust in the air. Somehow over thousands of years this concept receives a name, and this name is a name just like a human name 'Wind' (obviously not in English, but we have to understand each other here.) Does this mean that Wind is a god? Not necessarily, but it looks like Wind is a living creature with powers that no human possesses. The power to move many objects in the air for whatever reason. Is this a useful description of why the wind blows or how it blows? Not really, but it is a description that the Wind blows.

Everything gets a name, most things have powers that humans do not. Organized religions come much later, they combine many powers into single names. Zeus has many powers, but not all. Super organized religions come later yet, they try to reduce the powers to fewer names yet.

You can see the Occam's razor at work even in organization of religions. Why use many gods to explain things, when fewer gods with more powers is just as sufficient, and very much more efficient. You only need to talk to 3, 2 or even 1 god for all your needs, you don't need to talk to the Wind god about wind and to the Sun god about the Sun. If it wasn't for the human ability to reduce ideas into a smaller set we could not have come up with any science.

The Super organized religions started doing what the proto-religions were not - they were used to control the population for economic reasons rather than to simply name the unknown. They came up with various stories about how the gods created things and even with some 'why' questions to give meaning to various terrible events that humans have experienced in their lives.

But really there is no explanation in religion as to 'why' gods do anything, only reasoning as to 'why' bad things happen.

Where do religions explain why god created everything?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[dc29A]

You see logic and faith as orthogonal concepts that supplement each other, rather than as competing concepts.

Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world. So we take something very complex like the Earth or the universe, and we explain its origins by something even *MORE* complex.

Does that make any sense?

I see logic and faith as two totally opposite concepts. One relies on rational thinking while the other relies on two thousand year old myths. One of the memorable parts of Neil deGrasse Tyson's speech on Beyond Belief 2006 was the fact that 15% of scientists believe in God, and he thought that this 15% was the biggest worry of science. Because he, and many other scientist can't reconcile the belief in God with science because explaining something complex and unlikely by something even more complex and even more unlikely doesn't make any sense.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[aurispector]

Yes it does, in the "God waved a magic wand and it appeared" sort of way. Science is an attempt to explain the universe without resorting to wand-waving. Science by definition MUST rely on a logical, open debate about verifiable and repeatable evidence. At it's essence, science is simply an effort to be as convincing as possible. Religious arguments ultimtely rely on citing the authority of various religious texts or traditions and exclude new or different evidence.

Overall I think science education has done a poor job of differentiating between science and faith. This has been exacerbated by the exclusion of any discussion of religion in public education, as you need to talk about religion and faith to understand the difference.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

Oh, please stop. God does not exist. Religion is bullshit all the way through. Religion contains nothing worth of respect whatsoever. What, the "do unto toers as you would have them do to you" part? As if our evolved group-survival trait of altruism was not enough to take care of that.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

Erm. Do unto others. Sorry.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[Black Parrot]

Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world. And if that religion is Christianity, the resulting explanation is even stranger than the bizarre factual claims the religion makes.

Why didn't God just create us all as souls in Heaven? Everyone sings happily ever after, end of story.

But no, he has to create us with bodies in a material world and leave us unattended so we can fall prey to temptations we don't understand and get condemned to Hell for it, so he can show how much he loves all of us by saving a tiny, tiny fraction of us from eternal torture.

The factual errors in the bible can be swept under the rug if you're so motivated, but the theology is stupid beyond belief.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Artifakt]

Right, and we also doubtless have an 'evolved group-survival trait of ostracism' where we force at least some people who disrupt the group to leave or face penalties, up to and including death. The scientific evidence for that trait is at least as strong as that for altruism. So if religion is bullshit and we can rely on the traits we have evolved to take care of us, lets go stone that woman taken in adultery.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[cHiphead]

To tell you the truth, even the Agnostics and many 'practicing' Christians have figured this out, we just don't want to talk about it.

LALALAL IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA.

Cheers.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Tom]

Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world. Which sounds very nice and compromising, but still presupposes that god did create the world.

And that's where the whole religion scam falls apart: It never offers any proof for its assumptions.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[ScrappyLaptop]

"Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world."

Cute trick of words, but that still implicitly states that God did indeed create the world, leaving Science the sub role of merely *describing* the world

I would highly recommend Dawkins' writing, "Viruses of the Mind". It's conveniently included in "A Devil's Chaplain". Then again, no education of Evolution would be complete without at least a few of RD's witty, clear , cutting-through-the-postmodern-crap books starting with, "The Selfish Gene" and continuing on to his more contemporary works.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

Now that's funny. Without religion, why would you stone a woman ... in "adultery"? What's that?

See? Sexual morality is not exactly an evolved trait. It is the result of the "Selfish Gene" causal loop, mixed with the fact that fecundity should be better in groups with a free sexuality (opposed causal loop). So we instinctively ask our mate to practice fidelity, knowing full well s/he will want someone else eventually, while they do the exact same.

So let's take the simple route and forget the whole idea of fidelity, shall we? (And before someone talks about MSTs, they're technical problems with technical solutions that we'll find eventually.)

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[mmcuh]

So the old pope didn't believe in the bible?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

To tell you the truth, even the Agnostics and many 'practicing' Christians have figured this out, we just don't want to talk about it.

You may not want to talk about it, but the most powerful country on Earth is electing Presidents on the basis of this stupidity. So we'd better start "talking about it."

Why people insist on giving religion a free pass in public discourse is something I'll never understand.
I guess it's just my Aspergers acting up, huh.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[cHiphead]

I myself am perfect willing to talk about it. The problem with religion and politics in public discourse is everyone gets into a shitflinging troll fest over it. Its taking a (seemingly but no really) logical approach to the groups of religions all over the world, its so pervasive that maybe someone is right and there is some schitzophrenic psycopathic holy loving magical man up in the sky that runs the servers we exist in, so 'just in case' we gotta pay respects to him in the event he decides to cut the power to our corner of the cluster and we have no failover.

The reason we keep electing Presidents that seem to have such a connection to religion is 1.) nobody does their homework and figures out that all these assholes pay lip service to everything and only believe in themselves and 2.) nobody fucking votes. If enough people got off their ass and voted, this country could be a lot different.

We need to come up with some way to just 'appoint' a random person who meets a minimum set of qualifications for president. To many ways to game such a system means it will never be feasible until we have computer overlords with no soul, no 'bugs', and definied values (opinions) on politics and religions. In that case, the concept of a 'President' is moot anyway. Plus we all know (or should) where that leads... the ultimate truth from AI even with Asimovs laws, humans are too much of a danger to themselves to exist.

Cheers.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[TheBig1]

Take a look at the LDS faith. Regardless of whether you accept the teachings or not, this religion does put forth an explanation of the why, in much more detail than I have found elsewhere.

I normally try to avoid the flamewar which is Slashdot religion discussion, but hey, you asked ;-)

Cheers

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit, I wasted my time reading that page and it said nothing meaningful about the "why"

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

I think that direct democracy is good enough, provided we have a means to transmit data to and from any point on the planet, at lightspeed and nearly zero cost, and everyone is connected. That way, we humans can get to know, and get to talk, about everything that's going on.
We would need no government, only scripts to count votes. Everything totally transparent, of course : it's run by the commmunity, directly. What would there be to hide?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Xinef Jyinaer]

Ummm the 8th commandment: "I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Per Abrahamsen]

> So the old pope didn't believe in the bible?

It might come as a big surprise for you, but the Pope was Catholic, and it has always been the position of the Catholic Church, like it has been for all educated Christians, that the Bible requires interpretation.

This is quite unlike the certain inbreed American hillbillies, who has never read a book in their life, who therefore believe the King James Bible is God's words which can somehow be read directly without interpretation.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[mdwh2]

Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world.

Right - religion is unnecessary in terms of describing the Universe, as science is completely able to describe how things happen.

Religion is just left attempting to answer the purpose of things - but not only has it not come up with a verifiable answer, it has not even shown that there is a purpose in the first place.

So I am left wondering, if religion should be nothing more than a minor philosophical issue (similar to "how many angels can dance on a pinhead") on whether things have a purpose, why it has so much strength, influence on people, and political power in the world?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

....Religion contains nothing worth of respect whatsoever.....

Since the vast majority of humans on earth today and in the past have evidence some form of worship, you throw them all in the trash? Name ONE, that's right just one culture or society now on earth or in all of history that did NOT have religion and worship central to their existence. Humans are, uniquely among all creatures, always have been and always will be religious creatures. Explain why that is scientifically, if you will.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Plutonite]

If they were orthogonal concepts they would not need reconciling. Religious dogma has to talk about the world because it discusses the deity that "created" everything, and uses the mysteries in the universe - mysteries as far as human knowledge, at some point, is concerned - as motivation for belief in the existence of the deity, and evidence of its actions.

And science explains those mysteries. It shows how "god" didn't "do it". It pushes back the god factor further and further into philosophical abstraction, hence any attempt to reconcile religion and faith is therefore doomed to fail. It is best that they ignore each other.

More on this ridiculous "there is no conflict" notion here:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=406050&cid=21919780

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[ardle]

The reason we keep electing Presidents that seem to have such a connection to religion is 3.) "We" didn't elect them, voters with connections to religion did. Certain presidential candidates have tailored their campaigns to favour these voters because there are so many of them. Not only presidential candidates, but all kinds of political candidates frequently have some kind of connection to religeous interests.
I think that government has got a bit religeously "top-heavy" lately, with so many "fundie" candidates in positions of power that they think they have a mandate.
Hopefully, they'll be proved wrong at the next election...

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[UncleTogie]

God does not exist.

...As far as you're aware...

...and as far as doctors in the 1700s and 1800s were concerned, leeches were the shizney...

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[JebusIsLord]

I'd recommend reading Christopher Hitchens' new book "God is not Great" for more detail, but here goes:

Credulity (or gullability, if you'd like) was probably evolutionarily beneficial because belief, in itself, can have positive health implications (ie the placebo effect). Individuals who "believe" tend to recover from disease more than people who don't. What you believe in doesn't seem to matter.

This was fine and good during most of our civilization's childhood, because frankly we didn't know anything about anything. But in the modern age, when science has far more beautiful, predicive and elegant explainations, we need to feed that desire to "believe" with analysis of facts. It is harder, for sure, but more rewarding. Religion knows it is being phased out slowly, and therefore fights science and free thought every step of the way.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[MightyYar]

Why didn't the Big Bang (the version that leaves out a Creator) create a universe that would collapse in on itself and everyone singls happily ever after until the Big Crunch, end of story?

In several of the multiverse theories, an infinite number of universes were created - some with the attributes that you describe. We don't exist in the vast number of universes, so we can only describe the one that we occupy.

The factual errors in evolution can be swept under the rug if you're so motivated but evolution is stupid beyond belief (it implies we have no free will) and the notion that it doesn't negate the existence of God is wholly incorrect. If you believe in God and in evolution then you are saying the Bible is wrong concerning the portions that describe how God created Man. I'd love to know why free will couldn't have evolved.

I'd also like to know how the Pope has managed to embrace evolution if the concept is so hostile towards biblical beliefs. If you take the bible literally, then you have not studied its origins. Just about every generation of it contains transcription errors from the previous known copy. Whole parts have been re-arranged, and the 3 major Jewish-based religions all use different books. Analysis of the text of the old testament shows at least 2 separate authors. To claim that the King James bible is the literal word of God exposes you as quite ignorant. Most rational Christians/Muslims/Jews can accept that their holy book is the word of man as inspired or guided by God.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[cHiphead]

I hope they are proved wrong AND kicked in the balls at the next election. That would be a helluva platform to run on.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically all of modern northern europe? Idiot. Sure, humans have had religion in the past. Humans owned slaves in the past too. Doesn't mean we can't evolve beyond that.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[dc29A]

You do realize God is the Good One, right? What kind of "good" God allows genocides to happen? What kind of "good" God sits around and does nothing while thousands of children die every single motherfucking day?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

Uh, most of Asia? Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are philosophies, not religions, as they do not really speak of Gods, or the afterlife. So I'd have to respectfully disagree that 'most' societies throughout human history have been religious. For that matter, most human societies throughout human history have been breeding grounds for disease, but we don't think of disease as something valuable. You'll have to come up with a better argument than that.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Hognoxious]

Imagine you are a proto-human (difficult, but probably possible.)

I'm finding it quite hard to imagine that the GP isn't a proto-human.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

All cultures and societies on earth have had murder, theft, etc. That does not mean we should respect these things. It just means people have a tendency to do these things (muder, steal, worship).

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[JohnnyBGod]

The kind of God who failed to license humans under the GPL.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[Leftist Troll]

the Big Bang (the version that leaves out a Creator)

Huh?

What became the "Big Bang" theory was initially proposed by a Catholic priest, and the church embraced it as consistent with their doctrines. Lemaitre himself always said that his theory had no implications at all regarding the existence of God.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

....Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are philosophies, not religions, as they do not really speak of Gods.......

Religion is not confined to afterlife or gods, but is a world view that includes philosophies that include parts of existence not possible to limit to our normal senses.

Many, especially thinking people, seek satisfying answers to questions like this:

1, Where did I come from?
2, Who am I, really?
3, What, if any, is the purpose of my existence?
4, What will happen to me after I die

Religion is better at answering the above four in a way that appeals to people much more, than the answers that science attempts to give.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Tsiangkun]

Leaches are still used in medicine today.

What has God done lately ?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

1, Where did I come from?

Your mom, for but about half of your genes.

2, Who am I, really?

The sum of your experiences.

3, What, if any, is the purpose of my existence?

To your genes : Replicate as much as possible.
To your body : Live as long as possible, expending as little energy as possible.
To you : Find something to do, obviously.

4, What will happen to me after I die?

What happens to a cat's sight after it dies? It stops. What does your consciousness do when you die? It stops. Brain processes stop. Seen through your own eyes, your identity is in your brain. Thus, it stops at death.
Apart from that, left to itself, your body will rot and eventually be eaten by various necrophages.

Does that answer the questions?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

Humans are, uniquely among all creatures, always have been and always will be religious creatures. Explain why that is scientifically, if you will.

Oooh, a challenge! Shiny, shiney new toy. Thanks Santa!

Now let's break it, fast.

Our abilities to plan into the future, remember the past, recognize patterns, abstract thought, and infer by analogy are survival traits. Right?

Now, parallel research on split-brain patients and in AI have arrived to a similar model of the mind. It is a group of agents, each specializing in one task. What split-brain research has demonstrated is that the inference module is not accurate : it infer an explanation for anything, as long as it can apply a pattern that's been memorized before.
For example, paranoia seems to work by forcing the inference module to find scary explanations to ordinary events. Agents are interacting, but independent. A paranoid person may know full well that there isn't, say, a sniper hiding just there in the bushes, but will have to go see to be sure, even if that's several times.

Religion is an explanation for things that science has figured out by now. It appeared as primitive explanations to ... everything, especially the origin of the world and of the laws that govern it.
But someone finally decided that they'd seen enough the pattern of "the world around me seems to work in a consistent ways" and inferred "maybe I can figure out all the rules". Now that is an other way to get the answers, and it's better, because it yields perfect results when everything is right (ie, you test an hypothese that happens to be correct). The scientific method is a better tool than religion, so it will supplant it some day.

What's frustrating is knowing there is a reason why people still believe in God : the ssurvival trait to find new ideas dangerous, weird, strange. It is a group-survival trait : if we didn't have it, the genuinely dangerous new ideas would kill us all off damn fast.

Now you know the mechanisms by which both religion and science appeared, and because of which there is a fight between them memes. Happy?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[UncleTogie]

What has God done lately ?

Depends on your point of view...

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[bechthros]

"I see logic and faith as two totally opposite concepts."

you know what's totally opposite? your thumb and your middle finger. equal and opposing forces can be intoxicatingly useful (not to mention elegant). see also: us constitution

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[Coppit]

Why didn't God just create us all as souls in Heaven? Everyone sings happily ever after, end of story.

But no, he has to create us with bodies in a material world and leave us unattended so we can fall prey to temptations we don't understand and get condemned to Hell for it, so he can show how much he loves all of us by saving a tiny, tiny fraction of us from eternal torture.

Or, put another way, why did he put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden? Especially if he knew (being omniscient) that we would eat the fruit.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[UnknownSoldier]

> Why didn't God just create us all as souls in Heaven?

He/She did.

The "problem" came, that he/she also gave everyone free will, and most because lack of experience, wanted to experience the rest of the universe -- on all its dimensions of consciousness: plant, animal, human, etc.

> But no, he has to create us with bodies in a material world and leave us unattended
We are neve left alone unattended, it is only your perception. That is your choice if you not willing to listen when God speaks.

> The factual errors in the bible
Are designed to provoke people into thinking, about the deeper meanings, not to take things on faith just because somebody said it was so, but to live a certain lifestyle and prove it to yourself.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

Nice way to redefine religion to suit your argument. It's interesting you mention those questions. Buddha was asked those same questions, and he wouldn't answer. I'll explain my understanding of why.
1.) Where did I come from?
It doesn't matter.

2.) Who am I, really?
You're the one who knows that, how can someone else answer that?

3.) What, if any, is the purpose of my existence?
The purpose of your existence is to be here and ask these dumb questions, among other things.

4.) What will happen to me after I die?
It doesn't matter.

But then, guys like Buddha and Lao Tzu were scientists, not preachers. Maybe you should ask yourself, why do those questions seem so important?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

Is it weird that I find those answers far more comforting than any fairy tale?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

Guess what? In societies that do not forbid adultery, there is less of it on average than in societies that do. Turns out "Stubbornly doing what you are told not to, when you know it should be okay" is another trait we've evolved. My wife and I practice adultery, with each other's full knowledge and support, and guess what? No one gets hurt because no one feels the need to lie about it.

Another trait we've evolved is "logically considering the world and the consequences of our actions in it; and modifying our behavior to be more effective." And you know what? That's gotten us further than any other trait. Cooperation is effective. Honesty is effective. All those things your religion tells you to do because they are good? They are good only because they are effective. Anyone can figure out how to be a good person, and why, if only other people didn't screw them up with lies, guilt and other unnecessary bullshit.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[kernelpanicked]

I wish I had mod points today. Finally a rational post in a sea of confused and uneducated crap. Unfortunately this is Slashdot, where every post regarding God must be read at -1 to see anything rational, so your post will sit at the bottom of the heap.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[totally bogus dude]

Humans are, always have been and always will be religious creatures.

Did you even think about that when you wrote it? Or do you actually believe that all the people who claim not to be religious or not to believe in God are lying about it?

uniquely among all creatures

That's an interesting statement. Do we know for sure that no other creature has "religious" beliefs as part of their behaviour? How can we be so certain? And if it's true, what is the significance of this?

Your overall point is that pretty much all societies practice some kind of religion, therefore it's good and worthy. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any societies that are absent of unnecessary violence, abuse, torture against other people. Does that mean this kind of behaviour is worthy of respect? Left to our own devices, with no societal pressure to behave in a humane manner, all of us would steal, murder, pillage and rape whenever we thought it would benefit us and/or our immediate family.

Arguing something is good and worthwhile because "lots of people do it" is a self-defeating cause. You should be able to argue the worth of religion on its own merits.

I agree that saying that religion contains "nothing worthy of respect whatsoever" is narrow-minded and unfair. Religion provides many people with a sense of purpose, brings them comfort in ways that nothing else can, and can encourage people to behave in incredibly positive ways. These are all worthy things.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Illumine]

The link he gave wasn't specific enough. It talks about the why here: http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-salvation/your-life-on-earth Basically, we are beings that existed before in another form and will continue to exist in another form. Life on Earth is a kind of school. It is very often hard, but necessary to learn the things we need to know. God set things up so that we could learn the difference between good and evil and have choices and consequences to those choices to learn from. It is important to be separated from God to learn things for ourselves. Of course, that is a really simplified explanation of a deep subject. Now many people believe that faith is just accepting something without proof. If someone told me the story above and asked me to just believe it I would have laughed in their face. (In fact it took me a long time to go from being a firm atheist to an agnostic who could accept that such a story *might* be possible.) Real faith, rather, is trying an experiment, believing that you will get an outcome. Scientists have faith that their experiments will lead them to the truth so they exercise that faith and perform the experiment. The LDS have an experiment to try, but it's not easy, which is part of the point. God could come down right now and announce that he does, in fact, exist, but that would undermine the entire reason for the existence of the Universe. He does show things and give evidence to individuals when they have faith and do the experiment. I personally believe in evolution and I don't see any conflicts with evolution and my religious beliefs. They are simply unrelated. Knowing how my body developed is unrelated to knowing why my body developed. I think it's important to make that distinction. Too many people confuse the issue.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

You talk of true democracy: one person one vote on all issues.

I thought about this a while ago but had to discard the idea. There are so many issues which need consideration, that just keeping up with all of them and being well-informed enough to vote on the issues I cared about would be a full-time job. I could, of course, vote without being fully informed (just going with my basic prejudices and instinct), but then I may as well join the Tory party or the Rebublicans </cheap side swipe>.

It also doesn't take into account the variable abilities and intellects of people. Not everyone, sadly, is above average intelligent (by definition). Such a voting system would have the immediate effect of reducing all political debate in the highest chamber of the land to the average level of discourse. Electing representitives at least gives us above-average intelligence in the decision making process (er.. most of the time, anyway).

The drawbacks are numerous, and I shan't list them here, but I will go with Sir Winston Churchill on this: "It has been said that democracy* is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Now, it's pretty obvious to me that a benign dictatorship would be the best form of government - or pehaps a group of highly intelligent, well-educated, and totally secular (whatever their own faith) "board of directors" type of thing. And as soon as everyone else reaches this stunningly obvious conclusion and implements it, I shall be able to start implementing my sensible policies for the good of mankind. Starting with the one about Dancing Girls in my office.

Of course, that is a system open to massive abuse, and therefore not really feasible. My Dancing Girls will have to wait. But they should feel free to come round to my place and "practice for the revolution". Ahem.

*Note that he was almost certainly referring to Parlimentarian, not "true" democracy.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

The reason we keep electing Presidents that seem to have such a connection to religion is

3.) "We" didn't elect them, voters with connections to religion did.

Actually, voters with connections to religion made sure that nobody else even had a choice of candidate who wasn't religous.

Despite the USA's constitution stating explicitly that there should be a seperation of Chruch and State (quite sensibly), in practice, no candidate can hope to win a major election unless they are religous in some degree. The current incumbent of the White house (and the previous incumbent of 10 Downing Street) have even stated in public that some of their policy decisions are made by asking an Invisible Magic Person In The Sky Who Talks To Them Inside Their Heads. This is not a good way to run a country.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

Nice post; just one more thing. Richard Dawkins has pointed out that human children will absolutely believe anything told to them by an adult with responsibility (such as a parent, or group elder) without question. This is sensible, as it includes advice such as: "Don't kick wolves - just edge away slowly", and "don't eat the bright red berries that grow on small bushes". This helps survival, as life-or-death facts can be passed on quickly and in bulk. It also happens to helps propogate religion. Almost everyone in the world who is religous is so because their parents were. And they almost always share the same religion as their parents.

People are religous not because they have thought about it, concluded that it is correct, and chosen a sect to suit themselves. They are religous because they don't go around kicking wolves, eating the bright red berries, or running over the freeway without looking because it's a handy shortcut. They have been told that this is how the world works from an early age, and they simply accepted it as fact, as a by-product of a useful behaviour which has been evolved.

If we started from a clean slate, and had all children raised in a secular society, taught equally about all religions *and* science, then which do you think the children would choose? Even if they chose to be religous (and if taught properly about science and reason, I think that most would be atheist), the odds are that they wouldn't make the same choice as their parents (there are just so many sects to choose from).

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[bechthros]

religious nut. i haven't even been to any church in months, and i'm not a member of any.

intoxicatingly useful means two things - it means that faith as a tool is so useful that i don't know how i got by without it. and it also means that that's a statement that only applies to me personally. all faith is personal.

many atheists remind me of the straightedge kids in my high school who would beat up other kids, not for trying to push drugs or alcohol on them, but just for being different themselves. i'm not trying to change anybody's mind, i'm just saying what i think. why are you so threatened by that?

good luck with your anger.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

1, Where did I come from?
2, Who am I, really?
3, What, if any, is the purpose of my existence?
4, What will happen to me after I die

Religion is better at answering the above four in a way that appeals to people much more, than the answers that science attempts to give.

No it isn't. Religion is better at creating answers which sound plausable to people who don't think too deeply about them.

For example, previous answers include:
1) God made the world in 6 days about 6000 years ago (proved wrong by the fossil record, carbon dating and many other things)
2) A spirit inhabiting a body, and you make it work by magic (the brain, muscles, tendons and nerves actually do this; and the brain creates consiousness)
3) Whatever the religous answer to this (and they are many and varied), the best-fit answer is still the scientific "to reproduce your genes". Nothing else fits human behaviour as well in all aspects.
4) You will go to a Big Happy Party in the sky. but only if you accept Jesus Christ as the son of god and your personal saviour. Oh, you also have to accept that he wasn't the Son of God, but a human and a prophet (Islam). You also have to accept that he wasn't a prophet (Judaism). And that's only according to the Big Three. All three cannot be correct. In what way is this better than the scientific approach of saying: "we have no evidence that anything at all happens after death"? Only in that it gives people who are scared of dying comfort because they believe they will live on.

If suicidal or genocidal militants didn't believe that paradise awaited them for their Holy Act, then there would be far fewer suicicdal militants and genocides (and I talk here of Cruisaders as well as modern maniacs of whatever denomination - it's true through the ages).

In short, if you rely on religion to answer any meaningful questions, then you don't ever have progress. We'd still think that electricity was Zeus being angry in the sky. Religion is deemed to be better only by people who don't actually think about the questions in any detail.

Lastly, if you accept that one religion is correct in its answers to those questions, then you must also logically accept any explanation which offers the same burden of proof (i.e. none whatsoever). So if the Catholics or the Muslims are correct about the above, then so too must be the Hindus and the Scientologists.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

Ahem. Not that I am comparing Hinduism to Scientology in any way other than they both claim to be religions, and have no actual evidence to back up their claims (which is after all one of the defining attributes of a religion - if there was evidence, it wouldn't be religion, but science).

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

....It doesn't matter.....

Apparently the answer to these questions does matter to millions of homosapiens, exclusively to any other species, on this planet. This is still true today and has always been true. Some of them are willing to strap explosives to their bodies and fly airplanes into tall buildings and die for what they believe.

So even if it doesn't matter to you, it does matter to those who have been given certain promises abut what happens after death.

There are also millions who worship their ancestors. The nihilism you spout is held by only a small minority of people. It is obvious, that to most people on the planet, your answers are not satisfying. To them it DOES matter.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

I'm not spouting nihilism. I'm spouting a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism, and there is a big difference. Because Buddhism and Taoism provide and explanation that is satisfying to a large percentage of the world's population. So, you are wrong. Those answers don't matter to a large percentage of the world's population, throughout recorded history. Maybe if more people listened to those philosophies, less people would be willing to fly planes into buildings, hmmm? When was the last time you heard about a Buddhist or Taoist terrorist? That would be never.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

.....Lastly, if you accept that one religion is correct in its answers to those questions........

I was only pointing out that mankind has been seeking answers to these questions since the beginning of recorded history. Science certainly has answers, but that fact that in this "enlightened" technological world, where people jet around and carry cell phones, most of them still seek answers to those questions, not in science, but religion.

There are exceptions of course, maybe you are one of them, feeling superior to those benighted masses still having faith in God and expressing that faith through their religion. I was not commenting on any particular religion, because all religions are based on belief and not knowledge. Of course large swaths of science are also only based on certain assumptions, the scientific way of saying faith or belief, rather than certain knowledge. So, in a sense your faith in science or the scientific method is also a belief, a world view, that could rightly be called religion.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

....I'm spouting a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism......

In my original post, I was NOT referring to any particular religion or set of answers to the four questions. I was merely pointing out that scientific secularism doesn't have satisfactory answers for most people. Religions, as a whole do a much better job than secular, scientific humanism. Maybe a syncretic combination of Taoism and Buddhism supplies better answers for you.

I had no intention of getting into the specifics of any particular religion. I believe that Jesus Christ is who He said He is, God come to earth. We just finished the celebration of this event. He is the only one who turns religion on its head. Instead of man trying to approach God through various religious practices, it is God approaching man. By becoming one of us, He made it possible, that for those willing to accept Jesus, to be indwellt, by the very Spirit of God, both now and forever. It is an offer that I could not refuse.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

....Do we know for sure that no other creature has "religious" beliefs as part of their behaviour? How can we be so certain? And if it's true, what is the significance of this?.....

I suppose one first has to define religion. My dictionary defines it as "a belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"

People may claim not to be religious, but will nevertheless often still ascribe supreme importance to things like material possessions, knowledge, and power over others, fame, to name a few "gods".

Nobody has ever observed any animal engage what we humans call prayer, for example. Maybe you know of examples of animals, mammals specifically, engaging in any activity which would be recognized as "religious". I do not.

I did not say that religion is good, because "lots of people do it", but because religion gives more satisfactory answers to the four questions. To me, Jesus Christ, and the Bible in general, gives the most satisfactory answers to the four questions.

1) Where did I come from?
Answers from Bible: You are a special creation by the almighty God, made in His image.
2) Who am I really:
A: You are a living, eternal spirit being, temporally inhabiting a mortal body.
3) What, if any is the purpose of my existence?
A: You are made for an eternal purpose. You are here on Earth to learn how to believe, love and trust, especially in the face of trials and adversity.
4) What will happen to me after I die?
A: It depends on choices you make every day. Nothing goes out of existence, only changes form. So will you. Your mortal body will return to the elements of which it is made. Your eternal self will be with God, if you are living in His presence now. Otherwise you will be in "outer darkness", whatever Jesus meant by that.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

In Australia everyone is legally required to vote in elections. The US could very well do the same thing if we wanted to get more people to the polls, but we don't for whatever reason.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

Fidelity is not exclusive to humans, however in humans it is especially useful considering how long children are dependent on their parents.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[totally bogus dude]

People may claim not to be religious, but will nevertheless often still ascribe supreme importance to things like material possessions, knowledge, and power over others, fame, to name a few "gods"

I'm not entirely convinced that people considering any of those things to be supremely important is on par with belief in a god. The main difference, to me, is that they all grant an objectively measurable, tangible gain on those who obtain them. Belief in God grants you what, exactly? We don't have any kind of objective proof of any kind of afterlife, or that those who followed the teachings of their religion during their time on earth gain some kind of tangible benefit after their death.

Or in other words, belief in God requires faith. "Belief" in the power of possessions or knowledge or fame and so on require only to look at those who already have them in the real world.

Regardless, even if we accept these things as being "on parity" with a belief in a god, you go on to say:

Nobody has ever observed any animal engage what we humans call prayer, for example. Maybe you know of examples of animals, mammals specifically, engaging in any activity which would be recognized as "religious". I do not.

This doesn't follow from your previous statement. People who place supreme importance on fame and fortune as a "substitute" for belief in God don't generally pray to fortune, or engage in activities which would typically be recognised as "religious". For one thing, most people who don't believe in God believe that they have full responsibility for obtaining the things they desire; there is no third party they can pray to or ask for assistance from.

If you wish to use the fact that we've never (to the best of my knowledge) observed animals praying or displaying otherwise "religious" behaviour as "proof" that animals are incapable of religion or belief in a higher power, the same treatment should be given to humans. Many humans don't engage in prayer or any forms of worship or religious activity. Allowing "lust for power" to serve as a substitute for religion or god-belief seems like a very feeble attempt to justify the claim that "all humans are religious and always will be".

Back to animals: early humans often attributed thunder to an unseen being, typically assuming that this being possessed great power. This is well documented. Ever had a dog as a pet? Most dogs are terrified of thunder, and will seek a hiding place -- even if they've been living inside a house for their entire life and should be aware by now that the thunder can't hurt them. Why is it such a stretch to think that perhaps they also attribute the crashing boom from the sky as being the work of an unseen entity of great power?

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Artifakt]

It doesn't really matter what behavior the person is engaged in, a fair percentage of people will do things that tend to get them judged and ostracized by their local group. Biological theories of ethics say this is to be expected. Are you claiming that Obama wouldn't have gotten any flack over not wearing a flag pin except for religion making people intolerant? What about the girls who smeared one of their own cliques reputation until she committed suicide in an argument that started over nail polish? Did that happen because the book of Thessalonians calls foundation and blusher abominations? Did the McCarthy hearings happen because there's some Bible verse saying "Thou shalt not suffer a Stalinist to live?
      The Bible verse we are discussing says that judging people means you deserve to be judged with equal fervor, so remember that before you escalate to primate style stone throwing. It takes the opposite stance from an evolutionary based ethic, where altruism has to compete with heirarchial dominance as a value, and says the two principles don't compete, rather one is absolute. It doesn't say anything about, this is only for things that the group throwing stones wouldn't care about except for their religion. It counts for all judging people, anywhere. If you don't like that the example given is for a specifically religious violation, how about getting the reading comprehension to see that it is clearly intended to be applied more broadly.
      The Bible also gives the parable of the Good Samaritan. Genetic Altruism says your neighbor is
the being who shares your rare genes, as explained in several of Dawkin's books. The Bible says - NO! That alien Samaritan who stops to help is more your neighbor than the people of your same race who pass you by. Genetic Altruism is again, not an absolute but a balancing act with other evolutionary drives, while the the Bible is saying (at least there) shared physical heredity counts for absolutely nothing in deciding who's a friend and who isn't.
      Look, you're certainly free to say the Bible is wrong about such points or any others, but saying the Bible doesn't say anything about ethics we can't get from science is basically saying red is green.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I practice adultery, with each other's full knowledge and support, and guess what? No one gets hurt because no one feels the need to lie about it.

What about the people with whom you practice it? Anyway, it might not hurt now, but wait to see how you feel about it once you've spent a quarter of eternity in a vat of boiling oil!

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Artifakt]

Actually, I'm not sure if you and your wife can practice adultery. Did you pay her dad for her? If it wasn't an old testament style marriage, how can you break the related rule? Maybe, at most, you're breaking half a new testament rule. (Where Christ said "In Heaven there is no marriage or giving into marriage", if you're like most modern couples, there was never any 'giving into' part, so the requirements for technical compliance have obviously changed).
        Hey, I'm divorced, and getting along great with the Ex-Snooky-Ookims - crazier yet, we seem to be being faithful to each other with no legal or theological requirement - it's like we can't see the point in bothering with anyone else when what's between us is again working. What God really has joined together, no man can put apart, kinda like crazy glue.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are (or were originally) philosophies, that is true. However there are many many local religions throughout Asia. Because those big three religions aren't exclusivistic the local religions and deities have been continuously worshiped right along side them or merged together with them. Mahayana Buddhism, probably the school of Buddhist thought with the largest number of practitioners, contains many of these ideas of gods and heaven and hell. The Buddha never spoke of those things but they are indisputably a part of Buddhism. Because of that I don't think you can really say that Asia has been without religious beliefs for any part of it's history.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

The answers to those questions given by Christianity are only satisfactory if one doesn't question them. If we ask "How do we know these answers are correct", then the answer "Because it says it in an old book that we arbitrarily choose to believe" is not so satisfactory.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

How about from an objective point of view.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[Capsaicin]

Or, put another way, why did he put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden? Especially if he knew (being omniscient) that we would eat the fruit.

But at that time God wasn't omniscient yet (he only became so at the hands of medieval church fathers acting under the influence of Neoplatonism). Actually read the second creation myth! (ie. from Gen 2:4-3:24) He walks into the Garden and plays hide-and-seek with A&E. "Oh Adam, come out come out wherever you are!" Adam comes out and it's "Dude watcha wearing that leaf for?" "Ah God, I'm naked." "Huh? I created you pig-ignorant, who told you you're naked." Then 'bing' on goes the light bulb and God realises, "You've been eating from that tree haven't you?" Always the quick thinker, God then works out (though he tells us a bit later in Gen 3:22) that if Adam now eats off the Tree of Life, he'll be just like one of us gods! So he gets his bouncers to guard the Tree of Life and pronounces a few nasty curses on A&E (and by inheritance you and me) and kicks them out for the Garden.

Not exactly a portrait of a deity possesing the three O's is it? On the other hand, bearing in mind that at this stage the Jews did not believe in an afterlife, it is a profound (in a mythopoetic, rather than scientific sense) commentary on the nature of the human condition.

As an aside, and oddly enough on topic, the first creation myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:3) (actually the newer of the two) and is amazingly easy to reconcile with observed evolution and perhaps even with the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately many believers then to fuse and confuse the two myths (but compare the order in which man, woman, plants and animals are created in each myth), which even in translation are strikingly different, robbing themselves of the opportunity of reconciling their faith with observed reality.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

The "problem" came, that he/she also gave everyone free will, and most because lack of experience, wanted to experience the rest of the universe -- on all its dimensions of consciousness: plant, animal, human, etc. Whoa! Source please? I thought I was pretty well versed in religions, but that idea is totally new to me.

> The factual errors in the bible
Are designed to provoke people into thinking, about the deeper meanings, not to take things on faith just because somebody said it was so, but to live a certain lifestyle and prove it to yourself. But Christianity is all about the importance of taking things on faith. While I guess it's possible that the bible has errors in it to teach people that you shouldn't have faith, despite the fact that that is contrary to the explicit message of the book, it seems much more likely that it's just wrong.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

...."How do we know these answers are correct"......

A Christian doesn't KNOW, only believes that these answers are correct. Any answers anyone else can give to these doesn't mean they know either. I never mentioned anything about the correctness of any given set of answers in terms of knowledge. Religion isn't about knowledge in the sense of 2+2=4, but about faith.

I believe that Jesus is God come to earth, as He claimed. He conquered death, by rising from the grave. He made certain promises I believe, such that I will live on with Him after my physical body ceases operation.

You don't have to believe Him or the answers found in the Bible, but I challenge you to come up with, not the CORRECT answers, but more satisfying ones giving hope, purpose, and the ultimate human dignity. The answers are that you are person made in God's image for more than just this short, often painful existence here. You were made to learn to love, just as God loves.

You MAY believe that, but you don't have to. God dignifies your person by allowing you to reject Him. He did NOT make you like a computer, pre-programmed to want Him. Millions of others have chosen to entrust their present lives in time and space to Him, as well as their eternal future when time as we know it is no more. He invites you as well.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[UncleTogie]

How about from an objective point of view.

...That's making the assumption that the sum of the universe can be only expressed in said viewpoint.

I respectfully disagree.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

Yes, sadly, many people do still think that religions can provide some sort of meaningful answer, rather just rather empty, meaningless sayings. There's nothing of value in any religion that isn't in Humanism, as far as I can see. But religions are far more dangerous than humanism.

Do I feel superior? Good question, actually; I think that I do. I do feel superior to people who think that anything can be explained from an initial starting point of nonsense. I do feel superior when I see people who want to believe any old strange and/or weird thing, clinging desperately to those beliefs despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary. I think that it's a very silly thing to do, frankly.

I don't know of any "swathes" of science which are based on assumptions; in fact, I can't think even of a small area. If you can elaborate, I would be intruiged.

And no, science can in no way be called a religion, or accused of being based on faith or belief; to claim so is palpabale nonsense, and easily demonstrated if you know the basics of the scientific method. That's like calling atheism a faith. Both are untrue for the exact same reason.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

And yes, my previous answer came down a tadge harsh-sounding - sorry about that; bad day!

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

I know all about Christianity, i spent the majority of my life in the church.

Anyway, that was my point exactly that you don't really know the answers and they are only satisfactory at a superficial level. I find much more enjoyment in the world can be had by truly trying to understand the nature of things instead of stopping at the first answer you find that kinda makes you feel good.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

And here I though Christianity was opposed to that sort of relativistic, post-modern sort of thinking. Does the Biblical world view really leave room for the idea that somethings can be true for one person but not for the next? If so, that's news to me.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[crotherm]

Now that's funny. Without religion, why would you stone a woman ... in "adultery"? What's that? Don't confuse man's attempt to use (insert any social movement) to control things. Have people used religion to justify horrible acts, YES! But have people followed their faith to do wonderful acts on behalf on mankind? YES! Faith and belief is a personal thing. Those who use it to promote some all encompassing idea is suspect. If you have it, you know it. I cannot explain it more than that.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

I tried that. Accepted Jesus, the whole bit. Ended up feeling like a complete fool. Got absolutely nothing out of it. Buddha and Lao Tzu were secular humanist scientists, they performed experiments that anyone could repeat. In my current practice, I get real mystical experiences, far more than I ever got out of Christianity. Oh, and everyone knows Jesus was not born on Christmas! Jesus did not turn religion on it's head, that would be Buddha, eight hundred years earlier. Jesus just propagated the same old hierarchal, dualistic message.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[cHiphead]

Not voting can be done as a form of expression, which is protected by the First Amendment. Theres no point even thinking about such a law.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[spun]

Very true. But what you may not know is that Buddhism has reinterpreted these beliefs as metaphor. Many practitioners still believe in Gods and such, but the explanation as to what Buddhism means by Gods or heaven or hell is there for those who want to find out. For instance, heaven and hell are just mental states.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[UncleTogie]

Does the Biblical world view really leave room for the idea that somethings can be true for one person but not for the next?

If more Christians noticed the stress on tolerance, you'd not be as surprised..

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

.....I don't know of any "swathes" of science which are based on assumptions; in fact, I can't think even of a small area. If you can elaborate, I would be intruiged.........

Take a look at the relatively recent history of the "science" of climate change. In the Feb. 24, 1895 issue of the NY times the headline was: "GEOLOGISTS THINK THAT THE WORLD MAY BE FROZEN UP AGAIN". The same paper on May 15, 1932 headlined: "EARTH IS STEADILY GROWING WARMER". Again on May 21, 1975, in the Times, "MAJOR COOLING IS WIDELY CONSIDERED INEVITABLE" and also on the cover of TIME magazine of Dec 3, 1973, "THE BIG FREEZE". Finally recently, again on the front of TIME, April 3, 2006, "SPECIAL REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING". Is climate change based on science, that is KNOWLEDGE or is it based of assumptions (beliefs) and guesswork?

Another of the assumptions (beliefs) that science holds today is that information, knowledge, can arise alone, unaided from the interaction of matter and energy. This has never been demonstrated, but is a widely held assumption. All human knowledge and creativity arises in a MIND. The arrangements of bits in a computer or symbols on a piece of paper always come by thought. So then why does science assume (believe) that this is not also true in the things that exist apart from the activity of man? We KNOW that no man made object or art arises outside of a mind. DNA carries the CODE to make proteins, yet DNA itself is a protein. So where did the first DNA come from that carries the code to make itself? It's the ultimate chicken and egg problem.

Cosmology assumes (believes) that gravity is the only controlling force governing the large scale observed features of the universe and also assumes (believes) that the measured, observed red shift is caused by motion and by extension, distance. Recent data coming from highly advanced telescopes and space probes doesn't fit these assumptions very well without resorting to all manner of hypothetical constructs that have never been DIRECTLY observed. Just like adherents of any religion, these "scientists" are very much unwilling to throw out long held beliefs and re-examine the fundamental tenets of their religion.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

No, I'm thinking of a direct democracy. But, yeah, one person = one vote, in the sense that no person's vote is more important than another's. But "true democracy", yeah, you'd have to be well-informedabout current issues and all. Which voting system, that's not important. What's needed is, replace all the administration by computers, so that it's efficient, and let The People run everything by direct consensus.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

Not always. At the Buddhist temple near me there is no consensus. Many of the Buddhists tend to see the supernatural aspects of Buddhism as metaphorical (including the parts about reincarnation of course) but others do interpret the heaven and hell as literal places that you can be reborn to. Pure Land Buddhism for instance, as far as I can tell the Pure Land is not meant as a metaphor.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

Genetic altruism? Yes, it explains the suicidal self-sacrifice trait. I was talking of our altruism towards other humans. That is a group-survival trait with a longer causal loop.

I say that the Bible contains nothing that our survival instincts are, at best, explained away, encoded in the $HOLY_BOOK. In our natural environment, that's how we tend to do. (Our natural environment seems to be a village where everyone knows everyone's place and rank. Between one hundred and one thousand persons, that's about all our brains can map.)

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

Yeah, I can see that being a problem but a person could be allowed to sign in at the polling station and cast a no-vote ballot. Anyway, a protest vote is much more effective when done at the polls instead of on your couch.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

I'm stoned. But it seems that you're spouting superficial comments that mean nothing.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[cHiphead]

I see where you are coming from, but the First Amendment doesn't discriminate between expression at a polling station and expression from your couch.

Cheers.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

Is climate change based on science, that is KNOWLEDGE or is it based of assumptions (beliefs) and guesswork?

It's based on the predictions of the current theory.

So where did the first DNA come from that carries the code to make itself?

Insert standard counter-argument against Irreductible Complexity here.

Just like adherents of any religion, these "scientists" are very much unwilling to throw out long held beliefs and re-examine the fundamental tenets of their religion.

Well, there is the old saying that some theories advance one funeral at a time. But scientists sometimes present theories that refutes their own previous findings, whereas religions insist on Not Changing The Sacred Word. And if they didn't, they wouldn't have lasted long in any sort of recognizable form... It's an error-preventing mechanism, but what it says contradicts the basic mechanism of science. This makes science the superior tool for understanding and interacting with the world.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Artifakt]

So you're saying we should accept a morality that says our ethical response stops at the edge of our own village? Or are you still claiming that's what the Bible says?

What Dawkins and such mean by genetic altruism is the exact opposite of your definition. You're arguing for the existence of something much of modern science claims to have debunked, and that the very book you're dismissing supports. I won't waste time telling you to read the Book you're so critical of, but if it's not too much trouble, could you read something about modern Biology? Maybe you could start with "The Selfish Gene".

Then there's your second paragraph. Aside from the gratuitous insult, that first sentence has no subjects associated with its verbs. The next sentence uses how in place of the generally preferred what, but more importantly, the second sentence obviously refers to some part of the first, yet I would love to have the faintest clue which part you thought that was.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

I'm saying that not voting isn't a free speech issue really. The vast majority of people who don't vote are not protesting, they are just lazy and apathetic. There are some duties that the government requires of it's citizens. Jury duty, paying taxes, and military duty (when their is a draft) are all areas where you don't have the option to not participate out of protest. I don't see why voting couldn't also be in that class since our entire way of life really depends on people participating in the political process. I don't mean people should be forced to vote, but it would be good if they were required to show up at the poll on election day and then they have the option to vote or not vote as they see fit.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

Well sadly more Christians aren't like you. Jesus did have a lot of excellent teachings that were way ahead of his time, but most of the people who call themselves Christians today don't practice anything remotely like what he taught.

Re: Orthogonal concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

ha... haha... hahaha...

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[jakel2k]

"4, What will happen to me after I die? What happens to a cat's sight after it dies? It stops. What does your consciousness do when you die? It stops. Brain processes stop. Seen through your own eyes, your identity is in your brain. Thus, it stops at death. Apart from that, left to itself, your body will rot and eventually be eaten by various necrophages."

You're forgetting that matter / energy cannot be create nor destroyed only change in state. "It stops" is not a valid scientific reason. Yes, the matter that we are composed of not longer functions as a living beings body. It starts decomposing. However the energy that our mind makes up cannot be explained away as saying "it stops", energy has to go somewhere. In fact the change in state that the energy, (be it synapses firing in the brain or pure thought), can be taken as a the journey to Heaven or to be reincarnated, (after all what are we really but recycled matter and energy from what we eat and drink), which also points out a deficiency of answers to #1.

Not meant to offend but wanted to and my $0.02CAD.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[HikingStick]

Ending slavery has nothing to do with an evolutionary process. It has to do with constraints of a moral society. Remember, too, that slavery throughout most of history was nothing like salvery as it was practiced in the colonial era and in the United States. Being an employee today is not dissimilar to being a slave through much of history. People sold themselves into slavery in order to pay off debts. We work long hours to pay off our debts. If anything, the difference is in degrees of magnitude, not simply in the basic concept.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

You have defeated your own argument. If science was based on faith, belief or assumption, then the assumption made in 1985 would still be prevelant today. It wouldn't change; it wouldn't need to change, as it would be an assumption.

If science were in any way comparable to religion, then anyone today who tried to oppose the 1895 view would be told in no uncertain terms that they had no right to pry into that, or to question it.

The fact that the views of science change when new evidence arises confirms that it is not belief-based.

I have no idea what you were trying to say about "MIND".

Where DNA came from? Yes, big mystery. The difference between science and religion, again, is that science says: "we don't know - we may never know, because we don't have any evidence preserved from that far back. We can make an educated guess, we may even one day make it happen in a lab, but that won't prove that it happened that way before. Since we are scientists and don't want to make any assumptions without facts we can't speculate further". Religion would say: "a magic pixie made it" or some such thing, and then scorn anyone who disagreed for ever more.

Your statement about Cosmology re-inforces the argument which proves you wrong. I am not familiar with the area of science, but I can well believe that if Cosmologists were only able to accurately detect one major force, then one major force is what they would work with. They may well know that the results they get are not 100% accuracte, and that there must be something else out there that they haven't discovered yet.

They may even make assumptions (yes!) if those assumptions make the calculations more accurate, but they would be stated as assumptions and known to be a bit dodgy, and liable to be proven wrong at any moment. The assumptions would NOT be held in the highest regard, and unchallengable in the face of new evidence, as religion would insist.

But they wouldn't make any assumptions which made the emasurements more inaccurate, or for which there was no evidence.

So.. not at all like religion in any way then - which you yourself have kindly demonstrated beyond any doubt.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

....The fact that the views of science change when new evidence arises confirms that it is not belief-based.......

What I pointed out, that in the microsecond of time since 1895, as far as climate goes, so called scientists have flip-flopped on the interpretation of the evidence several times. To me, as to anyone with common sense, rather than fancy garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, it appears that climate oscillates over time. We have some warming and them some cooling cycles over time.

What's bad is that some, mostly not the scientists themselves, but others with a social agenda, are forcing extensive and very costly social changes based on their dubious interpretation of the evidence. In 40-50 years, another cooling cycle will begin and TIME Magazine will once again reprint a headline similar to their December 1973 issue. Another Gore may then make another film telling us that we better bundle up for the next ice age.

(.....I have no idea what you were trying to say about "MIND".....)

Besides matter and energy, which are governed by certain forces, there is a third factor in the universe, which is outside of the scope of these. It is the realm of thought, creativity, invention, ideas. How much does an idea weigh? What is the speed of thought? We have an extensive body of law, dealing with INTELLECTUAL property, because we understand that a work of art is separate and apart from the physical medium that embodies it. The DNA is the medium, but the code recorded thereon is an expression of an unknown intellect, the same way that the code on a computer disk is the work of a known human programmer. A mind is the device which generates intellect, which produces intellectual property. The brain is akin to the hardware running the software of the mind.

Scientists perceive that there are certain laws by which things work and repeatably test these laws. They see a certain order and structure upon which repeatable experiments are done. That is science. When it comes to interpreting the origins, destiny, meaning and purpose of that order, they are all on the same level as theologians.

(....We can make an educated guess...)

That's exactly my point. Statements of scientists or anybody else for that matter, about the past or future, or purpose and meaning, are guesswork, belief, faith, just like religion is. We humans are really creatures of the present. The past must be believed from records and the future inferred from trends we observe. Our lives our based much more on what we believe than what we know for sure.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[MrResistor]

Similarly, Confucianism incorporates the older Chinese traditions of ancestor worship, and Taoism has (duh!) the Tao. All three are pretty definitely religions, despite the fact that they may not have an anthropomorphic deity (or deities with defined roles).

I'm honestly pretty confused as to where the idea that they are not religions comes from. My best guess is based on a "comparative religions" book I ran across years ago, put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses IIRC, which pretty much described every religion it covered in terms of belief in the Christian God. As with every other meme, it then gets parroted by a bunch of people who basically have no idea what they're talking about.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

The idea comes from the fact that their are different branches of Taoism and Buddhism (I can't speak on Confucianism so I'll leave it out). Some branches are ethical frameworks without any involvement of gods or other things supernatural, similar to something like humanism. Are those religions if they don't involve the supernatural? It's not really clear and in the end it's not all that important.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[Corwn of Amber]

No, no, no. Does not compute.

What little energy there is just fades and dies, like the current stops when you turn off the light. No more matter (glucose) is used in the brain, like a lamp on "OFF" uses no energy.

However the energy that our mind makes up cannot be explained away as saying "it stops", energy has to go somewhere.

The energy is not there. Death is a process in which the neural activity decreases until it stops. Death is accomplished when there is no more measurable brain energy, the kinds that can be detected with an EEG.

In fact the change in state that the energy, (be it synapses firing in the brain or pure thought), can be taken as a the journey to Heaven or to be reincarnated,

What are you talking about? Change in state, right. What happens is that you die. Your conscience is asleep without dreams forever, but it's as close to what you think as reality allows.

(after all what are we really but recycled matter and energy from what we eat and drink), which also points out a deficiency of answers to #1.

If you're talking about the substance that make up our bodies, then yes. I was thinking more of "what was needed to produce the historical model of you" as defines your identity.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[MrResistor]

You can't have Taoism without a belief in the Tao, which I would certainly consider a supernatural force. Similarly, I haven't encountered a variety of Buddhism that doesn't include Karma and Dharma (they may have other names, but it's the same idea), which I would also consider supernatural in that they attempt to explain things for which there is no readily observable reason (e.g., why did lighting strike my house and not my neighbor's).

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[amRadioHed]

The Tao in Taoism just refers to the universe and its laws. It's been awhile since I've studied up on Taosim, but I don't recall it necessarily having any mystical traits.

As for Buddhism, you may be confusing the Hindu concept of Karma and Dharma with the Buddhist concepts. They are different. My understanding of Buddhist Dharma is that it is just the collected teachings of the Buddha. Now it's true that many Buddhists see the Dharma as sacred, but many do not (e.g. the "kill the Buddha" teaching) and certainly the Buddha didn't teach that it was sacred as far as I've seen.

Karma in Buddhism is the law of cause and effect. The idea of Karma is to remind us that things don't just happen without cause and that we should be mindful of the effects our actions have on us and on others. It is not like in Hinduism where Karma says doing bad (or good) things will cause bad (or good) things to happen to you.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[MrResistor]

The Tao in Taoism just refers to the universe and its laws.

Yes, but the mistake you're making is applying western definitions to those words. The universe is made up of Qi (energy) and Liu (matter). Qi is definitely beyond the natural laws known to science; hence it is supernatural.

As for Buddhism, you may be confusing the Hindu concept of Karma and Dharma with the Buddhist concepts.

Buddha was a Hindu. His big breakthrough was finding a way to achieve enlightenment in a single lifetime. I'm not putting it down, I'm a Buddhist myself, but a lot of the concepts in Buddhism are drawn directly from Hinduism.

Karma and Dharma both deal with fate. Karma is the fate we bring upon ourselves do to our own actions (cause and effect). Dharma is the "divine plan", or the fate that's just part of everything that's going on (i.e., why do bad things happen to good people).

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

to me, as to anyone with common sense, rather than fancy garbage-in-garbage-out computer models

Sigh.

Common sense is absolutely no use whatsoever as far as weather patterns over the course of hundreds of years are concerned; let alone millenia. If you have any proof of what you say (other than "I, not being an expert nor having examined the evidence, don't think so because of my gut instinct"), then I suggest that you publish it. If your ideas and evidence have any merit, you are pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize. I wait with baited breath.

One hundred years isn't a short amount of time; it's a VERY long time, especially in new areas of science. Computers have only existed since the early 1940s. They have come a long way since then. It is also no surprise at all that the predictions of a new science vary back and forth. Techniques are refined all the time, and new discoveries made. By measuring the predictions they made, and seeing how badly they were wrong, they know how badly wrong the theories are. The theories are then adjusted (unlike religious dogmas), and new prediciotns made. This is how science works. It's how it is SUPPOSED to work. But that, of course, doesn't prevent newspapers and other media from taking once scientific papaer and screaming "SCIENTISTS CLAIM: EARTH WILL COOL DOWN!" Of course it doesn't. And the scientists who published the paper screaming "it's only an early theory" get ignored, because that doesn't sell as many newspapers.

I expect weather predictions back then were also far less accurate than they are today, and frequently much more incorrect than they are now - wildly so, I expect. They are still wrong a lot of the time nowadays, but they are amazingly accurate.

the realm of thought
Yes, it's quite different from matter and engery, but is purely there because of them. You can try it for yourself, by giving yourself a frontal lobotomy. All of a sudden, your personality pretty much vanishes. Personality and thought processes are created by the mind. Again, if you can prove different (or even have some evidence for this assertion), then your second Nobel prize awaits.

The DNA is the medium, but the code recorded thereon is an expression of an unknown intellect
DNA looks, in fact, as if it came together like that really slowly, over a long period of time, through a series of small changes which accumulated. As if it.. evolved. Spooky, eh?

If it is in fact designed (as you assert without an iota of proof), then the designer is quite simply the most incompetant fool whose work has ever been put under public scrutiny. Again, if you have any evidence whatsoever which is any way convincing, I would urge you to publish it immediately. You can get your third Nobel prize for that!

Statements of scientists or anybody else for that matter, about the past or future, or purpose and meaning, are guesswork, belief, faith, just like religion is.
It depends on the context they say it in, of course. If there's evidence, then it's not guesswork; it's a good, working theory. If they do it without evidence, then it is guesswork, and not good science; certainly not to be relied upon too heavily.

Guesswork didn't build radios, televisions, planes, central heating, steel knives and forks, automobiles, or any one of the hundreds of thousands of objects which science has created down the years through application of good, solid theories that are nothing to do with guesswork at all.

Do try and remember that next time you turn on the TV, watch a DVD, use the Internet (or any computer); these things were ALL made using the SAME principles of science as every other branch of science uses.

Repeating "just like religion" doesn't make it any more true than it was when you said it before. I will repeat the obvious, for your benefit: if scientists based their work on ANYTHING like the

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[arminw]

.....Guesswork didn't build radios, televisions, planes, .......

Neither did evolution. All of these were created by INTELLIGENT human beings by processes of thought arising in a mind. The mind is the software running in the hardware of the brain. Just as in a computer, the hardware and software were created by a creator, a super programmer. No computer ever "evolved" without the input of human intelligence.

The brain also operates the I/O system of eyes, ears, hands, feet, ie the whole body. Naturally, if you damage the hardware with a lobotomy, the software won't run correctly. Take the memory chips out of your computer sometime and see how well it works.

Evolution is guesswork, trying to answer the question: Where did I and everything else originate? Who cares? It is not necessary in the slightest, in order to create and build all things you mentioned. Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?

The total, universality of religion, in the past and still today, is powerful evidence for Himself, which the Creator has programed into our root genetic structure, the kernel of the human OS. This strange yearning toward the source of our existence manifests itself in religion and in belief in things beyond ourselves. Religion and a desire for God is like a root-kit the maker of the OS programed deep into the innards of our human nature. In times of extreme stress it executes and makes us cry out to this otherwise unknown God. This is what made otherwise irreligious people cry out to God in foxholes and under the hail of bombs in wartime. Right now, you are able to repress the execution of that root-kit, but there is a good chance you will not be able to, if the pressure on you gets strong enough.

Re:Orthogonal concepts

[IngramJames]

Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?

OK, I couldn't resist one last response: Because Paley thought of that argument over two hundred years ago, and it has been completely discredited many times since then. Again, I urge you to refer to the (vast) amount of populare science literature which is widely available on this subject. A good place to start would be "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which will show you precisely why that argument is flawed at its most basic level.

Or this site.

But if you buy any book on how to think logically, then you should be able to spot the flaw for yourself in time.

The myth that there are no atheists in foxholes is very untrue. Atheists are perhaps more likely to survive in a war, as they don't waste time praying when they should be shooting and keeping their mind on the job.

Cheers now!

The evolution of gods

[dalesc]

Over time, as man has evolved, he has reduced his need of gods from many (Sun God, God of Love, etc.) down to one - though, not necessarily the same one. The more fully evolved on the planet have made the final step and eliminated that one, too.

God is a product of man, not the other way around.

Re:The evolution of gods

[throup]

fully evolved ? Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going. Richard Dawkins is no more evolved than George Bush, who in turn is no more involved than an earthworm.

Re:The evolution of gods

[throup]

I previewed that and still missed the typo! Should say:

Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going. Richard Dawkins is no more evolved than George Bush, who in turn is no more evolved than an earthworm.

Re:The evolution of gods

[bwalling]

The more fully evolved on the planet have made the final step and eliminated that one, too.

Now there's a productive argument. That's about as useful as the street corner preaching telling everyone they're going to hell.

Re:The evolution of gods

[LinuxIsRetarded]

Over time, as man has evolved, he has reduced his need of gods from many (Sun God, God of Love, etc.) down to one - though, not necessarily the same one. The more fully evolved on the planet have made the final step and eliminated that one, too.

What about Hindus? Are they less evolved than Christians and Muslims because they believe in multiple gods*? Are atheists more evolved than isolated tribes in Africa that worship one or more gods?

To state that an atheist is more evolved than a person with faith in one or more supreme beings is absolute nonsense (from a scientific standpoint). How can you explain siblings whose faiths differ (one sibiling with no faith; the other with). How can you explain children with faith whose parents, grandparents, and/or great-grandparents had none? If having religious faith is a negative trait as you suggest, why does the majority of the population still possess this trait?

*Hinduism is a widely-varied faith; to call it entirely polytheistic would be incorrect. Some Hindu sects are monotheistic, some are polytheistic, some are panentheistic, etc. But, nevertheless, many of the approximately one billion Hindus believe in the existence of multiple gods.

Re:The evolution of gods

[Anonymous Coward]

The gods were created by man.

There are many copies.

They have a plan.

Re:The evolution of gods

[morari]

In the absence of enlightened people, polytheism typically seems to work a lot better than monotheism. The ancient Egyptians were just trying to get ahead of themselves. Silly Akhenaten. :P

Re:The evolution of gods

[ColdWetDog]

Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going. Richard Dawkins is no more evolved than George Bush, who in turn is no more evolved than an earthworm.

Either way it works. Scary that.

Re:The evolution of gods

[TheNucleon]

And this kind of rhetoric is exactly why the debates between those of faith and those of not will continue to be harsh, unrelenting, and emotional. Basically, what you just said is that you are more "evolved" than I am. That seems - I don't know - rude, arrogant, and presumptuous? This is, ironically, the type of "holier than thou" attitude that I've come to expect from atheists.

To be callous to this extent surely demonstrates the need to believe in something, if only perhaps good manners.

Getting back on topic, I agree with a previous poster that acknowledging the diversity of belief regarding creation at the beginning of a science class could avoid many arguments and hard feelings. Just agree to disagree, then stick to the observable facts and scientific theories. It's true that the science classroom is an inappropriate (and inadequate) place to discuss matters of faith.

Re:The evolution of gods

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment has no useful data, it just presents the opinion of one person. How come this is now interesting, if this person is clearly an atheist? Yes, we may agree or disagree with his/her arguments, but that argument doesn't have any meaningful value for The Fucking Article (hopefully that is the right combination of words). If this is OK, I'm very glad to add my views to the conversation.

The current naturalistic view of science clearly drops out any Gods or deities. That view can be right, or wrong. You either believe it or not. End of story.

PS. I'm so happy to be labeled as a religious nut. And please don't mod me too high that people won't see my post.

Re:The evolution of gods

[Anonymous Coward]

The more fully evolved on the planet Evolution doesn't work that way.

Re:The evolution of gods

[Anonymous Coward]

Polytheism is like a democracy, it offers multiple viewpoints of god and distributes power in a society similary.

Re:Sellouts

[Fallus Shempus]

If you believe in science

Who's the hypocrite?

Oh goodie.

[Alsee]

Okay. I have just one question though. Are they also going to come out with a guide "explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of chemistry does not require abandoning belief in God".

I guess I have to reluctantly agree, ok it's "good" that they came out with a guide explaining there is no conflict between evolution and God, but it's really-really-sad and really-really-wrong that they had to do so. Evolution, chemistry, either one it's just plain silly.

-

Two Baskets

[Howzer]

Imagine two baskets.

One contains all the things explained by the phrase "god did it". The other contains all the things explained by "science".

A long time ago, everything was in the god basket, and nothing at all was in the science basket. The weather? God did it. Pregnancy? God did it. Disease? God did it. Where does stuff come from? God did it.

Then, as humanity learned more stuff, things got taken out of the god basket and put into the science basket. The weather. Pregnancy. Disease. Where stuff comes from, right back until a few billionths of a second before the big bang, getting closer all the time.

So what's left in the god basket? Good question -- but that's not where I'm going with this, because actually that's irrelevant.

The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.

The traffic is all one way.

So I choose the basket that contains all human knowledge. I choose the basket that keeps getting new and fantastic stuff put in it. I choose the search for truth over the abrogation of understanding.

The god basket? You believers are welcome to that. It's basically empty, getting emptier all the time. But you're welcome to keep hanging on to it. The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?

Re:Two Baskets

[JaredOfEuropa]

The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?

That is precisely what the creationists are trying to accomplish: putting the question of the origin of species back into the god basket. Don't let these people out of your sight...

Re:Two Baskets

[someone1234]

Well, i think a God setting a few universal constants and booting up His Great World Simulation is definitely an plausible God to me.

A God (or gods) sweating on putting all the dinosaur bones into the soil just to 'trick us' is plain pathetic.

I'm not a believer in any of these 'gods', but i can live with the former :)

People who deny evolution based on their god fantasy need to wake up.

Re:Two Baskets

[backslashdot]

The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.

We can both agree that is not a rigorous proof.

The god basket? You believers are welcome to that. It's basically empty, getting emptier all the time. But you're welcome to keep hanging on to it. The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?

Weather? God did it. He created the laws of the universe. All atoms, and weather systems operate under it. God defined the strength of the electomagnetic field, the gravitional field, the inter atomic forces, the speed of light. All science has done is allowed us to make some predictions or interactions with it.

Pregnancy? God did it. Can you explain how self awareness exists? Sorry science has not fully explained this one either. It has only helped us understand some of the dynamics.

Disease? God did it. Viruses, pathogens, genetic problems .. all happen according to the fundamental laws of the universe.

Where does stuff come from? God did it. Not sure how you put that in the science basket.

Re:Two Baskets

[wwmedia]

So what's left in the god basket?

take a look at the sectarian violence in the middle east now between shias and sunnis over minor interpretation of gods will (tho i suspect religion is just an excuse for racial hate that we are seeing, nowhere in the koran does it say killing innocents is ok)

nowadays religion brings nothing good it seems, what happened to compassion and love thy neighbour? instead we get peadophile priests and sexual abuse cases,

what happened to helping the poor? last i checked the Vatican is rich beyond belief and is rung better than most corporations out there

Re:Two Baskets

[chilvence]

It would be extremely ironic to your point if one day god comes down for a visit and says 'Yeah, science, I did that. Sorry to burst your bubble. Can I have my baskets back now?' Not that I want to make a case for that. Science can be attributed to allowing us as humans to understand the nature of the universe. But the understanding of it has never allowed us to claim 'we did that' - it just allows us to better take advantage of the already existing principles behind anything. If there was a god, why would there be something in his universe that completely undermines his existence? So basically, you can't prove the existence of god, but you can't disprove it either :). All you really have is a stalemate. The question is how much do you want to argue with dangerous religious nuts?

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Science and eugenics were used to fabricate excuses to commit genocide in the 1930's and 40's. Your peurile "science baskets" should be two containers - one for good science and one for rubbish. The rubbish science basket is often more full than the good science basket. Rubbish science has said global warming was man made. Now good science (often ignored these days by craven idiots) has been putting any warming back in the "natural" domain which means God and nature still haven't been trumped as much as the ego manics would like to think. Maybe some of them would be depressed by this but depressions as well is failing to be explained by "bad science" and its attempts to render people vats of mere chemicals.

Re:Two Baskets

[Marcion]

nowadays religion brings nothing good it seems, what happened to compassion and love thy neighbour? instead we get peadophile priests and sexual abuse cases,

If the only interaction with organised religion is through what the media reports, then yes it seems that it brings nothing good. However, for every pedophile priest, there will be 10,000 quietly busting their guts out for their parishioners.

what happened to helping the poor?

Again, what have you done for the poor in the last year? Most church members I know give a massive amount of cash and time for the poor. Who is giving the homeless meals and a place to stay? In my town it is the church. The government won't feed or home anyone who cannot pass random drug tests, which is basically all the homeless in the west. (At least here in Europe, if you are not on drugs and have half a brain then you can easily earn enough to eat at least).

Re:Two Baskets

[Alfius]

I'd have said that during the dark ages a whole load of stuff got moved back from the science basket to the god basket what with the decline of Roman civilisation and the rise of a dogmatic overbearing (and at the time) global religion. You might also argue that during the more enlightened era of the Islamic caliphate there was a whole load of stuff in the science basket which subsequently went back to the God basket.

Re:Two Baskets

[cowbutt]

Imagine two baskets.

One contains all the things explained by the phrase "god did it". The other contains all the things explained by "science".

A long time ago, everything was in the god basket, and nothing at all was in the science basket. The weather? God did it. Pregnancy? God did it. Disease? God did it. Where does stuff come from? God did it.

Actually, you've got the same thought process as many of your opponents, and your baskets are straw men. Really, they should be labelled "Can only be explained through supernatural phenomena" and "Can be explained solely using understood and observable physical phenomena". The difference is subtle, but important. Science doesn't explain why things happen (God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sheer blind luck), only how. It's possible that gods exist, and act through the physical phenomena we understand today (i.e. evolution, physics and all the rest).

Re:Two Baskets

[bechthros]

karma to burn, so here goes.

the God basket is not empty if the science basket is inside it...

Re:Two Baskets

[Rogerborg]

Welcome to my friends list.

Re:Two Baskets

[Marcion]

That is actually rather beautiful.

Far from burning karma, I was going to say 'Mod parent up' but it sounds rather mundane in this context.

Re:Two Baskets

[mad_robot]

What a load of tripe!

If everything happens according to the fundamental laws of the universe, then how it is possible for your omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god to function?

Re:Two Baskets

[ACDChook]

So basically, you can't prove the existence of god, but you can't disprove it either
DISCLAIMER: I am an atheist, and don't believe in deities, but acknowledge that it's within the realm of possibility that I could be mistaken.

Yes you COULD prove the existence of a god. If that god did suddenly appear, as you postulated in your post, then it would be proof.
However, you are correct to state that you can't DISprove the existence of a god. No matter what experiment you devise, there would always be the possibility that a higher power had manipulated the outcome to hide their existence. And that is the root of the misunderstanding of the science/religion argument - many religious people feel that science threatens their beliefs, when it is simply not the case. If you believe in a god, then science simply explains how that god wields his/her/its power.

Re:Two Baskets

[bwalling]

Your basket analogy is deeply flawed. It can be ruined entirely by the statement that science is simply an explanation of how God does what God does. Whether or not you believe in God, this is a simple and rational explanation for the combination of science and God. You're trying to create some kind of divide between science and God that simply doesn't exist. While I'm sure that you think that believers are the narrow minded ones, you're being quite narrow minded yourself if you don't think that it's entirely possible that God simply created evolution and the other mechanisms that science observes. You may not like the idea of God or the fact that other people believe in God, but the observations of science do absolutely nothing to dispel the idea that God is behind all of this.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

10,000? Where did you get that figure from? I went to a Catholic boarding school when I was younger. Of the dozen or so monks who taught there, two are in prison right now after being convicted of fiddling with little boys.

(Fortunately I wasn't one of them)

Re:Two Baskets

[smussman]

I'd have said that during the dark ages a whole load of stuff got moved back from the science basket to the god basket what with the decline of Roman civilisation and the rise of a dogmatic overbearing (and at the time) global religion. You might also argue that during the more enlightened era of the Islamic caliphate there was a whole load of stuff in the science basket which subsequently went back to the God basket. I'm curious. Was the global religion you refer to Islam or Christianity?

Re:Two Baskets

[KudyardRipling]

Ethical culture can only take a person so far. It is the concept of something greater than man to whom he is to give account that makes man behave. Dostoyevski said it best that if G-d does not exist, than all things are permissible. Misbehavior is not the exclusive province of those who believe in something greater than themselves. Where there exists not G-d, a vacuum is created and more likely than not (my regards to Ross Perot), man gets sucked into that position. Secularism has its own skeletons. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot had murdered significant fractions of human populations and history recognizes them as secular people.

The Enlightenment had twin sons, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. However the driving ideology differed between these two. The former was born from the conviction that all facets of the human condition were fallen and not self-perfectible (see Calvinism) and so a republican government was to be established with checks an balances to prevent tyranny. The latter saw that man was self-perfectible without regard for anything higher than itself and so man was thereby permitted to do as he pleases. To reflect that end, a republican government was to be established because monarchies were viewed as a religious establishment and reminded people that there was something greater than themselves to whom they must give account. Were not the Jacobins the model for tyrants who were to later arise?

Under most conditions, the scientific process involves a forensic element--someone witnessed something occur in realtime. The mixing of chemical reagents or the actions of physical objects or forces were observed, examined and recorded. It is when these principles are applied to matters that had no human witnessing the event that the issues of faith enter. Although no human was present to witness the event, one believes according to what is known about the subject that such occured.

To make man the sum of all things places each one of us in a very lonely and frightening place. There is more to the human experience that what can be fit into 'the science basket'. More often than not, it is precisely that which makes life worth living.

5H4L0M

Re:Two Baskets

[Marcion]

I was not implying only catholic priests, there are lots of different churches. However, I am not denying that it has been a huge problem for some churches in particular.

I am not catholic, and I do not believe in enforced celibacy. I believe priests should be able to have monogamous relationships with another adult if they want.

I have no evidence about it, but if you have jobs that only (on the surface) celibate people can take, you will get some actually celibate people and a good number of people fooling themselves.

Re:Two Baskets

[bwalling]

The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?

That is precisely what the creationists are trying to accomplish: putting the question of the origin of species back into the god basket. Don't let these people out of your sight...

There aren't any baskets! God and science are unrelated. The creationists are wrong about denying science and you're wrong about denying God. It takes a narrow minded person to believe in the basket analogy, whether you're on the God side or the science side. God is not an explanation of the things we don't understand. The idea of God was around before we understood much, and things were chalked up to God when people didn't understand them, but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature. Quit perpetuating a useless viewpoint that only serves to cause controversy.

Re:Two Baskets

[Alfius]

Christianity of course, Islam was only founded during the dark ages. Before the Great Schism in the 11th Century the majority of the known world unified in religion

Re:Two Baskets

[Alsee]

the God basket is not empty if the science basket is inside it

If only someone would convince the anti-science fundie wackjobs of that.

"Waaaa! Waaaaa! Evolution is atheism! The earth is six thousand eight years one week four days eight hours and twenty minutes old, no matter what those evil lying anti-God scientists say!"

-

Re:Two Baskets

[ignavus]

Everything is still in the God basket - nothing has ever been taken out.

Let me explain this to you by a simple analogy (not involving cars).

Who destroyed Sauron - was it Frodo or Gollum at Mt Doom? Or was it Tolkien?

The answer is: both. Within the story, Frodo (with unintended help from Gollum) destroyed Sauron. But the whole story (Frodo, Gollum, Sauron, Ring and all) was created by Tolkien.

All the events of "Lord of the Rings" are in the Tolkien basket, yet they are also in the baskets of respective characters inside the story: Gollum takes the Ring from Deagol; Aragorn braves the Paths of the Dead; Frodo and Sam carry the Ring into Mordor; and so on.

It is not "either/or" - when a creation is involved, it is "both/and". Things don't move from one basket to the other.

Re:Two Baskets

[Pseudonym]

Why only two baskets, and why those labels?

The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.

An equally important point is that there are some very important things that we know will never get put in the "science" basket. Science, for example, can tell us lots about what we can do, but it can never tell us what we should do, because "should"-type questions are simply not scientific questions.

How do you know that murder is wrong? Science can't even formulate that sort of "right and wrong" question. This is not to say that you need to go to the supernatural to answer it (this question is entirely within the grasp of human reason). My point is that not everything that's important is Science. To think otherwise is idolatry.

Re:Two Baskets

[hachete]

the Science basket contains a rather small empty basket with the label God.

Re:Two Baskets

[GoofyBoy]

>The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.
>The traffic is all one way.
>So I choose the basket that contains all human knowledge.

What I find interesting, and this happens alot not in just this post, is that people that choose "scientific method" make the choice by non "scientific" ways.

The traffic has been one way, so far. Just as previously, Newton's Three Laws were correct, so far.
Now the strength of scientific method is that we keep on looking out for things that would break the theory, testing and keeping an open mind.
Yet, when it comes down to it, via non-scientific methods, people make a choice; "I believe in the scientific basket".

Re:Two Baskets

[bwalling]

nowadays religion brings nothing good it seems, what happened to compassion and love thy neighbour? instead we get peadophile priests and sexual abuse cases, what happened to helping the poor? last i checked the Vatican is rich beyond belief and is rung better than most corporations out there

Quit watching the news and look around. Many Christians are doing good in the world. They're just not calling CNN to come cover it. Yes, there are bunch of people that use Christianity to get what they want, but that's true of nearly anything.

Re:Two Baskets

[Profound]

[i]nowhere in the koran does it say killing innocents is ok[/i]

Only because it preaches that unbelievers are not innocent.

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

If everything happens according to the fundamental laws of the universe, then how it is possible for your omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god to function?

There is a more long-winded way to ask that same question, which may make some people think a bit (although that may be a forlorn hope). Just pose some loaded questions:

If God is omniscient, can He pose a question which He cannot answer? Why can He not pose such a question, if He is omniscient? Alternatively, why can He not answer such a question, if He is omniscient?

If God is omnipotent, can He make a rock which He cannot pick up? Why can He not pick up such a rock, if He is omnipotent? Alternatively, why can He not make such a rock, if He is omnipotent?

If God is omnipresent, why is He not present in this post?

Re: Two Baskets

[Black Parrot]

There aren't any baskets! God and science are unrelated. The creationists are wrong about denying science and you're wrong about denying God. It takes a narrow minded person to believe in the basket analogy, whether you're on the God side or the science side. God is not an explanation of the things we don't understand. The idea of God was around before we understood much, and things were chalked up to God when people didn't understand them, but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature. Quit perpetuating a useless viewpoint that only serves to cause controversy. You forgot to explain what's wrong with the basket metaphor.

Re:Two Baskets

[bruce_the_loon]

Except the GP is talking about Muslim on Muslim killing of innocent people in attacks on mosques.

Us infidels are another story. They should be converting us though, not eliminating us.

Re:Two Baskets

[bendodge]

Infinite entropy anyone?

Re:Two Baskets

[david_thornley]

Imagine two baskets. One contains all the things explained by the phrase "god did it". The other contains all the things explained by "science".

Next question: Is this a division of things that physically happen? If so, you're right, up to a point. The proper way to study the physical universe, including a whole lot of psychological phenomena, is science. This specifically includes evolution, which is in the scientific domain.

However, there are things that cannot be studied scientifically. Consider ethics: a scientific study of ethics would involve taking objectively valid observations of the morality of abortion, the killing of husbands by abused wives, the death penalty, etc., and then using those to formulate and refine theories. It isn't going to happen. Ethics doesn't necessarily go into the "God" basket, but it sure doesn't fit into the "science" one.

Nor can you classify every single thing about evolution as scientific. Evolution is a random process acting under certain constraints. The constraints are strictly scientific, as is the range of the randomness. It is not currently possible to show that all of the random events were strictly random, and I doubt that the hypothesis that God influenced evolution will ever be possible to falsify. This means that it is not scientific, but it doesn't conflict with science.

If you can reason about something on the basis of objective observations, it should go in the science basket. If you can't get objective observations, it can't go in there, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Suppose we had a very erratic God sense that occasionally allowed us to perceive God under very individual circumstances. There would doubtless be a physiological basis for this, just as there is a physiological basis for sight. However, two people looking at the same thing can reliably get similar results (and a lot of scientific equipment is designed to remove ambiguity), whereas two people trying to contemplate God may get different results. We'd be considering two different senses, one of which is far more suited for scientific investigation, and no reason to believe they aren't both real.

Re:Two Baskets

[GreatBunzinni]

It takes a narrow minded person to believe in the basket analogy, whether you're on the God side or the science side.

The funny thing is, you are clearly demonstrating that YOU are the one who is impaired by a "narrow mind". You see, there isn't a "god side" or a "science side" and science and god aren't obviously opposite concepts. They are made out to be by narrow-minded, intolerant morons who, driven by their personal need to see their personal god, along with their personal interpretations of their actions, messages and will, want to make their religious opinions out to be the inquestionable, complete answer to all things. Then those religious morons, when confronted with a different explanation of some issue which, although it is structured on logic, deductive reasoning and backed up with tangible proof, is completely opposite to your personal religious explanation... Then you feel threatened. You feel it threatens your authority and therefore your personal god's authority.

The sad thing is that just because your religious-based explanation is wrong, it doesn't diminsish your personal god. At all. It only means you are wrong and therefore the only thing that science erodes is your personal authority that was based on unfounded claims based on your personal opinions to begin with. So you, and other narrow-minded morons like you, in order to avoid seeing their religion-driven authority being eroded, instead of embracing a different explanation (which doesn't diminish your personal god or any religion at all) you fight to preserve the status quo. So you feel compelled to make science, which is nothing more than a means to rationally extract conclusions through tangible evidence, to be an antagonist of your personal god, which it isn't. Just because earth isn't the center of the universe it doesn't mean that your whole religion ceassed making sense.

Re:Two Baskets

[dbIII]

A long time ago, everything was in the god basket, and nothing at all was in the science basket

Only to clueless barbarians. Farmers knew how to do a lot of stuff to make things work even if it wasn't called science. Unfortunately we still have a few cluessless barbarians that only know how to rob farmers and some of them are very loud and charismatic. Note that you can have the clueless barbarians and the farmers no matter what any of them think about God. This is really all about politics and science where some of the organisations that feel challenged by science just happen to be Churches.

Re:Two Baskets

[Bender0x7D1]

It isn't a simulation - it's a video game.

Re:Two Baskets

[Just Some Guy]

G-d

I'm asking out of ignorance, so please don't flame me:

What's the point in replacing one symbol ("God") for, well, God, with another symbol ("G-d")? I've heard people say that you're not supposed to write his name, but whatever that is it surely isn't "God". So why the 1:1 replacement?

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is the concept of something greater than man to whom he is to give account that makes man behave."

Grow up. Lose the whole father figure thing and take responsibility for your own actions.
Religions are a codification of human ethics anyway, the ideas existed before they were put in the mouths of idols.

"Dostoyevski said it best that if G-d does not exist, than all things are permissible."

Not really. It's a mistranslation of a line said by an imaginary character in one of his works of fiction.

"To make man the sum of all things places each one of us in a very lonely and frightening place."

Grow up. Lonely and frightening in comparison to what? Without the negative viewpoint of religious beliefs it is neither lonely or frightening.

Re:Two Baskets

[mdwh2]

God is not an explanation of the things we don't understand. The idea of God was around before we understood much, and things were chalked up to God when people didn't understand them, but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature. Quit perpetuating a useless viewpoint that only serves to cause controversy.

Given the number of people who throughout the ages, and today, refer to "God" as a supposed explanation, I think this requires some evidence. Even if you were right, and the original idea of "gods" was not to explain things, it's clear that God later became an explanation for many people. But where is your evidence for what the idea of "god" originally meant? (I'm not sure this is even known?)

Re:Two Baskets

[mdwh2]

So basically, you can't prove the existence of god, but you can't disprove it either :). All you really have is a stalemate.

If there is no evidence for something, but we also can't put forward evidence against it, this is not a stalemate - we can still put forward the idea that there is no reason to believe in such things. Unless invisible unicorns and flying space teapots are also "stalemates" that theists should also believe in?

And we argue with "dangerous religious nuts" not just as a mad way of passing time, but because these religious ideas have political power - in this case, control over what is taught in schools.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this insightful? This person is calling people closed-minded because of their definition of God (an explanation of things we don't understand), but provides no alternative definition.

Re:Two Baskets

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>nowhere in the koran does it say killing innocents is ok

It depends on how you define innocent.

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

Qur'an:48:16 "Say (Muhammad) to the wandering desert Arabs who lagged behind: 'You shall be invited to fight against a people given to war with mighty prowess. You shall fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture."

I have trouble painting an entire religion with such a bloody picture, but I also have trouble with apologists/sophists who make islam out to be an entirely peaceful philosophy. While I think that most anti-islam sentiment is old-fashioned racism hiding behind more academic arguments, islam should not be immune to the scrutiny and criticism given to christianity or scientology. I'm ok with a person having a deep, rewarding relationship with certain chemicals in their brain, but religion itself is becoming more counter-productive to progress by the day.

-b

Re: Two Baskets

[damienl451]

The problem is that it confuses the reasons why someone might believe in God and the consequences of this belief. This 'God-of-the-gaps' way of looking at the world is a consequence of believing that there is a God in the first place, which is or isn't reasonable depending on why you have formed this particular belief. For instance, if you are an apostle and have seen the resurrected Jesus (or think you have), it is in my opinion perfectly reasonable to believe that God exists, regardless of what you think about God's role in causing the rain to fall (none/sometimes/always).

Another problem is that most pieces of evidence cannot be neatly put in one basket or the other, since most what you would move from the God basket to the science basket shouldn't have been in the former at all. Saying 'I don't know why this happened, therefore God did it' is foolish and unreasonable. Unless you have good reasons to attribute an event to God's intervention, don't do it.

Unlike what the basket analogy suggests, knowledge is not a zero-sum game in which you simply move eggs from one basket to another. Some scientific discoveries have absolutely no bearing on whether God exists or not (and therefore do not count as evidence that God does not exist), and many arguments in favor of God's existence have nothing to do with science per se (i.e. even if they were discarded, they would not be added to science's basket). Similarly, you cannot assume that all 'eggs' are equal: some scientific theories might make the existence of God less probable, but be dwarfed by the overwhelming evidence that he exists that other theories or arguments provide.

If you are looking for things which have indeed been moved from the 'science' basket to the 'God' one, I'd suggest learning more about the archeological discoveries that vindicated Luke's writings against what skeptical scholars believed had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. As for examples in the hard sciences, I have no idea but, quite frankly, I don't see why we would need to find such things happening. You just have to understand that most of the things that were put in the 'science' basket did not disprove religion in any way because it did not affect any of its tenets.

Re: Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not so much in the 'explaining' business; more in the 'i believe this and so should you' business.

Re: Two Baskets

[metlin]

You forgot to explain what's wrong with the basket metaphor.

Oh that's easy.

It's not a car or a Library of Congress analogy. That's what's wrong with it!

Or, possibly, the poster is a religious nut who thinks that science and religion can somehow "peacefully coexist" and the basket analogy offends his/her beliefs.

Re:Two Baskets

[dragonfire5287]

So what is god? What does it explain? Why is it needed? The geocentric model of planetary movement was around before we understood much, doesn't mean we should still use it.

Re:Two Baskets

[DeVilla]

So, because I know how a car works, I get to deny that the auto-maker made it? Just because you figured out how something works and 'put it in the science basket' doesn't mean it had to come out of 'god basket'. I think your basket metaphor is a poor model for genuine reasoning about the existence of gods.

Re:Two Baskets

[wasabii]

God and science are very related. All claims about god have conflicted with science except for one: the origin of the universe. Science makes a living on addressing and narrowing the field of the unknown and it has done a pretty decent job. So what's left? One question. The origin of the universe.

Now examine two possible answers to that question:

a) we do not know.
b) god made it.

a) introduces no assumptions. It requires no furthur explanation AT THIS TIME. It begs no questions. It is a question which will be answered in time, or forever unknown.

b) on the other hand begs many questions: who created God? Where does he live? What sort of intelligence is he? Is he within the universe or without? If he's without, what is he contained in? What are the boundaries of his existance? Insert infinite regress here.

b) requires many more assumptions than a) does. Seeing as we have no evidence either way, choosing b) vs choosing a) is an illogical position.

Quite simple we do not know what existed before the big bang. And we will continue to not know until we know.

This is directly contradictory to all the worlds major religions which postulate answers to b), and assert without justification that many things in our world are not explainable by science. Science says we do not work that way. We form a hypothesis and test it. We seek evidence. No wonder these people are mad about science: it IS incompatible with all but belief a).

Re:Two Baskets

[mdwh2]

Science doesn't explain why things happen

Show me that there's a purpose of things, then we can ask "Why?" If we discover that there must be a purpose, then science will also conceivably be able to find what that purpose is.

Claiming that science doesn't explain why things happen is like complaining that science doesn't explain flying invisible teapots, or what Bilbo Baggins's favourite colour is, or what shape is a "wibblesplat". They are all nonsensical questions that may not have answers, because the things in the question don't exist in the first place.

Re:Two Baskets

[zanybrainy941]

So what's left in the god basket?

Still in the God basket are issues related to your mortality. As best I can tell, we are wholly unequipped to deal with the reality of the end of our own lives. No big deal to you? ORLY? There's a tiger at your throat right now, ripping you open so that it can live while you die. How do you feel about that? That's what it means to confront your own mortality, and we're no good at it. The ones who were OK with it have long since left the gene pool, and the rest of us just can't deal with it. It's intolerable, it's inevitable, and there's not a thing we can do about it. The stuff still left in the God basket can help with this. What you feel is based on what you believe, and even if you believe something untrue -- you will live forever, death is only a momentary bump in a much longer road -- you still feel better. That's what the God basket is for. May you find it when you need it.

It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?

Re:Two Baskets

[75th Trombone]

You assume that science and religion have the same domain. In reality, their domains might look something like this NOT-TO-SCALE Venn diagram. Your analogy omits a big chunk of the "truth" category.

Re: Two Baskets

[75th Trombone]

I explained it with this. His metaphor omits a big chunk of the truth.

Re:Two Baskets

[rhizome]

What's the point in replacing one symbol ("God") for, well, God, with another symbol ("G-d")? I've heard people say that you're not supposed to write his name, but whatever that is it surely isn't "God". So why the 1:1 replacement?

Because it's not spelled "God." Yes, that's all there is to it.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this for instance

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/terrorist2.html

Re:Two Baskets

[gotpaint32]

You can't compare apples to oranges. Physics, chemistry and other sciences that explain the physical realm are physical sciences and rely on strict adherence to the scientific method. A scientific study of ethics or morality would put it in the category of social sciences or the study of human related activity and require a more statistical based adherence to the scientific method.

Simply based on the ephemeral nature of ethics and morality one's observation cannot be said to be more true than another's. Morality and ethics is what we define it and for that very reason impossible to test. For instance I could believe beating my wife is wrong while you believe that beating your wife is right. Between each other I have no greater moral or ethical authority than your belief.

Using god and dogma to define ethics and morality is a fools way out to define how social conventions came to be and is prone to abuse by those in power to interpret dogma. Remember the inquisition, the crusades, the current strife in the middle east... God is not necessary to explain why we behave in the manner we do. Social sciences such as sociology and economics can make generally good predictions on macro level human behavior. These sciences show us the reasons behind societal norms and helps explain why moral codes "mores" are generally shared cross culturally while more exclusive "folkways" are less so.

My god let's me eat pork, what's yours let you do?

Re:Two Baskets

[stavrica]

You would have done well in the existentialism and materialistic philosophy courses offered at various universities in Soviet bloc countries two decades ago. However, your train of thought remains incomplete. Let's say, hypothetically, there is a God who created all things, including the rules that govern how all things interact. Let's continue, hypothetically, and say that this God created humans with the ability to study, learn, and understand this universe and the laws that govern it. Now, hypothetically, humans proceed to understand all the things around them and how they work. This all leads back to some the original open questions that seem to have gotten lost with today's tunnel-thinking:

1. Can science test for the existence of God? (If not, can it comment on the existence of God?)
2. Does human affinity for understanding things imply there is no God? (If so, how?)
3. Is there an intersect between science and religion that can be confirmed and then tested?

Re: Two Baskets

[bwalling]

You forgot to explain what's wrong with the basket metaphor.

Simple: the basket metaphor is working on the assumption that once science can explain something, that something could not have been caused by God. If you want to say that wind is caused by the movement of air between different pressures, then what causes the different pressures? Temperature? What causes the temperature? The sun? What put the sun there? The big bang? What put the big bang there? Where does it all head? Science can keep peeling the onion back, and that's fine. What's at the center of the onion? Could well be God. Fact is, we don't really know. So, the simple fact that science has taken another layer off of the onion doesn't do anything to change that the thing underlying all of it might be some higher being or power. Science may well be taking us closer and closer to understanding the root cause of everything. It may never get there. We don't really know. Those in the science camp would like to say that everything is explainable by some math. Those in the religion camp would like to say that God is behind it all. Some would like to say that God is a brilliant mathematician and the scientists are simply finding ways to explain what God did.

The problem with the basket analogy is that the fact that you now have a formula for something doesn't mean that God didn't do it. It only means that you know how it happens. If you want to convince me of the basket analogy, then explain to me how knowing the science behind something means that God didn't do it. You can call me some moron "believer" or whatever it is that you want, but I'm perfectly willing to accept your position that there is no God, but you're not willing to accept mine. I'd like to get into an actual discussion of this topic, but the problem is that most people seem to only be able to say "Look: science" and they can't say much else. Many people seem to be stuck on the fact that they hate religion because it's for idiots and they therefore would like to believe that scientific explanations somehow deny the fact that God exists, but they can't seem to explain how or why they do so.

Re: Two Baskets

[bwalling]

Since you're quite convinced of the incorrectness of my position, please explain to me how something goes from the "God basket" to the "science basket". Sure, we develop scientific understanding of some facet of nature. I get that. What I don't get is how that somehow makes it separated from God. Just because we know how something works doesn't disconnect it from the concept of having been created by a higher power. Please explain how science disproves God.

You're right that I didn't "explain" anything. I'm saying that the other side failed to do the explaining. The other side is the one that put forth the theorem, not me. If they're using their theorem to disprove God, I'd like to see an explanation of said theorem. I'm not so attached to the idea of God that I'm not willing to hear an argument and change my mind. As it is, I think there is better evidence in the direction of God than there is in the direction of not God. Feel free to convince me otherwise. It's not even that hard. I've changed my mind on the subject several times in the course of 31 years.

Re:Two Baskets

[Kenrod]

right back until a few billionths of a second before the big bang

Until you can answer the question of what happened before then (or even if there was a "before" to contemplate), the God basket will not be empty. Science tells us that what happened "before" is unknowable because any pre-big bang information could not survive. The ability to explain nature has nothing to do with why nature exists at all.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

10000 quietly busting their guts out for their parishioners? Rubbish.

It's true that most priests - probably - aren't child molesters, but that doesn't mean the rest of them are angels. All the ones *I* have met, at least (and I've met quite a number, since I used to play the trumpet in a brass orchestra in church), didn't really do anything at all.

Oh, sure, they preached every Sunday, and they performed weddings and the like, and they took care of all sorts of issues that came with having your own church, but outside of that... did they actually do anything *good*? No, or at least not more than the average person.

I don't know where in Europe you are from, but in *my* part of Europe, I've never seen any priest (or, for that matter, any churchgoer) extend so much as a hand to a homeless person, much less give them something to eat or a place to stay, and I've never seen anyone give "massive" amounts of cash or time (or even small amounts, for that matter).

Re: Two Baskets

[ardle]

Please explain how science disproves God Science cannot disprove god, in the same way that it cannot prove god.
Science is based on the observation of the natural, god is supernatural.
The example did not have " god exists" and "god doesn't exist" baskets, it had "god did it" and "science can explain it" baskets.
In order to get into the "science can explain it" basket, a phenomenon must be described an some acceptable manner but, even more importantly, observations must be reproducable ;-)

Re:Two Baskets

[murrdpirate]

I don't think your basket argument is very effective. Someone could believe in a god and just not know how he did certain things. Science would then reveal how. It seems like you are implying that by knowing how everything works up to a few billionths of a second before the big bang, the god-of-the-gaps theory is negligible. I don't think the fact that the universe is intelligible means a god is unlikely. How there just happens to be something as opposed to nothing is pretty significant. Science will never be able to tell us. Religion tells us, but we have no way to verify if religion is true. Personally, I kinda like the mystery.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

nowhere in the koran does it say killing innocents is ok

What about infidels?

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

I call complete and utter bullshit.

for every pedophile priest, there will be 10,000 quietly busting their guts out for their parishioners. I grew up catholic and went to a school run by monks. Of the roughly 15-20 priests and monks I've known: 2 were raging alcoholics, 3 would ogle teenage boys uncomfortably (at least one of those acted on the urge), and 2 were screwing parishioners. I've known at least 3 to skim from the collection plate, one of which did it to support his mistress. So, by my count the ped to gut-buster ratio has an upper bound of 1:19, which is a pretty far cry from 1:10,000. Now I know 15-20 is a little small statistically, but I have to make do with what I have.

Most church members I know give a massive amount of cash and time for the poor. May I humbly suggest that they do it not so much for the poor as for impressing each other (and you).

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

May I humbly suggest that they actually give to the church, which spends a lot of money running the church, paying the priests, tithing to Rome, etc.

If you want to give the poor money, keep the church out of it. Give it to someone more effective.

Re:Two Baskets

[Hooya]

> Pregnancy? God did it.

Nope. I did it. Or at least, that's what the wife is telling me.

Re:Two Baskets

[david_thornley]

A scientific study of ethics or morality would put it in the category of social sciences or the study of human related activity and require a more statistical based adherence to the scientific method.

No, that would be a scientific study of people's beliefs of ethics or morality, or what people actually do, or something like that. Sometimes I use an abbreviated version of the scientific method to figure out what people really believe, by making hypotheses and asking questions designed to have different answers for different possible belief systems.

Simply based on the ephemeral nature of ethics and morality one's observation cannot be said to be more true than another's

Wrong. I say that my observations are more true than yours, Scientifically, then, you're wrong. In reality, I've been involved in ethical and moral discussions that have resulted in people changing their minds about some things, usually minor, and therefore ethics and morality are not strictly matters of personal preference.

Using god and dogma to define ethics and morality is a fools way out to define how social conventions came to be and is prone to abuse by those in power to interpret dogma.

Social conventions are not the same as ethics and morality, although there are relations between the two. I do agree with you about dogma. One of my personal beliefs is that God intended people to do their own thinking. I also believe that anybody who believes in a God who demands belief in odd things for no reason at all, and punishes people for not thinking "correctly", would be spiritually better off going out and getting drunk and having pleasant encounters with one or more members of the appropriate sex.

One thing my God doesn't let me do is take religious statements as dogma, instead of observations of varying objectivity and truthfulness, or reasoning that may or may not be valid. Anything your God doesn't let you do?

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have got to be kidding. Who to give it to ?

Unicef - we give money to dictators, but only if they abuse children (really helping you know)
UN human rights organisations - directed by 90% dictators that have signed the declaration of cairo of human rights (saying they won't EVER respect human rights) - really helping

Human rights come from the church, were built up by the church, and all really helping organisations around it basically ARE the church (the red cross for example). So who do you give it to ?

Of course these organisations are funded by your taxes, you see they weren't content with voluntary donations, they prefer money that's been forcibly taken from infidels ("jizya" is something you might want to google for)

Re:Two Baskets

[cowbutt]

Show me that there's a purpose of things, then we can ask "Why?" If we discover that there must be a purpose, then science will also conceivably be able to find what that purpose is.

[...]

They are all nonsensical questions that may not have answers, because the things in the question don't exist in the first place.

Maybe there is a purpose to things, maybe there isn't. Someone with a firmer spiritual belief than I will be utterly convinced there's a purpose, but it won't be able to be explained by science, as science is only a useful tool for examining that which exists in our physical universe, and their purpose will almost certainly exist outside of it.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of good is done in the name of religion. In 2006 the Southern Baptist Convention members gave over $150,000,000 for international missions. Most of these missions meet a physical or social need of the target people group. In other words this money goes towards orphanages, medical clinics, schools, etc.

Some of these missionaries risk their lives to help others. There are covert missions taking place that could be taken out of the pages of a spy novel.

The SBC is "one of the closest key partners" of the American Red Cross. After Katrina they provided over 8,000,000 meals.

I tout the SBC only because I am most familiar with it. I'm sure there are other religious organizations "bringing [something] good" to the world.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.

The traffic is all one way. It doesn't work that way.

The baskets are not labeled 'Science' and 'God'. They are 'Answered' and 'Unanswered'.

And although we have learned a lot in the last 100 years, but the list of unanswered questions is actually much longer than it used to be.

The miracle of science is that every time we succeed in moving one item from 'Unanswered' to 'Answered', many new Unanswered items spring up to take its place. God has a sense of humor.

Re: Two Baskets

[pinkocommie]

It's not that it negates the existence of god. As others have pointed out there is no empirical way to prove that either ways. The thing it does do is peel the veneer of reality that most religions try to hide behind. One after the other it has disproven the myths presented by various religions (From Creation Myths to Morality n so on). I used to be Muslim but as I read up on both Religion and Science I've come to the conclusion that no one and especially those that espouse to know in particular have any idea whether there's a god.
In summation science has denuded most if not all religions, while the god hypothesis in and of itself is too abstract to come under direct scientific scrutiny

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Your basket analogy is deeply flawed. It can be ruined entirely by the statement that science is simply an explanation of how God does what God does. Whether or not you believe in God, this is a simple and rational explanation for the combination of science and God.

Your reasoning is deeply flawed. The explanation that science is how God does what He does is neither simple nor rational, since you've just introduced a concept, God, that is anything but simple and for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

You've given a pseudo-explanation. It 'looks' like an explanation, since it has the structural form of an explanation, but it ultimately explains nothing whatsoever. All it does is illustrate that you sincerely wish to rescue a role for your God by trying to associate Him with science in some way.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

To those who truly believe in god, everything is still in the God basket. To them, the science basket is actually inside the god basket. Just because man can explain something through science, does not mean that god did not still do it.

You can be a reasonable person and a scientist and still believe in god, it just requires a more refined definition of god. God created the universe, therefore he set in motion all the physical laws that cause the universe to function. Think about it: If you were god, why would you waste your time inefficiently (well, I guess inefficient might not be the right word if you had infinite energy, but anyway) personally interfering with the everyday function of the universe? Wouldn't you just set in motion a universe that "just works", and only intervene when you specifically felt the need to break the universal laws?

Anyway, I don't really believe in god, but I don't think it's ignorant or backwards to believe in god specifically. I also don't think that god and science need to specifically be separated into baskets with no overlap. Obviously I'm not saying god should be seen as the solution to a question (i.e. never "god did it") but rather that once we explain something with physical laws, if there was a creator god, he would have set those laws in motion at the beginning of the universe. If there is an all powerful god being, he could likely break those laws at any time.

Re: Two Baskets

[jrob323]

"As it is, I think there is better evidence in the direction of God than there is in the direction of not God."

What is this evidence? What's in your God basket?

It's not that the fullness of the science basket 'disproves' God, more like the emptiness of the God basket means less evidence FOR God.

Look at it this way: if I say there's a pink unicorn in my garage and you go investigate, you would come back and report that you didn't find a trace of a unicorn. I would say you didn't see it because it's invisible, so you haven't disproved anything. You may have peeled a layer off the onion, but there's still a bright pink unicorn at the middle of that sucker.

You see why the 'believe until disproven' policy just leads to pointless arguments? I can back away as fast as you push, and even feel proud of my unwavering faith in the face of your demands for physical evidence (don't you know unicorns are magical?). When you turn your back, I can push a vase off the table and say the unicorn did it. You would say you saw me do it out of the corner of your eye. I would say yes, but the unicorn TOLD me to do it, you onion peeler!

Re:Two Baskets

[mdwh2]

Someone with a firmer spiritual belief than I will be utterly convinced there's a purpose, but it won't be able to be explained by science, as science is only a useful tool for examining that which exists in our physical universe, and their purpose will almost certainly exist outside of it.

This is like me claiming that "wibblesplat" exists, and then criticising science for not being to know its shape. If it exists, it can be analysed scientifically - I'm not sure what you mean by "outside" our physical Universe - the Universe is everything that physically exists (as opposed to things like "ideas"), by definition.

Yes, I agree that science is "only" a useful tool for examining things that actually exist, and it no good trying to guess things that are made up and are just concepts inside people's heads.

Re: Two Baskets

[himi]

You're kind of missing the point of the basket analogy . . . in fact, you're actually /reinforcing/ the analogy. The point of it was that science /has/ peeled away the onion, continually and inexorablyy. /Nothing/ has gone the other way. To destroy the analogy, you need to present some valid reason why science might /stop/ being able to peel away at the onion.

Your second point, the question of why having a scientific explanation should preclude God doing it, is where the question of faith/belief/whatever comes in. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you shouldn't be surprised (or offended) if someone thinks you're a little odd for believing that God caused some phenomenon, even though there's a good scientific explanation for it. Why would you invoke God in such a circumstance? Why would it be /necessary/? The only possible reason for invoking God is to justify your belief.

Science has proven to be a vastly powerful tool for explaining the universe, and there hasn't been any evidence presented to suggest that there are any phenomena it /can't/ explain. Given that, why is there any need for God?

himi

Re: Two Baskets

[himi]

What's the point of invoking God if there's a good scientific explanation for some phenomenon? What does it bring to a discussion? Why would it be necessary?

You're free to believe whatever you want, but invoking God /as well as/ a scientific explanation seems a little pointless to me (and a lot of other people).

himi

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine 2 bukkits
1 is ma bukkit
u kin not haz ma bukkit
o noez! who took ma bukkit?

I'm sorry - what were we talking about?

Re: Two Baskets

[njh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

Re:Two Baskets

[eraserewind]

Science is related to everything. It's not just a subject in school or a career choice. It's the process by which we understand reality. If any gods are unrelated to it, they are unrelated to reality (and those of us in the reality based community).

Re:Two Baskets

[cowbutt]

I'm not sure what you mean by "outside" our physical Universe - the Universe is everything that physically exists (as opposed to things like "ideas"), by definition.

So, to ask physics/cosmology-oriented question; if parallel universes as postulated by Everett et al actually exist, are they part of our universe, or outside our universe? How can our understanding of physics investigate the physics of another universe in which we can make no observations, and whose physical constants may well differ from that of our own?

Now, if you accept that parallel universes may possibly exist, and our science may not be able to investigate them, is it really that much of a stretch to accept that some form of powerful entity may possibly exist outside our physical universe (which is the logical conclusion of following the common attributes of 'god' as defined by most world religions and believers), albeit with no guarantee of it being a personal or especially "loving" God as defined by the Abrahamic religions.

Re:Two Baskets

[dscruggs]

Again, what have you done for the poor in the last year?

I'm an atheist. I haven't believed in God or gone to church for over twenty years. And I volunteer at a center to help the mentally ill. Many of these people are homeless, all of them are poor, and most are just one "episode" away from being committed.

Most church members I know give a massive amount of cash and time for the poor.

Good for them, but do they need an ancient, terribly sourced, gay-hating, slavery-loving, wildly self-contradicting book to tell them to do that?

Some of the most effective poverty-relief organizations in the Middle East are run by US-designated terrorist organizations like Hamas. What is it Christians say? "Hate the sin and love the sinner." In this case I'm quite willing to applaud them for helping the poor, but I hate them for teaching that the world is run by magic (and especially that the Big Magician in the sky tells them to commit suicide).

I don't think Christian fundamentalism is anywhere near as noxious as Islamic radicalism, but it's nonetheless a cultural disease.

Re:Two Baskets

[Marcion]

Stalin and Hitler are the most high profile atheists, does that mean all atheists are mad authoritarian killers, of course not, as you have pointed out, you do some important things for humanity.

Christian fundamentalism does not equal Christianity. Indeed outside the US, I doubt would would find much of it of all, the majority of Christians are not fundamentalists. Of course the fundamentalists do solicit and get most of the press, but that is just how the media works.

Good for them, but do they need an ancient, terribly sourced, gay-hating, slavery-loving, wildly self-contradicting book to tell them to do that?

Again, it is the interpretation that some people choose to put on it, rather than the book itself.

I don't think Christian fundamentalism is anywhere near as noxious as Islamic radicalism, but it's nonetheless a cultural disease.

I agree 100%.

Re:Two Baskets

[ShakaUVM]

Uh, the God of the Gaps has never really been the appeal or point of religion, except in explaining things that science can't explain, like the meaning of life, etc. It answers rather more important questions like "What is right?"

Re:Two Baskets

[Profound]

Many religions people are angriest at heretics, not unbelievers.

It's not about believing in anything, it's about believing in exactly the same thing they do. Minor technical points and all.

Re: Two Baskets

[ultranova]

You forgot to explain what's wrong with the basket metaphor.

It assumes that you can only have one basket at the time. However, pretty much any religious person takes stuff from the science basket as well; cars, electricity, printed books...

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is giving the homeless meals and a place to stay? In my town it is the church. The government won't feed or home anyone who cannot pass random drug tests, which is basically all the homeless in the west. (At least here in Europe, if you are not on drugs and have half a brain then you can easily earn enough to eat at least). That's great. Your church is enabling drug dependence. I'm with the government on this one. I see no reason why it is "good" to help those intent on screwing up their own lives.

Re:Two Baskets

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity those who think that they are exclusively the accidental byproducts of prehistoric slimepool chemistry. Can such be defined as a 'human being' under California law?

Re:Sellouts

[h4rm0ny]

Its irrational to believe in something there is no proof of.

Millions of people claim to have felt a connection to a higher being / existence. It is irrational to dismiss evidence because it does not fit your paradigm.

Re:Sellouts

[gatzke]

From what I have read about some of the recent thoughts in Physics, a lot of that new theory cannot be tested with a scientific method either...

Not requires, allowes

[yariv]

The problem some religious people have with Evolution is that it allows disbelief in god. Without Evolution, you need the watchmaker, and this is one of the best arguments for the existence of a creator. Logically, there is not much different between the spontaneous creation of simple and complex mechanisms (if its creation, there is a great difference when we're talking about evolving mechanisms), but in the human mind there is a great difference. Many might accept the Big Bang with no creator, only few would accept spontaneous creation of earth as it is now. So, although Evolution "does not require abandoning belief in God" it allows it, and this is bad enough for those who choose religious dogma over scientific discoveries.

Re:Not requires, allowes

[wkitchen]

So, although Evolution "does not require abandoning belief in God" it allows it, and this is bad enough for those who choose religious dogma over scientific discoveries.

That's it exactly. Science is seen as threatening because it removes what is probably the single strongest motivation towards religious belief. The desire for an answer to the questions of how and why we and everything around us came to be. Science provides answers to the "how" (not all of it, but more and more all the time), and opens the possibility that there isn't a "why" at all. With a naturalistic process, events need causes, but do not require a purpose.

For those for whom faith is a way of life, the findings of science will not dissuade them from their belief in God. But for those who approach life more rationally, it makes a big difference. And to that extent, science is a threat to religion. 18th century freethinkers and modern freethinkers are philosophically similar, but with one really glaring difference. 18th century freethinkers were mostly deists. Modern freethinkers are mostly atheists. This change is wrought by evolution and cosmology. And I consider it a good thing.

Re:Not requires, allowes

[edunbar93]

I'm an Atheist, but I know that belief in a watchmaker can coexist with evolution. It just requires an immortal watchmaker with infinite patience. Technically, this is what intelligent design says, but what if you were to create a universe with rules for chemistry, physics, and mathematics that would inevitably lead to the creation of life without further intervention? All you would have to do is set it up and watch it happen like an enormous Rube Goldberg device. And life would spring up everywhere throughout the universe too.

I guess instead of a watchmaker, this theory is more like a farmer.

Re:Not requires, allowes

[cretog8]

It's possible to believe in religion/gods and evolution without any conflict. But that depends on how you define your religion and how you define evolution. The most obvious ways of defining both are essentially incompatible.

If you consider evolution as evolution by natural selection, you have to admit that you're explicitly disallowing for a creator god. If you claim that there's been the hand of a god guiding evolution in order to get particular kinds of creatures, then that's not natural selection, and it really makes the whole understanding of evolution something different.

This doesn't rule out any kind of religion, but it does rule out lots. The only way to simultaneously hold belief in creator gods and evolution by natural selection is to do something we've evolved nicely to do--which is to simultaneously believe contrary ideas.

Re:Not requires, allowes

[snapdragonflie]

In other words, the religious people want to be able to have complete control over other people's beliefs. So what else is new. Sounds like a personal problem.

Science and God

[owlstead]

I'm pretty tolerant against people with any kind of religion, mostly because it is the only way to get along. But trying to reconcile science and religion? They are both trying to describe how the world works, from two opposite sides. All the important things that religious persons believe in are completely outside the laws of nature. Saying that they can go together because one is about belief and the other about reason? These concepts are not exclusive if you try and describe the same thing.

Now I might be flagged as some kind of extremist. If that's true, it's because I don't want to "belief" as some people want me to. I try and describe things in a logical matter. Fortunately you can be a extremist atheist without having to harm people. Especially if you see from history that polarization is sure not to work.

Re:Science and God

[torkelo]

I have a hard time understanding how people can say that religion and science do not conflict. I mean a lot of the statements made by religious people are in flat contradiction to what science has discovered. One of the mayor things that is still under heavy research is the development of consciousness, which is the one of the very few gaps that religious people point to when motivating their belief in an after life. But if history has told us anything about gaps in our knowledge is that it inevitable going to be filled. And I have a hard time understanding how some people reconcile evolution and Christianity, where some say something like "well I believe that about 6000 years ago God inserted an immortal soul in two homo sapiens and that was Adam and Eve".

Re:Science and God

[Cheesey]

Ah, but the science/creationist conflict is all the minds of the creationists. It's based on misinformation that they have originated. They believe that science is about truth, when in fact it is about truth given the assumption of materialism. Science can't reason about supernatural things: how do you measure them, theorise about their operation, or perform experiments on them? Here is a quote from an Scott Todd:

'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.'

This quote is triumphantly displayed by creationists as evidence of the anti-creationist bias of the scientific establishment. However, it only reveals a misunderstanding of the scientific method. They imagine that science will accommodate everything that they believe is true, but even if creationism is true, science cannot include it because it assumes a supernatural cause:

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

(Source.) So that is a good answer to the creationists - even if your claims about the creator God are true, they still aren't science! And conversely even if the theory of evolution is wrong, it still is science because it's the best materialistic explanation for the world we see.

Re:Science and God

[bechthros]

"I mean a lot of the statements made by religious people"

faith has nothing to do with people. i'm sure i could go back through history and find plenty of stupid statements made by great scientists (like "i think maybe the whole world will need maybe five computers.")

but to me, that doesn't invalidate science. likewise, i don't find that stupid statements made by people of faith invalidate faith itself.

if you listen too much to what other people say you'll never figure anything out for yourself, in science or in spirituality.

Re:Science and God

[stewbacca]

I'm pretty tolerant against people with any kind of religion

Against is a pretty ironic choice of preposition. If you were tolerant "towards" people of religion, your entire post would take on a more earnest tone ;-)

Re:Science and God

[tgibbs]

I'm pretty tolerant against people with any kind of religion, mostly because it is the only way to get along. But trying to reconcile science and religion? They are both trying to describe how the world works, from two opposite sides.

Not necessarily. People turn to religion for many reasons, and explanation of how the world works is only one of them, and usually not the most important. Many scientists are religious, but they look to religion for meaning, not for descriptions of how the world works. The book expresses this quite clearly:

Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons. But many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings

Re:Science and God

[JudgeSlash]

Religion never tries to describe how the world works. Whatever fairies you have at the bottom of your garden, telling you how the world should be, or why the world should be, have no relation as to what the garden is actually doing and how to describe it. You or I can manufacture gods to fill the gaps or fill the pews to the end of our days, but it has the same relevance as fiction does to an encyclopedia.

Been done before....

[Anonymous Coward]

See here

Re:Sellouts

[epine]

The whole point of God is that it is rational to be irrational. The magic junction box is known as faith. It's a black rectangle with dimensions 1x4x9 that can't be scratched by a laser or any other known tool. If sufficiently perplexed, it will heat up enough to fry your latkes. Does not work as a contraceptive, and might result in bleeding.

As for belief in faith, any day now I'm expecting to see it show up on an advanced fMRI scan, right beside Husband Hill.

Re:Sellouts

[Cheesey]

If you believe in science AND god then your a bloody hypocrite because the scientific method can never be used on god.

No! That's what some creationists say, but it is a fallacy. It is well known that science makes the materialistic assumption that everything has a natural cause, and this obviously excludes supernatural things such as God. However, that doesn't mean that scientists must believe in ontological materialism in order to be scientists. They just need to understand it. It is perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith, and there is a long list of scientists who have done so, including the "father of physics" Isaac Newton.

The limits of science

[Per Abrahamsen]

Public education *should* include the limitation of science. Too many lay people see scientists as modern priests, and take our models as gospel. It is important to realize that unlike fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts, scientific laws and theories are mutable (they change whenever conflicting observations are made) and limited in scope (they are only really trustworthy within the scope of the measurements they are based on).

Much of the creationist/ID nonsense is due to people not understanding how science should be hold to different standards than religious texts. "The theory of Evolution" is very much different today than what Darwin proposed. This would have been a weakness in a religion, but is a strength for a scientific theory.

Re:The limits of science

[Rogerborg]

Public education *should* include the limitation of science

True, but it has absolutely no relevance to cult beliefs. The solution to limited scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.

Re:The limits of science

[smussman]

Public education *should* include the limitation of science

True, but it has absolutely no relevance to cult beliefs. The solution to limited scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.

Whether it's the astronomical amount of knowledge out there (which seems only to grow as we learn more) or the imperfect instruments we use, scientific knowledge will always be limited.
The solution is neither to try to make scientific knowledge larger, nor a god of the gaps, but an understanding of science that accepts its inherent limitations.
I applaud the authors of this book.

Re:The limits of science

[bwalling]

The solution to limited scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.

What's with this "god of the gaps" crap still sticking around? Science and God are unrelated. Neither is a threat to the other. If God exists, then science is simply a way of observing and explaining what God has done. So what? Why does either side so vehemently care? Because they're being so narrow minded to think that both are not possible. It amazes me that the science side sees themselves as so enlightened as to not need the crutch of religion, yet not enlightened enough to see that science and God are not related to each other.

Re:The limits of science

[Admiral Ag]

The problem with the "public should be taught the limitations of science" model is that the limitations of science should be seen as the limitations of human knowledge.

There are a number of what I consider to be mistakes in the current debate. The first is to identify scientific truth with the kind of absolutist claims that are made by religion. Scientific truth is a much more humble concept. The second mistake is when people who understand the two are different, nevertheless believe that the religious conception of truth is viable. It isn't. We just need to face up to the fact that we appear to be epistemically limited creatures.

Justification by evidence isn't going to work, because science will just eat it up. Justification by faith is an oxymoron. The only sorts of proofs left are metaphysical arguments, and even if they work, they never result in the kind of god that anyone other than a Deist would want to believe in.

I don't have a moral problem with people believing in God. But that doesn't mean that their beliefs should not be challenged in public, and that they should not be called on to defend them (and likewise for the opposition). That's pretty much what we do on other topics. Someone makes a claim and people ask for reasons why we should believe it. It beats fighting about it. There are many reasons we should debate religion, but the best one is probably because we want to know whether its claims are true or not. That's really the value that underpins most of science.

The recent prominence of people like Dawkins is evidence that the prejudice against the critical discussion of religion in public is on the wane. That's a good thing. We also have public places where this sort of thing is debated formally: they are called philosophy classes.

Re:The limits of science

[billcopc]

Public education should include the words "I don't know", such as the following example sentences:

"I'm a pill-popping half-breed, so I don't know exactly where the human race came from millions of years ago. Now let's do some grammar!"

or "I eat quiche, so I don't know exactly who/what god is or which god is better than the other ones. Now let's talk about the Roman empire!"

Kids don't need their class teachers to shove even more lies down their throats. That's what parents are for!

Re:The limits of science

[AlXtreme]

Public education *should* include the limitation of science.

But it does! Newton did okay with his three laws, however Einstein did better. Any self-respecting high-school teacher mentions that so-called laws in science have changed dramatically over the last 2000 years. Gravity or Evolution, science has always been changing due to new insights and indeed that's the beauty of it all.

Newton himself prescribed his laws to the design of God, just as Darwin was a theist. There is no need to reconcile religion and science, as religion is something everyone should decide for himself. Science however is always the closest one can come to fact at any given time, no matter what the clergy would have you think.

Re:The limits of science

[trinomial]

Per Abrahamsen says "Public education *should* include the limitation of science".

... and what is the limitation of science?

Re:The limits of science

[kanweg]

""The theory of Evolution" is very much different today than what Darwin proposed."

Very different in the same sense as that Newton's laws are very different from what Einstein came up with. Depending on your point of view Einstein's theory is radically different, or - for all practical purposes and effects on daily life - there is hardly any difference between them. Darwin was spot on, but yes, you can debate about the size of the spot.

Physicists or scientists love to say things like "a breakthrough", "all textbooks have to be rewritten", whereas in fact it is only 5 digits after the decimal point we're talking about

Bert

Re:The limits of science

[nanoakron]

*Beep* Wrong!

The "Theory of evolution" is no different today than when Darwin first proposed it - survival of the fittest through means of natural selection.

We've simply added to it and explained things in terms of modern genetic/behavioural knowledge.

Re:The limits of science

[Trevin]

... unlike fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts, scientific laws and theories are mutable (they change whenever conflicting observations are made) and limited in scope (they are only really trustworthy within the scope of the measurements they are based on).

You think that doesn't apply to religion as well? You need to start looking outside of your own little religious faith, at the longer and larger world history. There is a huge difference between the religions of ancient Egypt and modern Muslim, between ancient Greek and Roman gods and today's Christianity. Those aren't simply refinements like science makes, but complete rewrites. Even if you look just at the Christian religions, the religious texts themselves have changed between the Hebrew Bible, the old Catholic canon of the synod of Carthage of 397, the "King James" version of 1611, and various protestant versions of modern times. The large number of Christian denominations (and even Muslim and a few Jewish denominations) shows that even "fundamentalist" interpretations can't always agree.

In science, on the other hand, laws and theories don't simply change; they are refined. And before any new theory is accepted, it has to be proven by experimental evidence which is accepted through peer review -- in other words, all scientists everywhere can verify and agree with it (with the proviso of course that it is subject to further refinement).

Re:The limits of science

[DeVilla]

There are no gaps. It's dark matter all the way down.

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

The problem with the "public should be taught the limitations of science" model is that the limitations of science should be seen as the limitations of human knowledge.

Nonsense. Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge and not all means of discovering knowledge are scientific. This proves the point really.

Justification by evidence isn't going to work, because science will just eat it up.

Not all evidence is scientific. Are you familiar with other fields of human knowledge such as history?

Justification by faith is an oxymoron.

That's a rather glib comment that flies in the face of thousands of years of wise, intelligent and educated people advocating just such a belief and their opponents disagreeing, but not calling it an oxymoron.

Re:The limits of science

[cpricejones]

The PNAS editors comment upon their decisions in a 2-page editorial in the current issue of PNAS. They large agree with the parent posts as far as I can see.

It can be found here (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0711608105v1) but a subscription is required.

On another note ... hopefully with the requirement that NIH-funded research must allow for publically accessible articles, even smaller non-funded editorials like this one will be open access.

Re:The limits of science

[pauljlucas]

"The theory of Evolution" is very much different today than what Darwin proposed.

That's where so many people get this wrong. Evolution is a fact; natural selection is but one theory to explain the fact of evolution. This is analogous to gravity. Gravity is a fact. Mechanics was Newton's theory of gravity; it has since been replaced by Einstein's General Relativity, but at no time did gravity stop being a fact.

re:the limits of science

[ed.han]

a lot of ID apologetics that i keep seeing appears to key off of conflating the scientific definition of theory with the considerably less rigorous definition that word has in common usage, for that matter.

ed

Re:The limits of science

[oil]

Our knowledge is an evolving thing. True, we don't know everything right now but scientific methods are what will allow us to discover and learn more. Religion is a short-circuit of thought. Religion encourages us not to think, indeed to "know", without thinking. Should this be taught in schools? Absolutely not. What should be taught in schools is how to think, not what some think the answer is. If we do that, math books would only have odd-numbered questions and no explanation of how to get to the answers in the back of the book. Anyone asking how to come up with the answers would just be told that mathematics works in mysterious ways, have faith in the answer.

Re:The limits of science

[crosson]

We can't tell them about the limitations of science, since they are generally ignorant in their deductions and they will draw the wrong conclusion: they aren't ready for the truth. It's rather like the time Bertrand Russel said he was an agnostic at heart, but that the public would get the wrong idea and so he told them he was an atheist, since he was agnostic in the same sense that he would not past judgment on whether we appeared on earth 5 minutes ago with our memories intact.

Re:The limits of science

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Public education *should* include the limitation of science.

Which is?

Re:The limits of science

[Eli Gottlieb]

I don't have a moral problem with people believing in God. But that doesn't mean that their beliefs should not be challenged in public, and that they should not be called on to defend them (and likewise for the opposition). That's pretty much what we do on other topics. No, it isn't. We don't have public debates on most private matters. For example, I've never been called to explain to the public my preference for dark chocolate over milk chocolate. Rather than make religion a public matter, how about we keep it a private one? I don't have to explain why I believe in God, and in exchange little kids in science classes in public schools will never hear the words "Breishit bara Elokim et ha'shamayim v'et ha'aretz."

Re:The limits of science

[TubeSteak]

Not all evidence is scientific. Are you familiar with other fields of human knowledge such as history? Historians use their own form of the scientific method to evaluate the quality and authenticity of their source material AKA evidence.

Historians are given a lot more wiggle room than other types of scientists, but that's due to the limitations of their evidence, not because their methods are unscientific.

Re:The limits of science

[uglyduckling]

I'll bite. I know that my wife loves me. It's a matter of fact. Prove that scientifically.

(yes, I'm a Slashdot member, how can I have a wife let alone a girlfriend blah blah blah).

Re:The limits of science

[Anonymous Coward]

People already investigate love (as stated subjectively) and its objective effects on brain chemistry, activation, and levels of neurotransmitters and other hormones within the body.

There's extensive literature available in neuroscience journals.

Proving your wife's love to the current standard of our model of love as a neurological phenomenon would not be difficult :)
(One example method: we could look at suppression of areas of the brain involved in critical thinking which are displayed in cases where people think of family and friends compared to strangers).

This may still not meet your level of proof, but I can guarantee you'd be surprised by the level of scientific understanding of emotions and their neurological underpinnings.

Re:The limits of science

[vell0cet]

Actually, the belief that evolution is a FACT is incorrect. No scientific theory is fact. But a scientific theory is actually BETTER than fact. Scientific theories are UPHELD and SUPPORTED by all known observable phenomena. It gives us a basis to determine natural outcomes. IF an individual fact contradicts a theory (say, evolution) it usually means one of two things. 1) either we haven't looked deep enough into the phenomena to see how is actually adheres to the theory (like ID's bacterial flagellum argument), or 2) the theory itself is incorrect and requires refinement in its definitions (this RARELY happens). The point is that the THEORY of evolution is in better than having facts. It was not fact that a missing link was found between fish and four legged creatures, but evolution predicted it. And then it became fact. It was a fact (according to some) that the bacterial flagellum was "irreducibly complex" and did not fit into evolution. Further examination of the structure revealed that not only did it not go against evolution, but firmly supported it. Scientific theory is BETTER than fact. If you use the words UPHELD and SUPPORTED instead of FACT, it is a lot more difficult to argue against evolution. I would like to point out that I am NOT an atheist. I do not subscribe to the Judeo-christian monotheistic belief, but I do believe in something. There seem to be a lot of scientific fanaticism on slashdot. The bible and other such religion texts are purely literature than man created to describe God (or what they call god) and has very little relevance to the actual thing itself.

Re:The limits of science

[Dirtside]

That's a rather glib comment that flies in the face of thousands of years of wise, intelligent and educated people advocating just such a belief and their opponents disagreeing, but not calling it an oxymoron.

Just because something has been done for thousands of years does not mean it's a correct or useful thing to do. And he's right: justification by faith means justification without evidence, which is literally a contradiction in terms. Justification means providing evidence to support the rightness of something, and with no evidence, you have no justification.

Colloquially, any nonsense can be used as a justification for something, but that doesn't mean it's a valid justification.

Re:The limits of science

[jnana]

Evolution is not a fact. The 'facts' are the evidence we have, consisting of fossil records, genetic and morphological similarities and differences between organisms, the results of experiments that have been performed, and so forth.

Evolution is an explanation of why we observe the facts that we do, and natural selection is part of the most plausible and current best theory of evolution.

Re:The limits of science

[Citizen of Earth]

That's a rather glib comment that flies in the face of thousands of years of wise, intelligent and educated people advocating just such a belief and their opponents disagreeing, but not calling it an oxymoron.

I believe you are wrong; therefore, you are wrong. Hey, you're right—justification by faith does work! Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster gives me comfort; therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true in absolute reality. Cool. What a powerful weapon!

Re:The limits of science

[Citizen of Earth]

Wikipedia covers evolution fact and theory in much more detail.

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

Historians use their own form of the scientific method to evaluate the quality and authenticity of their source material AKA evidence.

No, they don't. The scientific method involves reproducing the results of experiments, making theories and testing them by performing experiments. You can't go back and rerun the Gallic Wars to find out more about Julius Caesar and there's a much different kind of interpretation involved. Unless you make the definition of science and the scientific so wide as to be meaningless, you can't say that history is scientific. Some aspects of historical research make use of science, but it is a humanity, not a science. Do you think that English Literature uses the scientific method?

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

Just because something has been done for thousands of years does not mean it's a correct or useful thing to do.

No, but if plenty of smart people have believed it for thousands of years, it's rather glib and arrogant to assume that you can deal with all the issues and be irrefutably correct with a one sentence statement.

And he's right: justification by faith means justification without evidence, which is literally a contradiction in terms.

You clearly don't know much about Christianity. Justification by faith is the Christian doctrine which says that people made right before God on the basis of faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross rather than the basis of their own meritorious actions.

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

As I said in another post: You clearly don't know much about Christianity. Justification by faith is the Christian doctrine which says that people made right before God on the basis of faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross rather than the basis of their own meritorious actions.

Before you make snarky comments, learn the meaning of the phrases you're commenting on, otherwise you across as a glib, uneducated fool.

Re:The limits of science

[pauljlucas]

Actually, the belief that evolution is a FACT is incorrect.

Actually, you're wrong.

Re:The limits of science

[Peter0322]

The best science is to throw out the ridiculous theory of evolution. Anyone the knows science, knows that evolution is the philosophy of the leading scientists who are, unlike the rest of the public, overwhelmingly atheist. Evolution can't explain the start of life, much too complex, the Cambrian explosion, much to fast; the creation of man; evolutionary tree changes every month. Evolution is not science because it can't be falsified. There is one theory only. The theory of the atheist scientists.

Re:The limits of science

[himi]

So palaeontology isn't a science? They don't exactly get to test their hypotheses by performing experiments. Likewise /many/ areas of science.

History as a discipline might not use the formal scientific method, but it's not that different to scientific disciplines like palaeontology. Frequently lacking in rigour, but then that's almost inevitable in something as political as history.

himi

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

Well if you're going to start using a wide definition of science like that, then we can call theology a science, but won't be using the word in the same sense as the original article. Actually, theology used to be known as the queen of the sciences, so by all means, bring back the old definitions.

Re:The limits of science

[vell0cet]

Did you actually read the rest of what I wrote?

Re:The limits of science

[Descalzo]

This reminds me of that book The Giver by Lois Lowry.

Jonas asks his father, "Do you love me?"
His father laughs at him and gives him a lecture on precision of language, and how Jonas probably meant "Do you care for me?" or something similar.

Re:The limits of science

[himi]

When theology looks to explain observable phenomena (be they fossils or historical events) then you'd be able to justify a claim that it was a science. Until then, it's at best an abstract philosophical discipline, the same as things like ethics, though with rather less practical applications.

Are you trying to claim that palaeontology /isn't/ a scientific discipline? Or that the study of history is fundamentally different? Either of those claims would need significant support before you could really justify them.

himi

Re:The limits of science

[Anonymous Coward]

Science and Religion both tell a pretty good story...which is why literature trumps both ;)

Re:The limits of science

[sasami]

Thank you, sir, for putting this discussion on the right track. The central issue is epistemology -- or, rather, ignorance of epistemology, particularly when this topic arises on certain geek news sites. However, I think we'll have to respectfully disagree on a few points. Perhaps you'd prefer a more technical treatment, but let's start simple for the benefit of the readers.

the limitations of science should be seen as the limitations of human knowledge.

No offense intended, but the prevalence of this fallacy makes it one of my pet peeves.

First, and most importantly, this position is inherently false because it is self-refuting. It is a serious and far-reaching claim, requiring justification. However, the claim itself falls outside the limitations of science. It cannot meet its own standard of justification. To state that "Only scientific claims are knowable" is equivalent to stating, "Only ten-word sentences are true."

At worst, the claim proves its own falsehood. At best, it suggests its own unknowability. So, in the best case, you should neither expect anyone to believe you, nor complain when they don't. :-)

This idea is a form of positivism. Positivism enjoyed remarkable popularity for an remarkably short span in the early 20th century. Many hailed positivism as the end of religion, just before it died a rapid death at its own hands... though not before the scientific community had adopted it as -- oops! -- unquestioned dogma. It is a myth, perpetuated from generation to generation by those who don't know better. (Hey, that sounds a lot like Dawkins! Fancy that.)

Second, this position is also incidentally false. One could hold that a rational person shouldn't accept any non-scientific claim, even if that claim somehow happens to be correct. But no one actually does this. There are plenty of propositions that most of us accept, though they lie outside the limitations of science. The clearest example is the claim that the universe exists. Is that silly? Let me rephrase: the claim that the universe, rather than the Matrix, exists. By definition, this question can never be addressed scientifically. But that doesn't prevent it from being true, and one is hardly considered irrational or unscientific for believing in a real universe.

Other examples abound, including logic, ethics, human rights, and (of course) the principles of science itself. You are free to claim that we can't know if science works, but then you can hardly make the recommendation that you are making.

We just need to face up to the fact that we appear to be epistemically limited creatures.

It is quite clear that we have epistemic limitations. But it is also quite clear that those limits aren't quite as narrow as you propose. Any epistemology that's too limited will probably be self-refuting.

Even if it's possible to doubt some of the things I've mentioned, like an objective physical world, (1) there is no obligation to do so, and (2) no one actually does so, including full-fledged skeptics (as Hume himself admits). In a many cases, perhaps most cases, doubting has no epistemic superiority over not doubting. This leads philosopher Dallas Willard to quip, "You can't just doubt your beliefs and believe your doubts. Sometimes you have to doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."

But it is the prevailing intellectual fashion to doubt. This is really too bad, because unjustified doubt is no more intelligent than unjustified belief, a.k.a. gullibility. And it is no more accurate.

It seems to me that I could just as well suggest, "We just need to face up to the fact that it is sometimes rational to accept unprovable truths." Even if, say, the principles of science don't possess epistemic certainty, they are suffici

Re:The limits of science

[Dirtside]

No, but if plenty of smart people have believed it for thousands of years, it's rather glib and arrogant to assume that you can deal with all the issues and be irrefutably correct with a one sentence statement.

He may be glib and arrogant, but I don't hear you saying he's wrong. (Don't bother; he's right.)

Justification by faith is the Christian doctrine which says...

Ah, I didn't know there was a specific Christian connotation to the phrase "justification by faith". But now I do. And it's still silly nonsense, no matter how many wise men have believed it for however long. Sorry. :)

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

Callin someone glib is generally an indication that you think they're wrong and the rest of what I said confirmed that.

Re:The limits of science

[Peter0322]

It is no wonder the educational standards in the US continue to go down when evolution is taught so dogmatically. To question Darwinism is to risk losing your job if you are a scientist. See Ben Stein's movie 'Expelled' when it comes out in February. Ninety percent of NAS scientists are atheists. Teaching evolution teaches their philosophy. Teaching ID would promote critical thinking, not blindly following the scientific overloads. How can evolution be science when it can not be falsifiable since it is the only acceptable theory? Evolution can't explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the creation of mankind, or the increase in the complexity of life. Teaching science that has been proven by falsifiable testing would prohibit the teaching of evolution.

Re:The limits of science

[eraserewind]

Epistemology is just word games, same as most modern gods.

Re:The limits of science

[sasami]

Epistemology is just word games, same as most modern gods.

So... you're telling me that I shouldn't believe a word you've said. Sure, no problem! ;-)

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

Paleontology is a science which is used by a certain group of historians. As I've previously said, historians make use of science without being scientists themselves. This is much like scientists making use of mathematics while being engaged in a separate discipline. Actually, that's a great example of a field of knowledge that doesn't employ the scientific method at all and many mathematicians would argue is much more an art than a science.

Re:The limits of science

[Dirtside]

Calling someone "glib" is generally an indication that you don't have any substantial way to attack their claim, so you attack the way they said it. :)

At any rate, you guys were using the terms "justification by faith" to mean different things. He meant it the way I meant it: "justifying something by taking on faith that it's true", whereas you took it to mean the thing about Jesus and sin and blah blah blah fishcakes. He didn't know about the Jesus/sin angle and you thought that's what he meant. Now that that's been clarified, let's restate:

1. Justifying something by taking it on faith is oxymoronic (and also moronic). - this is the one we can argue about
2. The Christian doctrine of "justification by faith" is just another silly component of the religion. - this is the one we can't

Re:The limits of science

[sumdumass]

You don't have to give up and create a god of the gaps. Actually, you don't even need a god.

The real problem in America is that the constitution denies the government to make laws pertaining to the free exorcise of religion or denying it. This is different from almost every other country where the government can step in and teach that GOD created everything or it can say that God doesn't exist learn this instead.

For too long science has been instructed in ways that say exactly what you do, god is a myth, cult or whatever, science is right, the true path to follow. It should be noted that Science doesn't say that at all, but it is the way people represent it when it is being taught to our children. Now, we have seen attempts to get this part out of the schools, it went from teaching religion or creationism beside evolution and eventually evolved into intelligent design which I think is where your god of the gaps are. The reason for attempts to curtail sciences influence over religion in schools have been a way to counter the instructions without demanding science not be taught. After all, when it is taught in a way that says anything about god, good or bad, it violates my constitutional rights in the same way that school prayer or ID does.

After decades of studying the problem, it is found that when science is taught with an indifference to religions, the problems disappear for the most part. And acceptable answer to MY mommy says God created everyone is Science uses this model and has designed everything around it so you have to use it when doing science. An unacceptable answer but a common one is that Science is right and your mom is filling your head with fairy tales.

However, this problem seems to be more prevailing in certain school districts more then others which is why you find warning stickers in Georgia or ID in Kansas and PA. SO what this is nw approach is, is just a way to stop denying one while pushing the other. No god needs to be present in order for it to work. Your fears of having to answer to some higher or ultimate authority can be rested now.

This type of approach does nothing to the integrity of science and does nothing to limit better science. When you keep God and science in their own context for respect to instruction in schools that students are compelled by law to attend, you simply take the conflict out. And it doesn't matter what someone believes as long as they know that Science does X a certain way so when they goto do something in science, anything built from X is proper and understood.

Re:The limits of science

[damncrackmonkey]

To state that "Only scientific claims are knowable" is equivalent to stating, "Only ten-word sentences are true." Red is a color. So much for the ten-word claim.

It's not quite as easy to handle the first one. You yourself couldn't do it. You stated a bunch of things about beliefs -- even the belief that your beliefs are rational. You made philosophical statements about how we accept that the universe is real, even though it falls outside of the scientific method.

Acceptance of beliefs is not knowledge.

Re:The limits of science

[Admiral Ag]

Thanks for your reply.

"First, and most importantly, this position is inherently false because it is self-refuting. It is a serious and far-reaching claim, requiring justification. However, the claim itself falls outside the limitations of science. It cannot meet its own standard of justification. To state that "Only scientific claims are knowable" is equivalent to stating, "Only ten-word sentences are true."

No it isn't. For a start, one is demonstrably false, the other is at least plausible.

Similarly, we could claim that "only scientific claims are knowable" is a conceptual truth, in which case it is self evident once you understand how the term "know" is used in ordinary language.

But I don't want to do that.

Instead, we could, like Quine did (and as I would do), deny that there is a real distinction between conceptual and empirical truth, but that would simply make my point for me, since Quine demonstrated that abandoning the distinction just makes the tradeoff between different theories one involving the most convenient explanation. There will be an infinite number of possible theories that fit the facts, and arguing over which one is true is thereby pointless, because they all are. In such cases the trade offs are on practical grounds of explanatory power, simplicity and coherence. The theory that we tend to call the "true" one is the one that best satisfies these commonplace constraints. For ancient people this involved explanations with reference to deities. For us deities have no explanatory power.

In this second case, we can establish that all knowledge is scientific by demonstrating that pragmatism is the only viable approach to knowledge. That is what I mean when I say that science has a much more humble notion of truth than religion. The proof is simply the elimination of alternatives and realization that Quine is right.

"This idea is a form of positivism."

It does not necessarily have to be. It can be a form of pragmatism. The two are distinct. Your post seems to completely ignore this alternative.

"Second, this position is also incidentally false. One could hold that a rational person shouldn't accept any non-scientific claim, even if that claim somehow happens to be correct. But no one actually does this. There are plenty of propositions that most of us accept, though they lie outside the limitations of science. The clearest example is the claim that the universe exists. Is that silly? Let me rephrase: the claim that the universe, rather than the Matrix, exists. By definition, this question can never be addressed scientifically."

Yes it can. We have a choice between two competing theories which equally explain the evidence we have, and we simply make the decision on the pragmatic grounds I mentioned above. What the pragmatists are trying to get the dogmatists to realize is that our own behaviour and our own use of words like "knowledge" are relentlessly pragmatic. Once we realize that an infinite number of theories will fit any evidence we have, then truth in the dogmatist sense becomes pointless, because there will be an infinite number of true theories.

"Even if it's possible to doubt some of the things I've mentioned, like an objective physical world, (1) there is no obligation to do so, and (2) no one actually does so, including full-fledged skeptics (as Hume himself admits). In a many cases, perhaps most cases, doubting has no epistemic superiority over not doubting."

But since any theory is underdetermined by evidence, doubt is part of the very structure of belief. This is why I can hypothesize that I am in the Matrix. But even though I can't decide between the Matrix and the physical world on grounds of evidence, I can decide on pragmatic grounds, but the real point is that I must always decide on pragmatic grounds and I always do.

Similarly, people can promote a God centered view of reality that is completely consistent with every piece of evidence. But in terms of explanatory power, coherence and simplicit

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

Calling someone "glib" is generally an indication that you don't have any substantial way to attack their claim, so you attack the way they said it.

No, it's an accusation that their claim lacks substance and has been addressed by existing scholarship many times.

At any rate, you guys were using the terms "justification by faith" to mean different things.

On reflection I realise that. Mea culpa. Had recently been discussing the topic and leapt to an assumption.

Justifying something by taking it on faith is oxymoronic (and also moronic). - this is the one we can argue about

Depends what you mean by faith. I agree if you mean blind faith, but biblical faith is based on the evidence on past action: trust in the trustworthy.

Re:The limits of science

[jnana]

The Russell anecdote reminds me of the following saying of John McCarthy:

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.

Re:The limits of science

[Anonymous Coward]

'"The theory of Evolution" is very much different today than what Darwin proposed. This would have been a weakness in a religion, but is a strength for a scientific theory.' ... unless, of course, the 'religion' happened to be Hindu Dharma which, since it has no prophets or single book or defining canon, has continued to 'evolve' over thousands of years, including under its umbrella everything from pure atheism to polytheism and everything in-between ... I suppose it isn't a 'religion' then, in the Abrahamic sense, even though a lot of people -- Ted Rall included, based on a recent cartoon of his (I actually like the guy's stuff) -- seem to refer to it as such. In fact, I have never found a satisfying definition of Hindu Dharma -- and I guess the key term here is 'defining' which suggests hard boundaries, which the Dharma lacks. There absolutely no way of positively defining or identifying a Hindu other than by asking the person if he/she thinks he/she is one. I consider myself to be a Hindu even though I am agnostic (and in fact, most modern Hindus would consider themselves at best/worst to be agnostic). Consequently, this debate about evolution raging in Abrahamic cultures (mostly Christian and Islamic) is absent in India, for instance. And I fervently hope no idiot emerges who recasts this culture in the Abrahamic image (although both the Vatican and the Tablighi Jamaat are hard at work trying to turn the Indian population into backward thinking fundamentalists).

Re:The limits of science

[Dirtside]

but biblical faith is based on the evidence on past action: trust in the trustworthy.

I'm... not exactly sure what that means (it's not quite parseable), but... there's a lot of things written in the Bible for which there is no evidence other than the Bible. Claiming that this is sufficient evidence that they really did happen is unsound.

There's a lot you can take away from the Bible besides "what's written in there really happened, as written"; a lot of the Jesus parables are intended as moral guidance and whatnot, for example, and that's just dandy, but it's no more or less inherently valid than any other moral guidance -- the Bible was written, in its entirety, by men, some of whom no doubt truly thought they were inspired by God, and some of whom knew that they were writing thinly veiled attacks on the Romans (e.g. Revelation). (Also keep in mind that "the Bible" was settled on by the Church hundreds of years after Christ supposedly existed, and they decided to exclude certain books which many of their members had until that point considered entirely valid holy texts.)

Re:The limits of science

[kartune85]

Our knowledge is an evolving thing. So, how do the Pyramids in Egypt fit in? If our knowledge is evolving, how did they build the pyramids, with such precision and scale, back before human knowledge and technology had advanced or "evolved" to what it is today?

Religion encourages us not to think, indeed to "know", without thinking. Should this be taught in schools? Absolutely not. Hmmm... and how is that different from the theory of evolution? Children are taught unproven and untrue theories, based on speculations, and expected to believe it as fact. Any opposition to the theory is frowned upon and ridiculed. There's no thinking involved, you're just supposed to believe it and that's final.
And don't get science confused with "mystical science" (i.e.: Big Bang Theory, links between monkey and man, "millions of years ago", etc). Science is testable and observable, "mystical science" is a belief system, a religion if you will.

Re:The limits of science

[kartune85]

There is a huge difference between the religions of ancient Egypt and modern Muslim, between ancient Greek and Roman gods and today's Christianity. Those aren't simply refinements like science makes, but complete rewrites. Even if you look just at the Christian religions, the religious texts themselves have changed between the Hebrew Bible, the old Catholic canon of the synod of Carthage of 397, the "King James" version of 1611, and various protestant versions of modern times. Are you deliberately misleading, or just uninformed? There may be inconsistencies between various ancient and modern religions, and even between completely different religions (i.e.: Ancient Greek and Roman gods compared to Christianity), but as far as Christianity is concerned, it's been the same gospel for the past 2000 or so years, and is consistent with the books of the Old Testament.
The Bible has not been rewritten, as you have suggested, it has varying translations, all with the same message, translated from the original texts.

Re:The limits of science

[A Jew]

Justification by evidence isn't going to work, because science will just eat it up. Justification by faith is an oxymoron. The only sorts of proofs left are metaphysical arguments, and even if they work, they never result in the kind of god that anyone other than a Deist would want to believe in.

sounds like you're generalizing from one religion you are familiar with to all religions the were, are, or ever will be. religion is the most important issue that should be discussed, because it determines everything else. but when you start the debate by saying any belief in god is baseless, you end up looking like a moron.

Re:The limits of science

[ultranova]

The problem with the "public should be taught the limitations of science" model is that the limitations of science should be seen as the limitations of human knowledge.

No, the limits of science should be seen as the limits of verifiability.

Take Paul, who claimed to have converted to christianity after seeing a vision of ascended Christ. He had a good reason to have faith; after all, he saw the object of his faith with his very own eyes. However, does that mean that he can prove that he's neither lying nor crazy ? Of course not. He was given sufficient evidence to convince him, but the evidence isn't the kind that could be verified by anyone else.

Then take Einstein, who's Theory of Relativity made some precise predictions about what would happen in certain conditions; specifically, he predicted that Sun's gravity would affect the light of stars which pass near it. This prediction can and has been tested during a total solar eclipse, as have many other predictions from said theory; they can also be tested again at will (assuming that you have access to a satellite; otherwise you need to wait for a solar eclipse ;).

The point is that it's possible to have seen proof without having proof. It doesn't even have to be a religious matter; for example, someone could make an otherwise perfect murder, with the sole exception that you happen to see it. You can't prove it to anyone, because there is no evidence - it being a perfect murder - but you'd be a fool to disbelief what you saw.

Re:The limits of science

[ultranova]

Evolution is a fact; natural selection is but one theory to explain the fact of evolution.

"Natural selection" is a concept, not a theory. It refers to whatever natural causes (as opposed to intentional breeding) one lifeform to have more descendants than another; the common (false) idea equates this cause with an untimely death.

"Evolution" itself is the logically obvious result in a situation where inheritable traits may effect the number of descendants, and needs no further explanation.

Gravity is a fact. Mechanics was Newton's theory of gravity; it has since been replaced by Einstein's General Relativity, but at no time did gravity stop being a fact.

Newton's mechanics are not a theory of gravity, they're a theory of motion. Newton had no theory of gravity, just a mathemathical formula (F=f*m1*m2/(r*r)) to calculate the force it exerts on objects.

Re:The limits of science

[Rogerborg]

Hey, spazmoid, you realise that about half the world still stones witches to death, right? Cults are a threat to science, and vice versa. Pick a side.

Re:The limits of science

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it necessary to either believe "P != NP" or believe "P == NP"?

I believe that it is unknown whether or not P == NP and my trust of RSA cryptography does not require me to know the truth, only to be reasonably certain that no-one else knows either. I must therefore adjust my decision when new information comes to light regarding progress towards knowledge in this area, which is BEFORE anyone who had made the irrational decision to believe that P != NP would adjust their decision.

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

I'm... not exactly sure what that means (it's not quite parseable)

My apologies. Replace and n with an f and it all makes sense:
but biblical faith is based on the evidence of past action: trust in the trustworthy.

there's a lot of things written in the Bible for which there is no evidence other than the Bible. Claiming that this is sufficient evidence that they really did happen is unsound

You've got things mixed up. I take the bits for which there is evidence and from them am able to trust in the bits for which there is no external evidence either way. When it comes to the theology of faith in God, there is evidence for God's actions in the past where he keeps his promises, leading me to believe that he will keep other promises, much like how other relationships work.

There's a lot you can take away from the Bible besides "what's written in there really happened, as written";

If Jesus isn't the Son of God then, as you say, there is no reason to listen to him over anyone else (and arguably less reason because he's then a liar).

some of whom knew that they were writing thinly veiled attacks on the Romans (e.g. Revelation)

Actually the theme of Revelation is that the church must persevere in the face of persecution. It's actually a warning against failing to persevere and and encouragement that the victory of Christ means it is worth persevering (and possible).

Also keep in mind that "the Bible" was settled on by the Church hundreds of years after Christ supposedly existed, and they decided to exclude certain books which many of their members had until that point considered entirely valid holy texts.

Most churches agreed on most books of the canon and had done so for some time. There was more than sufficient agreement to establish the core doctrines of Christianity

Re:The limits of science

[Dirtside]

You've got things mixed up. I take the bits for which there is evidence and from them am able to trust in the bits for which there is no external evidence either way. When it comes to the theology of faith in God, there is evidence for God's actions in the past where he keeps his promises, leading me to believe that he will keep other promises, much like how other relationships work.

For each thing that the Bible claims God did (including promises kept), there is no evidence that it ever happened except for the Bible itself. That's not corroboration.

Sorry to use a simplistic example, but if I hand you a book about a character named Bob who claims, in chapter 1, that he will return from the dead, and then chapter 12 describes him returning from the dead, that's not evidence that it actually happened. Not even if there are hundreds of other claims he makes early in the book that are later borne out; it's all the same source.

If Jesus isn't the Son of God then, as you say, there is no reason to listen to him over anyone else (and arguably less reason because he's then a liar).

"Liar" isn't the only other option; he could have been insane, confused, mis-represented by those who wrote down what happened, or entirely fictional. (I'm not certain what evidence there is that Jesus even existed, aside from what's in the Bible.)

Most churches agreed on most books of the canon and had done so for some time. There was more than sufficient agreement to establish the core doctrines of Christianity

Both statements are true, however it's not as if the Bible itself was handed down by God; it was still written entirely by men and the parts we find in common Bibles today are the parts that other men, hundreds of years later, agreed should be there.

Christianity definitely has a set of core beliefs that almost everyone who self-identifies as a Christian agrees on; but that doesn't make any of it true, rational, or a good idea to follow.

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

For each thing that the Bible claims God did (including promises kept), there is no evidence that it ever happened except for the Bible itself. That's not corroboration.

Sorry to use a simplistic example, but if I hand you a book about a character named Bob who claims, in chapter 1, that he will return from the dead, and then chapter 12 describes him returning from the dead, that's not evidence that it actually happened. Not even if there are hundreds of other claims he makes early in the book that are later borne out; it's all the same source.

There is historical evidence to suggest Jesus did rise from the dead. Not 100% proof, but evidence. There's evidence that other events happened, though in many cases there would be no way for the evidence to tell you if God was responsible or not because so often God is described as working through means.

"Liar" isn't the only other option; he could have been insane, confused, mis-represented by those who wrote down what happened, or entirely fictional.

I agree and was simplifying the situation somewhat.

I'm not certain what evidence there is that Jesus even existed, aside from what's in the Bible.

A fair bit. Tacitus, Josephus, a few other people. The existence of the gospel, which themselves have superior historical credentials. Also if he hadn't existed, it would have been pretty easy to crush the church at the beginning and the apostles certainly wouldn't have had any motivation to die proclaiming he had died and risen.

Christianity definitely has a set of core beliefs that almost everyone who self-identifies as a Christian agrees on; but that doesn't make any of it true, rational, or a good idea to follow.

Agreed, though the more people who agreed on the authenticity of a document, the more likely it is to have been true, or at elast an accurate representation of what was believed to have taken place. The early church took apostolic succession very seriously and was very eager to make sure that whatever it taught was in line with what they themselves had been taught by the apostles. The overwhelming majority of churches agreed that the gospels and Paul's letters represented what they had been taught.

Re:The limits of science

[ShakaUVM]

Sasami,

Very nice post. I also have a lot of issues with positivism and how it has inundated science to the point where people claim that only things that science can prove are true (which is obviously false), and treat our science like the new religion.

Re:The limits of science

[ShakaUVM]

>>Acceptance of beliefs is not knowledge.

Probably 99% of what you belief are someone else's beliefs that you've copied. Therefore, you must have very little knowledge.

You missed his point about scientific claims. Science can handle only a very narrow category of questions that humans ask. His point was that claiming that that narrow category (mainly, about how things work) is the totality of human knowledge, is an error, and a large one at that.

Re:The limits of science

[Dirtside]

There is historical evidence to suggest Jesus did rise from the dead. Not 100% proof, but evidence.

Such as?

Tacitus

Tacitus wrote indirectly about Christ almost a hundred years after Christ supposedly died. This is not evidence that Christ existed, only that Tacitus believed it was so, and Christ (in the passage in which Tacitus mentions him) is only mentioned incidentally to begin with.

Josephus

Josephus's passage is unreliable at best, based on the quick research I've done, and in any event, he was writing sixtyish years after Christ's supposed death. What were Josephus's sources?

The existence of the gospel, which themselves have superior historical credentials.

I'm not sure what you mean by "superior historical credentials"; you mean the origins of the gospels themselves are well-established? I don't have any problem with that, but knowing who wrote them has zero bearing on whether what's in them is true. (If that's not what you mean, then disregard.) There's also the fact that, as far as I know, there are no contemporary accounts of Christ -- the earliest writings of him are decades after he supposedly died. Presumably the Romans kept records of executions ordered, and Jesus would be listed there if he had been so executed by crucifixion. And the guy made a pretty big splash in Judea according to the Gospels; it's very odd that there'd be no contemporary record of anything he supposedly did.

Also if he hadn't existed, it would have been pretty easy to crush the church at the beginning and the apostles certainly wouldn't have had any motivation to die proclaiming he had died and risen.

The idea that the apostles "wouldn't have had any motivation" unless Jesus actually existed is false. People die believing falsehoods all the time -- hell, how many Muslim suicide bombers die believing they'll get 72 virgins in heaven? By your logic, it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't die for it.

The Church surviving, again, has nothing to do with whether Christ actually lived and died and was resurrected -- only that people believed that it was the case. And it's a powerful story, and easy for people to believe when they're being oppressed by the Romans... it's hardly surprising the Church thrived, but again, that is not evidence that the story is true.

Agreed, though the more people who agreed on the authenticity of a document, the more likely it is to have been true, or at elast an accurate representation of what was believed to have taken place.

What was believed to have taken place. Not what actually took place. Also: argumentum ad numeram. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on whether it is true.

The early church took apostolic succession very seriously and was very eager to make sure that whatever it taught was in line with what they themselves had been taught by the apostles.

...according to writings created decades later. It would not have been at all difficult to have this story created by a small group of people, passed along for a few decades, and then written down as (no pun intended) gospel.

Re:The limits of science

[JonathanBoyd]

I don't really have any more time to pursue this discussion, but I will answer this one point since it has a reasonable amount of relevance to the rest:

The idea that the apostles "wouldn't have had any motivation" unless Jesus actually existed is false. People die believing falsehoods all the time -- hell, how many Muslim suicide bombers die believing they'll get 72 virgins in heaven? By your logic, it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't die for it.

The difference is that the apostles knew if it was true or not, whereas as suicide bombers merely believe. I find it curious that they would have tremendously suffered and died for something they knew to be a lie and that so many others joined them in that when if Jesus didn't rise, his body could have been produced to snuff Christianity out instantly. It was certainly in the interests of the Jewish and Roman authorities to do so.

I imagine that one counter you will have is uncertainty about Jesus' actual existence and death, but that's not seriously disputed even among atheistic theologians.

Re:The limits of science

[oil]

You are saying that we have not evolved since the pyramids were built? That we couldn't build precision buildings of that scale today? We could build better pyramids today (including hot and cold running water, electricity, etc) and all without working tens of thousands of slaves to death in the process. In fact, I believe there is one in Las Vegas, but that's just a single example. Evolution is hardly an unproven and untrue theory. Also, children are not taught to just "believe it and that's final", they are shown how it works and, in a proper setting, are encouraged to question the it. If they get ridiculed, it's because those ridiculing them cannot think for themselves or just choose not to. That is more a function of culture, not of education. The term "mystical science" that you use, attempts to lead people into thinking that what you're describing is nonsense. However, there is far more scientific (that's the testable kind) evidence to support evolution and the age of the universe than there is to prove what most religions teach (morals aside).

Re:The limits of science

[kartune85]

You are saying that we have not evolved since the pyramids were built? That we couldn't build precision buildings of that scale today? We could build better pyramids today (including hot and cold running water, electricity, etc) and all without working tens of thousands of slaves to death in the process. No... I believe the structure of my sentence was quite clear. I can confidently state that the pyramids were not built yesterday, nor were they built 10 years ago, we're talking thousands of years ago, when knowledge and technology were not at the same level as today. We can only assume that the Egyptians built the larger sized pyramids at Giza, unless anyone has recently discovered doumented _proof_ that the Egyptians did actually build them.

Evolution is hardly an unproven and untrue theory. That depends on what aspect of evolution you are looking at. If we're referring to the earth magically appearing from nothingness and then life consequently formed from rock over millions of years, and in that time man evolved from animals, and that dinosaurs lived long before man... then yes, that side of it is unproven and untrue and yet still perpetuated in science classes.

Also, children are not taught to just "believe it and that's final", they are shown how it works and, in a proper setting, are encouraged to question the it. Question it within the bounds of what they have been indoctrinated with. Anything outside of those bounds (i.e.: Intelligent Design) is ridiculed.

However, there is far more scientific (that's the testable kind) evidence to support evolution and the age of the universe than there is to prove what most religions teach (morals aside). Actually, no. This "evidence" that has been published in countless textbooks (i.e.: evolving from animals, millions of years old universe, etc.) is baseless doctrine, and is propoganda designed to divert attention from the truth taught in the Bible. There are no links between humans and apes, you're either an ape or you're a human, the missing links are still missing even though there should be millions.
The age of the earth (millions of years old) has no hard evidence either, it's a theory, built on speculated models, with which some "scientist" dude(s) made some "educated" guesses based on their own ideas of how old the earth might be.

And just to make it clear, science is not a bad thing, observing and testing our physical surroundings, it is when science is exploited and used as a tool to propose lies in an air to discredit what the Bible teaches, and especially when it is used to fill the minds of impressionable students, who consequently grow up into adults with clouded, indoctrinated minds.

Re:The limits of science

[sasami]

Thanks for the very thoughtful response. I apologize for the very late reply. I've had triple deadlines to contend with, and was unable to free myself to give your post the attention it merits. I don't know when the thread will lock, but it's probably soon, and I hope you have time to respond.

I've also put in references when they were handy, but I wasn't too scrupulous about it. I also wish I had time to write something shorter. :-)

"This idea is a form of positivism."

It does not necessarily have to be. It can be a form of pragmatism. The two are distinct. Your post seems to completely ignore this alternative.

Granted, I apologize for assuming that you were advocating the type of naive positivism that regularly makes its rounds on Slashdot. Pragmatism is a sophisticated and nuanced view that deserves detailed discussion, and I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to do so. As a matter of fact, we may be agreed in more areas than you think, as I may have been misunderstood in a couple of spots.

To this end, I would like to henceforth be scrupulously clear on terms. Your original post implicitly used "scientific" as a synonym for "pragmatic" rather than the more common meaning of "empirical." On the latter understanding, your statement was a formulation of positivism. On the former understanding, your statement can be a formulation of pragmatism. So, let's use "pragmatic" and "empirical" rather than "scientific."

I intend to argue that pragmatism does not escape the ills of positivism. Let's start by clarifying my objection:

To state that "Only scientific claims are knowable" is equivalent to stating, "Only ten-word sentences are true."

No it isn't. For a start, one is demonstrably false, the other is at least plausible.

The statement, {1} "Only ten-word sentences are true" is not just demonstrably false. No, it's much worse than that. It is inherently false. A claim that is merely demonstrably false is one that might have been true, under some circumstances. But a claim that is inherently false contradicts itself. It is the opposite of a tautology. It cannot ever be true, under any circumstances. Demonstrating its falsehood would be redundant.

Substituting "empirical" for clarity, it is well known that the statement, {2} "Only empirical claims are knowable," is inherently false in exactly the same way [Ayer 1978]. Since it cannot be empirically addressed, it contradicts its own standard. Therefore, this claim cannot even be analytic, given (as you say) the way "know" and "scientific" are used in ordinary language.

This was my objection to positivism. Let us see if this objection holds for pragmatism as well.

Let's adopt the term "self-contradictory," which seems to be clearer than "self-refuting" or "inherently false."

I. Pragmatism is self-contradictory

There will be an infinite number of possible theories that fit the facts, and arguing over which one is true is thereby pointless, because they all are. ... What the pragmatists are trying to get the dogmatists to realize is that our own behaviour and our own use of words like "knowledge" are relentlessly pragmatic. Once we realize that an infinite number of theories will fit any evidence we have, then truth in the dogmatist sense becomes pointless, because there will be an infinite number of true theories.

With all due respect, I think we need to get rid of this equivocation over the word "true." If I understand correctly, your claim can be reworded as follows: "There will be an infinite number of possible theories that fit the facts, and arguing over which one is objectively true is thereby pointless, because they all are pragmatically true." On this understanding, the claim seems to

Re:The limits of science

[sasami]

Thanks for the kind comment. I don't often have time to participate on Slashdot, but I can't help myself when certain popular falsehoods come up. :-) The Admiral gave the best counterargument I've encountered so far (well, not in favor of positivism per se, that being impossible, but at least for some form of "scientism"). At any rate, I count myself fortunate to be having the discussion.

Re:Sellouts

[iangoldby]

If you believe in science AND god then your a bloody hypocrite because the scientific method can never be used on god.

I'm not seeing the logic here.

A hypocrite is someone who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Let's say for the sake of argument (I don't actually agree with this) that there is no aspect of God and religion (specifically in this case Christianity) to which the scientific method can be applied.

If I stated that the scientific method provides the only valid grounds for any kind of belief, and then acted in a way that implied I believed in God, and if we also accept the earlier point that there is no aspect of God to which the scientific method can be applied, then I would be a hypocrite.

However, if I never claimed that the scientific method provides the only valid grounds for any kind of belief, then I would not be a hypocrite to believe in the scientific method and also in God.

So please, don't be too hasty in calling Christians hypocrites. It's one of those words that too often comes out in this kind of discussion, and is not always appropriate. Yes, I'm sure I do act hypocritically at times, over all sorts of things. I try not to, and I don't think that believers have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

In any case, I don't think there is any hypocrisy at all in the pursuit of science as a Christian.

Education is the Solution, Religion is the Problem

[sqrt(2)]

evolution does not require abandoning belief in God. But if you teach kids from an early enough age to view the world critically and scientifically and to think for themselves, one should lead to the other.

Re:Sellouts

[DMNT]

If you believe in science AND god then your a bloody hypocrite because the scientific method can never be used on god.

If you believe in science AND human rights then you're a hypocrite because scientific method can never be used on human rights. So you have a false dichotomy going on right there.

The other one is an ideology. It doesn't require scientific proof and it's a personal attribute. Science by definition is about modeling things with scientific method. So what you're saying is that if you believe in scientific method and in something that's not testable then you are in conflict. People who can't see outside the box sometimes live a life without ever thinking that there might be exist things that are not testable. Then they bend science even further and claim that the laws of physics are the reality (they're not, they're modeling the output given inputs!). I know I'm on slashdot, but studying philosophy isn't that bad an idea. It'll teach you to think outside the box and the progress on any branch of science, even computer science, is made by those who think outside the box.

Theory of evolution doesn't say if gods exist or if they don't. They don't say gods didn't have anything to do with the appearing of man or if they did. I think this is an important aspect to be stressed in teaching evolution, since it attacks directly the false creationist claims (evolution and (Judeo-Christian God) cannot both exist).

Ah ... how wonderfully spineless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the survey: "E.J. Larson and L. Witham, 'Leading scientists still reject God', Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998." only something like 7% of the leading members of National Academy of Sciences express any belief in a god themselves, I find it very sad that the high IQ boys seem to have decided to adopt the Neville Chamberlain philosophy when it comes to the promotion of science education -- it is a worrying sign that scientists in America are running scared.

Re:Ah ... how wonderfully spineless ...

[ajs318]

And don't forget, many of those 7% may not be biologists.

Physics describes how particles of matter interact. Chemistry builds on physics to describe what happens when particles of certain kinds of matter interact with particles of certain other kinds of matter. Biology builds on chemistry and physics to describe what happens when series of chemical interactions become self-sustaining.

It wouldn't be illogical for a physicist or chemist not to believe a theory which explains biology beautifully, because that is outside their discipline.

Re:Ah ... how wonderfully spineless ...

[Toam]

It wouldn't be illogical for a physicist or chemist not to believe a theory which explains biology beautifully, because that is outside their discipline. I disagree slightly.

If a biologist came out with some beautifully elegant theory of biology it would not be illogical for a physicist or chemist to say "You know what, I don't really know enough about biology for me to say that I believe in this" but it would be illogical for them to say, assuming (as you said) that the subject matter is outside their expertise, to say outright "I do not bevlieve this".

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of people are psychotic.
That doesn't means we should start worshiping voices in their heads.

God of the Gaps

[iangoldby]

The notion that 'God' is an explanation for all the things that science and reason has not yet adequately explained is a common one, but rather out-dated. It is a mistake that has been made by Christians and non-Christians alike.

It has been given the moniker 'God of the gaps' and there is a description on Wikipedia.

Suffice it to say that most Christians who have given any significant thought to the matter do not believe in 'God of the gaps', so the argument that the traffic is all one way from 'religious explanations' to scientific explanations is simply not relevant.

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true.

Re:God of the Gaps

[nagora]

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything.

Well, that's a good idea since it doesn't explain anything. As the original poster pointed out, as more and more evidence is collected the need for gods, ghosts, and goblins declines and never increases. That is because it was an incorrect hypothesis to begin with.

The reality is that the "gods of the gaps" argument is the only argument for the existance of these fantasy beings and if you don't accept that then there is no other reason to believe they exist other than "it says so in a book I read once".

TWW

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true.

And what evidence is that? (This is a serious question, not trying to troll.)

Re:God of the Gaps

[at_18]

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true.

Well, this is another way of saying that you believe in God in order to explain all the evidence, and that if there was no evidence, you wouldn't believe in God. And the GP's point was that this evidence is getting smaller all the time.

I apologize if that's not correct. But it's important to know why you believe in something. Faith does not require evidence, scientific explanations do.

Re:God of the Gaps

[iangoldby]

Faith certainly does require reason. I don't put my faith in anything without a reason.

That reason can be personal experience, second-hand experience gleaned from others; it can even be logical deduction or scientific knowledge (which is really just a special kind of second-hand experience, one that is expected to be repeatable on demand).

I suppose though that 'reason' in the sense I've just used it is not quite the same as 'evidence' required for the scientific method, in that it can include scientific evidence but is not limited to that.

Your other point:

you believe in God in order to explain all the evidence

No. I can believe something because reason or evidence points to it without having to to say that the thing I believe is an explanation of the evidence.

and that if there was no evidence, you wouldn't believe in God

That's true, or at least if there was no reason (acknowledging that reason and evidence are not necessarily the same).

Re:God of the Gaps

[stewbacca]

The notion that 'God' is an explanation for all the things that science and reason has not yet adequately explained is a common one, but rather out-dated.

True, but to make it more accurate, you should say "God is an explanaiton for all the things that people don't understand". Science has adequately explained many things in the world, but there are a lot of stupid people who don't understand science.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true. - I am an atheist because there is not a single piece of evidence that points to a god being true.

I can't fathom how your post got voted as Insightful.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and those so-called "theories" (gap, etc.) are all well covered by the US Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard) and the more Federal Court (way later) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District case.

  a good read. a great read if you read every single linked article.

then there is also the Lemon Test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

between those three cases to really have it all. that's why they are trying to take the courts by training "god's" lawyers. this isn't about religion, it's a culture being waged by, yes, Prohibitionist. and that is why the Drug War/Prohibitiion is the mist imoprtant issue facing america and hence the world. american soldiers, hypocrites that even they are, are right now destroying marijuana and poppy farmers in afghanistan and elsewhere. if it wasn't forbiden by the muslim hiost country they'd be drinking the night before, instead the smoke cigars (cigar night) and drink capuccino, then they pray to jesus the morning of these pot raids, yes pot.

this is the most insane thing i have ever seen.

Re:God of the Gaps

[GoofyBoy]

>As the original poster pointed out, as more and more evidence is collected the need for gods, ghosts, and goblins declines and never increases.

Actually, it ("the need for goblins" or in other words "unexplained observations") just gets pushed out further to the bleeding-edge of science.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Profound]

Faith certainly does require reason. I don't put my faith in anything without a reason.

Faith, noun:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Re: God of the Gaps

[Black Parrot]

I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true. Huh? What evidence?

What has your god got that 10,000 others don't?

Re:God of the Gaps

[dissy]

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true. I'm sorry to hear you believe youre going to hell.

After all, while there might be a slim chance you follow all the teachings of your particular religon and might end up in that ones heven, for most all other religions, youre going to hell for not following them. And all the evedence you claim to have points to those being equally true as yours.

Oh, thats not true you say?

Well, once you understand why you dismiss every other god but your own, you will understand why we reject your god too.

Re:God of the Gaps

[RealGrouchy]

I can't fathom how your post got voted as Insightful. God did it.

- RG>

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, i'm an agnostic and neither of you strikes me as particularly insightful.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

Agnostic is the same as atheist. I don't believe in any gods because there is no evidence for their existence. Agnostics don't believe in any gods either because they don't see the evidence, but they like to say that they just don't know. Atheists also just don't know whether there is a god, we just have the intelligence to understand that we don't believe, since believers don't need evidence and we have the balls to say it.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

and yet he didn't vote your post as Funny, you don't make god laugh hard enough to care to mod you on /., isn't that sad?

Re:God of the Gaps

[value_added]

The notion that 'God' is an explanation for all the things that science and reason has not yet adequately explained is a common one, but rather out-dated.

Out-dated? Unless you mean something you're not saying, the above is complete rubbish. The religeous experience has been around since the dawn of man and is as much a part of life as eating and drinking and fucking and enjoying sunrises.

It is a mistake that has been made by Christians and non-Christians alike.

No, what is a mistake is the arrogant presumption that human existence requires nothing other than reason (and by extension, science) to satisfy what's innate. It's similarly arrogant to hold science to such a high regard that anything it can't explain will be explained (suspect at best, and laughable at worst), and if it can't, it's of no immediate consequence to anyone. No worries, mate, we'll figure it out and you'll see there are no paradoxes in the universe. Not to be dismissive, but the current state of most knowlege is still at the Poke It With a Stick and See What Happens stage, and offers few satisfactory answers or explanations to anyone. Unlike the few thousand years of philosophical thought that only fashionable Starbucks patrons or wiki-citing Slashdot posters could dismiss out of hand or reinterpret with absurd narrowness.

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything.

Since when did observation and rational thought (we are talking about the science and evolution here, right?) require anything resembling belief? Outside of republican politics in Iowa, hearing someone say they believe or don't believe in evolution, gravity or the second law of thermodynamics suggests to me they're either looking to shore up the foundations of their current religeon, or trying to erect on a new church on top. In case you haven't noticed, that kind of thing has also around since the dawn of man.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Speare]

Agnostics just think the debate is pointless. You won't find out if there IS a god, you won't find out that there ISN'T. Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either. If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter. Athiesm is just another religion. Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

I am an atheist and I participate in the comments in this story, so do agnostics and theists. When there is a discussion I participate, when there is no discussion I don't, just like most other people. The basic principle of agnostics and atheists is the same - they do not have faith in any god. Everything else is a political difference. You are saying that atheists firmly believe that they are right. I consider myself an atheist because I do not believe in any god, not because I firmly believe that I am right.

I do not believe in any god because I don't see any evidence pointing to any gods existence and I understand why the idea of god was created by our civilization. I do not have a proof that there is no god, but I don't care about having proof of its nonexistence, it is the believers who must present proof of gods existence before I change my views. I am an atheist and I do not get confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry with people who are not. I just don't care about their believes.

Is atheism a religion? Of-course it is not, there is nothing to believe in that religion, there is no set of moral values, there are no rules, there is no collection plate. Grow up, atheism does not require a believe, it is a point of view based on absence of any evidence for existence of gods.

Re:God of the Gaps

[mdwh2]

Agnostics just think the debate is pointless.

You are thinking of apatheism, or perhaps ignosticism. Both of these can overlap with atheism (just as agnosticsm can) - these are words for seperate concepts that are not mutually exclusive.

The rest of your post is just a tired string of strawman arguments - I find it sad that atheism sometimes seems to attract most criticism and abuse not from theism, but agnostics who also don't believe in God, but think that because they are less vocal about it, or because they misunderstand what Atheism and Agnosticism actually mean, they have a logically superior position.

Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either.

The only thing I think I'm right as an atheist is that (a) there is currently no evidence for God, and that therefore (b) I reject believe in God.

Agnostics also vary in their vocality - both agnostics who criticise atheism, as well as those who claim that we can never know if God exists. That's a positive statement of belief. I guess by your logic, this makes all Agnosticism "just another religion".

If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter.

Yet you are the one stepping in first, getting all confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that someone is an atheist, not an agnostic.

Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).

What are all the same? Many atheists don't get "in your face or try to change your mind", where as some agnostics too. There are plenty of occasions where it is perfectly acceptable to be vocal - otherwise we end up with things like teaching Creationism in science lessons. Defending one's lack of belief is not the same as forcing your beliefs onto others. There is also nothing wrong with making an appeal to try to change people's opinions or beliefs - people debate all the time, and you're doing it too.

Re:God of the Gaps

[mdwh2]

To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true.

What evidence then?

Note, I agree there's nothing inherently wrong in believing in God as an explanation, if the evidence really does point to God rather than something else. The point about "God of the Gaps" is that (a) the "God" explanation says nothing more than "God did it", and thus offers no predictive power, nor is there any reason to accept it over "It was done by magic" or "foo puff fibble zing"; and (b) these "God did it" claims have repeatedly been disproven, and replaced with a scientific explanation.

If you tell us what you consider as evidence, we can see if this is still God of the Gaps.

I'll also agree that the God of the Gaps is less common today then it used to be. However, it is still strong enough to be a powerful political force - for example, influencing what is taught in schools. Large numbers of people in the US prefer "God did it" to evolutionary theory, when it comes to explaining life as we see it today.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

So your experience is different from other people's experience. You and I may observe the same world, and draw different conclusions. Why is it so hard to allow for the possibility that neither of us is stupid or deluded?

(I'm not the parent poster, but I agree with him...)

Re:God of the Gaps

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe there's an invisible teapot in orbit around Mars, an aMartianTeapotist will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter.

Fixed it for you. The fact that you can't see the aMartianTeapotist's point of view is significantly odder than the fact that he can't see your point of view.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Wildclaw]

Yup. The difference between an agnostic and a weak atheist is very simple.

The atheist says: "I don't believe in anything without evidence."
The agnostic says: "It can't be proven either way, so I don't care."

It is a slight philosopical difference which does affect how you view the world, but in practice it has little difference. I used to be agnostic but gradually changed into an atheist because I found the atheist statement more to my liking. I still recognize atheists as they have a valid philosophical argument. I also recognize those who believe that a non specific god created the universe.

What I don't recognize however is people that try to use specific gods to argue morality or science. That is just plain bad philosophy and hurts society as a whole.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

There are no observations that lead me to conclude that there is a need for some unnatural force to create the conditions for the event to take place.

So your experience is different from other people's experience. - there is no evidence that allows to create a scientific concept of god or anything supernatural. If you have 'experiences' and you want to convince me about something, you will have to use science. However if your 'experiences' cannot be measured/repeated/experimented/reproduced/provided with constraints that would make it falisifiable. Basically to me your experiences are not pointless if I cannot use them in a productive way. If you are trying to give me something useful, then it should be framed as a scientific theory (or at least a hypothesis.) If you don't want to give me anything useful, then you shouldn't care what I think of you.

You and I may observe the same world, and draw different conclusions. Why is it so hard to allow for the possibility that neither of us is stupid or deluded? - again, if your conclusions cannot be used for something useful to me, they are irrelevant to me. I am not calling them stupid and deluded, I just don't care. However I will start caring and will call them stupid and deluded if you start attacking my way of experiencing the world with politics. For example if you decide to use a political power to impose your unscientific views upon a public education system, I will fight you, because you are going to make it worse for the progress that I would like to see happening in the society. Your views can be dangerous if you start promoting them politically, because they can halt the progress that I consider to be useful. I prefer to be able to treat an illness with gene therapy for example and if you make it more difficult for me by changing the curriculum of the schools and by producing a population that is less inclined to do research into this particular area, I will fight you.

However at this point your experiences are not simply stupid and deluded, they are dangerous to my life.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

"Basically to me your experiences are not pointless if I cannot use them in a productive way."

Absolutely true. However, the value of my experiences to you has nothing whatsoever to with their value to me.

"again, if your conclusions cannot be used for something useful to me, they are irrelevant to me"

Sure! Your lack of belief is irrelevant to my belief. I, however, am more than willing to respect your point of view. I'm not going to try to convince you to agree with me. I just wish to point out that people who disagree with you are not mentally defective...they just disagree with you.

"However at this point your experiences are not simply stupid and deluded, they are dangerous to my life."

Paranoid much? We've already established that my beliefs have nothing to do with you. Maybe your belief in the Conspiracy to Get You needs to be re-evaluated.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

Whoops...I hit submit too early.

"prefer to be able to treat an illness with gene therapy for example"

Uh huh. Me too.

" and if you make it more difficult for me by changing the curriculum of the schools and by producing a population that is less inclined to do research into this particular area, I will fight you."

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I've been suspended from a Christian private school for my advocacy of evolution.

This is my fundamental point: You are advocating a false dichotomy. It's not "people like you" and "people like me". There is a continuum of perspectives on these subjects. I am a Christian, and I am a professional engineer and amateur scientist. I disagree with the people who say that science kills God. I disagree with people who say that God obviates science. I disagree with the people who want to teach creationism in the science classroom. I also disagree with the people who say that you're not allowed to talk about God in public. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying.) I see God's hand in my life. That doesn't have anything to do with you, or any other person.

There is simply no disconnect here. I can, and do, value my spirituality AND my rational faculties. If you say that I can't, "I will fight you."

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

Intelligent design in classroom of a public school is potentially dangerous to my life, because it stalls progress as I understand it. Conspiracy theories? No, this is unfortunately the reality.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

*sigh*

Do you really, seriously think that everybody who believes in God advocates intelligent design?

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

Again, as long as your religious believes are not used to change the political / sociological structures that use science to push forward progress as I understand it, you won't have a problem with me. I don't care about your believes even though I find them useless for myself. I do think you are deluded but I am not going to cause you any trouble as long as you don't cause me any.

Cheers.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

Do you really, seriously think that everybody who believes in God advocates intelligent design? - no. I don't care about those who advocate anything religious at all. But I don't want to see them interfere with the economic/social structures that are set up on the basis of scientific principles. You can believe whatever you want, however once you start using your religion as a political instrument to interfere with the progress you become an obstacle.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

Just so long as you never make the assertion that you are an open minded person, that's just dandy with me.

Peace unto you.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Scrameustache]

Athiesm is just another religion. Atheism might be a faith, but it's not a religion.
Religions have rituals, atheism is just a belief.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

Just so long as you never make the assertion that you are an open minded person, that's just dandy with me. - Oh, I am open minded. You have nothing for me to look at, that's true. Show me a scientific proof of anything you believe in. Oh, and btw, there is nothing open minded about believing in something that most of humanity believed in for the most time of its existence (the supernatural that is.)

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

Show you scientific proof of something that's fundamentally not scientific. I'll get right on that.

And I definitely think that rejecting something that's present in every culture on Earth out of hand, because it doesn't fit into your philosophical outlook, is definitely a closed-minded attitude.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

And I definitely think that rejecting something that's present in every culture on Earth out of hand, because it doesn't fit into your philosophical outlook, is definitely a closed-minded attitude. - I understand how every single proto-culture on this planet will create its own believes in supernatural and this has nothing to do with being open minded, it is a normal development of society. The more advanced the society gets, the more it develops religions, until science supersedes religions and then religions are discarded as irrelevant by the gigantic population.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

"until science supersedes religions and then religions are discarded as irrelevant by the gigantic population."

Except that any rationalist could see that religion has not been discarded by the gigantic population, and you are therefore making baseless assertions.

You might think that you don't see a need for religion, and that's just fine. But trying to assert that you're smarter than everyone who believes in God...well, that's not very smart.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

Except that any rationalist could see that religion has not been discarded by the gigantic population, and you are therefore making baseless assertions. - you are mistaken. The US is definitely not an atheist culture, but most of Europe is (if you don't count the Muslims.) Most of Chinese are atheists, most of the people who were born in the former USSR are atheists. Most of Canadians are basically atheists.

Gigantic advanced populations have discarded religions, they may maintain some kinds of 'spirituality' but definitely not real old style religions. In the US, religion is just another form of entertainment and socialization, but atheism is growing there too. What is clear is that more educated society are less religious.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

So, again, we're back to your assertion that you're just smarter than believers.

I think I've gone about as far with this as I care to.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

So, again, we're back to your assertion that you're just smarter than believers. - interestingly enough I never have actually said that, but whatever.

You are not interested to find out that most of the civilized population today does not have any strong believes in god and that the US is very different from the rest of the civilized world in this regard. Just because you don't know such facts does not make you stupid, but it does show certain type of ignorance.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

You're making a "No True Scotsman" argument. If one is civilized, one is not a believer. If one is a believer, one must not be civilized.

Re:God of the Gaps

[roman_mir]

You're making a "No True Scotsman" argument. If one is civilized, one is not a believer. If one is a believer, one must not be civilized. - that is not what I am saying. Civilized societies (for me) are those that use their scientific abilities for progress. Societies that are good at that also produce more educated population. It is empirical evidence that population of such civilized societies is less religious. Europe is very non-religious, so is Asia mostly, so is some of North America. In any case the percentage of the non-religious population today is higher than 300 years ago. Religions are quickly becoming obsolete, substituted for many people with 'spirituality' instead (Buddhism for example.)

It does not follow that a non-religious person is civilized though, but civilizations with the most technical/scientific progress today are non-religious.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Dirtside]

Athiesm is just another religion.

*sigh* "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." - Someone (can't recall who, and can't find a reliable citation online)

You're confused, alas. Atheism in its simplest form means "without god". There are two main forms: weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheism says that I don't hold a belief in any gods, the same way I don't hold a belief in invisible pink unicorns or alien clones of Bob Dole. I'm not asserting that they don't or can't exist, I'm just saying I don't currently have a belief that they do. (Another way to put it is that I'm also an atheist about gods I've never heard of; I can't very well assert that God XYZ doesn't exist if no one has claimed to me that God XYZ does exist.)

Strong atheism says that there cannot be gods, and anyone who claims gods can or do exist is wrong.

I'm both a weak atheist and an agnostic: I do not hold a belief in any god, and I also think that the question of whether gods exist cannot be answered. (Separately, I also think it's a meaningless question, since "gods" can be defined any way we want.)

Re:God of the Gaps

[Citizen of Earth]

The agnostic says: "It can't be proven either way, so I don't care."

Stated this way, the agnostic is drawing an absolute conclusion without evidence. If the Christian God were to show up in Times Square tomorrow and give an irrefutable demonstration of who he is, then it would be proven.

There is also more to the atheist position than just ignoring everything without evidence. An intelligent person will examine the history and evolution of religion and mythology and the vulnerability of laypeople to believing superstitious things and will connect the dots. An atheist doesn't necessarily positively assert that there is no God, but merely gives the theist argument the same weight as any other ludicrous proposition that has no evidence. There is a teapot in orbit around Pluto. Prove that there isn't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe five minutes ago. Prove that he didn't.

A "hard" atheist who does positively assert that there is no God is going a step too far and making the same error as the agnostic in the above example. The correct statement is that it is ludicrous to believe in a God.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Speare]

If the Christian God were to show up in Times Square tomorrow and give an irrefutable demonstration of who he is, then it would be proven. If this comes to pass, there will be no agnostics as they will Know, and there will be no athiests as they can no longer honestly Deny. Of course, a central tenet of this particular faith is that "without faith I am nothing," and such a god will remain unprovable. If Revelation comes, I expect it will resemble the biblical account only in broad strokes, just as much of Genesis fits only in the macroscopic sense.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Copid]

Except that any rationalist could see that religion has not been discarded by the gigantic population, and you are therefore making baseless assertions.

That's an interesting point, but I would guess that just about every religion that has ever existed has been discarded, and I don't see much to recommend the current leaders of the pack over past versions.

Re:God of the Gaps

[Moofie]

Except that we're not really talking about any religion in particular, but in belief in God in general...so I'm not sure your point is germane.

(well, I've been discussing belief in God in general...my debating partner seems to be hung up on wingnut evangelical Je-sus-sah (pronounced with three syllables) young-Earth-creationist types.)

Re:God of the Gaps

[ultranova]

The US is definitely not an atheist culture, but most of Europe is (if you don't count the Muslims.)

Europe is not atheistic, or at least the part of it I live in (Finland) isn't. We simply don't see the need to constantly seek attention about our belief or lack of it.

I have to admit, thought, that these constant flamefests on Slashdot are great entertainment - the geek equivalent of wrestling :).

Re:God of the Gaps

[ultranova]

The agnostic says: "It can't be proven either way, so I don't care."

Stated this way, the agnostic is drawing an absolute conclusion without evidence. If the Christian God were to show up in Times Square tomorrow and give an irrefutable demonstration of who he is, then it would be proven.

And just what would that irrefutable demonstration be ? No matter what he did, how do you eliminate the possibility that he isn't actually a very powerful, but not divine, fake, who accomplished his deed through science and technology beyond ours ?

Or, to put it another way: What is a sufficiently demanding task that nothing short of omnipotence could possibly achieve it ?

And in any case, the quote clearly means that the person saying it can't prove it either way, not that God himself couldn't prove his existence.

evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in God

[nagora]

But the ability to think does.

Finally someone making sense

[johncadengo]

Finally someone out there is making some sense: Science is not fit (nor was it ever meant to be fit) to answer the question of God. Science requires that its hypothesis made are provable (or disprovable) and neither can be applied towards the question of God.

As the article states: "Asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God."

P.S. IAC

Re:Finally someone making sense

[AndGodSed]

Exactly.

Besides, the world would be pretty boring without them Atheist hunts. Just last week we cornered one back by the creek on old Joe's property...

IAC2 ;) and really enjoying indepth discussions with my Atheist buddies on godgab.org...

Re:Finally someone making sense

[Chemicalscum]

If God created the world. Then the scientific method is the way to find out how God's creation works. Therefore to reject the considered and soundly evaluated results of scientific research is to reject the work of God in creating the world.

Consequently creationists reject God and are apostates.

Actually I am an atheist (not a theist - someone who does not believe in a personal God) but it is fun to make the argument. It is also an approach mainstream Christians could take when dealing with the loony creationists.

Re:Finally someone making sense

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. IAC

You Are Christ?

Re:Finally someone making sense

[johncadengo]

P.S. IAC

You Are Christ?

If I was asserting your claim I would have simply said: IA.

There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[Marcion]

I think the whole analogy is a bit misguided and has no historical basis and does not represent how science works.

People have beliefs, that is an attribute that all people have. Maybe we evolved to have beliefs, a coping mechanism, but whatever everyone has beliefs. Some people's beliefs are formalised into religions, other people randomly ingest beliefs through the TV, society and Slashdot. Someone believes in God and another person believes there is no God, both have beliefs.

In the bible it talks about that if there is a red sky at night then it will be a sunny day tomorrow, while a red sky in the morning means it will rain (Matthew 16:2 I think).

Now we know it is solar rays refracting through particles of moisture in the moving clouds that makes the sky red. However, the adage still works. Knowing how it works has not changed the phenomenon.

The traffic is not one way, it just looks it because you are hiding many intermediate baskets. So, some scientist in lab A will attribute the red sky to moisture particles. Some other scientist in lab B will attribute giving people electric shocks with curing depression. These will be tested, and the moisture particles makes it into your basket, while the giving people electric shocks one does not.

This is the same as old people saying that the new hymns are rubbish, only the old hymns are good. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, there were both good and bad hymns, but only the good ones survive. With modern music, there has not been enough time for the bad hymns to fall away and the good ones to take precidence.

Re:There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[Kjellander]

In the bible it talks about that if there is a red sky at night then it will be a sunny day tomorrow, while a red sky in the morning means it will rain (Matthew 16:2 I think).

Now we know it is solar rays refracting through particles of moisture in the moving clouds that makes the sky red. However, the adage still works. Knowing how it works has not changed the phenomenon.

Except that your adage doesn't work!

It all depends on where you are situated on the earth, and your prevailing winds. On the west coast of Sweden, in the archipelago, the adage is the other way around. This is because red skies at night means clouds beyond the horizon, which is the Atlantic, and since the prevailing winds are from the west that usually means rain tomorrow. This adage, completely opposite to yours, is valid on he west coast of Sweden, and has been at least since 1896 when my grandpa was born there. And he did keep records of the weather even though he wasn't a true scientist. He observed and noted the weather in his diary every single day for 20 years, and we still have those books.

Science basket 1 - God basket 0

Re:There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[Moofie]

Perhaps Matthew hadn't visited Sweden. That doesn't make his observation any less true than your grandfather's.

Have you ever sat down and read Genesis? It's not a terrible allegory, if your audience is nomadic shepherds...

Re:There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[Kjellander]

Perhaps Matthew hadn't visited Sweden. That doesn't make his observation any less true than your grandfather's. Hellllloooooo? We are talking the alleged word of god here. He must have been to Sweden if he made it right? Stop making excuses and just admit that it's Science basket 1 - God 0 in the weather department.

Have you ever sat down and read Genesis? It's not a terrible allegory, if your audience is nomadic shepherds... Have you read any of the Eddas of Norse Mythology? Here's an idea, you read up on other peoples mythology first before you ask them to read up on yours.

Re:There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[Moofie]

"Stop making excuses and just admit that it's Science basket 1 - God 0 in the weather department." ...? Wow. Did I kick your dog or something?

I haven't read the Eddas, but I have read some Norse mythology.

I'm not sure who it is you're arguing with, but it must be somebody who espouses a different set of beliefs than I do.

Re:There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[Kjellander]

I'm not sure who it is you're arguing with, but it must be somebody who espouses a different set of beliefs than I do. I'm arguing against the person who started quoting scripture that tries to predict the weather. I have a perfect example of when that scripture is wrong, and science is right. And it all boils down to, the more science we figure out, the less "god did it" works as an explanation.

Re:There are lots of baskets - life is not boolean

[will_die]

You should read quote before making guesses, the full text reads

1The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3 and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Jesus was quoting them not making the statement himself.

Secularist Country?

[JochenBedersdorfer]

If the National Academy of Sciences feels the urge to make such a statement, then this is another shocking sign of how far religious thinking has permeated the US of A.

I keep looking forward to the time when people proclaiming to get their commands from god have to pay the same price as people proclaiming that elvis is still alive looking like a happy man/ in the snow with Rosebud/ and King of the mountain.

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Millions of children believe in unicorns, therefor they *must* be real. Great deduction.

The real world doesn't need religion...

[nih]

The real world doesn't need religion in order to function, never has, never will.

Re:The real world doesn't need religion...

[kitsunewarlock]

I wish I had a point to mod this troll... Anyways, many religions in the past functioned almost like a de-facto science for the people of the time, providing them with new outlooks on life that would lead them to leading richer and longer lives. People would take data from experiences ("If I water my plants more and more, balancing the water with the dirt in a constant ratio, I get better olives") and later assume, although by today's standard with a lack of in depth experimentation, it was the result of a spiritual anomaly ("this must be because all matter is composed of more or less dense water, and grows as a result of contact with this dense or less dense form of water"). As a result, they could teach people these fundamental truths and prosper in a way they could easily understand so they could apply it to their lives ("I have watered my plants with the same consistency and obtained a proper harvest each and every year, getting lots of money in the process" to use an early Greek 'religious' example, which was at the time lauded as a cult). Many laws in Religious teachings (Cleaning your hands before eating to keep your body clean, a Shinto teaching, or not eating Pork due to disease rampant in the creature at the time) helped the people of the time better survive a world that didn't understand what was happening to them. Just because they didn't have the technology to explore that, for example, washing your hands prior to eating is essential for physical health because your hands gather dangerous germs and bacteria throughout the day that you don't want in your body, doesn't mean they couldn't learn through observation of the world around them and live better lives later. Explaining the myth to children or even 'the common people' through poetic tales (Tsukuyomi decapitating the kami of the feast, for example, for not properly presenting and cleaning the food and eating area), doesn't mean that its 'wrong'--even science does this through misleading titles ('the big bang', for example, despite the lack of sound that would have been present at the time; and yes, I know the term was originally used to mock the theory. The point is, its still taught using this term). Personally, I still believe in the future new ways of seeing existence will emerge to become the leading way of understanding the universe that will be so different from today's standards (Physics), that old (our 'current') sciences will be rendered as foolish and useless as old religious practices are seen by many today. I also believe there will be strong support for our modern sciences that will continue, albeit to much criticism for not adopting to the modern way of thinking. In the end, I believe any view that allows you to live your life to the fullest without imposing itself on the lives of others to an extent that they are unable to explore the world themselves (and other's ability to advance their personal philosophical views on the world) is a valid choice. The tricky part is getting people to stop wanting to define their world-view as "the one everyone agrees with...or else." The issue though with that is teaching...if you really wanted a non-invasive philosophical doctrine imposed on the world, no one could teach anyone anything. Or people would simply have to be forced to be taught opposing world-views and ideas, spend time actually exploring the possibilities that other realities exist outside the ones that they formed in their heads when they were children, once they've achieved a mental capacity for coming to conclusions. Building new ideas on existing dogma and advancing the human consciousness and view of our world based on personal experience, experimentation and logic is the true goal set for every able human on or off the face of the earth.

Re:The real world doesn't need religion...

[nih]

ah sorry, when i said the real world i didn't include life, which is too insignificant to matter.

This is absolutely ridiculous

[mad_robot]

It's about time teachers in the US stopped pandering to these idiotic demands for the discussion of religious dogma in science classes. It doesn't matter if the theory of evolution is consistent with any belief systems. If it's not science, then it doesn't belong in a science lesson. Period.

Re:This is absolutely ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the teacher gets fired if he doesn't pander to the idiotic demands for the discussion of religious dogma in science classes?

The problem is with allowing religious elements to get a foothold in government, where they have serious influence. It's in their own interests to stay out of the government too - are you listening, religious right? The government can protect your right to have your religion (and others, theirs). History and current events show that sectarian governments fight endlessly with other sectarian governments and abuse their own citizens that have contrary religious beliefs.

Re:This is absolutely ridiculous

[liquidsin]

that's a brilliant idea. i agree 100%. only science in the science classroom. now all we need is a way to explain this idea to the children in the science classroom so that they understand the difference between science and religion. or would you prefer that science take on the methods of many religions, and just ignore/shun/murder those who posit questions like "but how does science explain this better than religion?".

Re:This is absolutely ridiculous

[mad_robot]

The problem here is with religion's inability to adequately explain scientific truths. This should be discussed in religion classes. Not science classes.

Re:This is absolutely ridiculous

[liquidsin]

i'm not arguing that point. i still think it's a good idea to address the difference in a science class, so that the students in that class are armed with that info. i don't see a problem with spending the first class of a semester explaining to the students the differences between religious and scientific truths, and why the two aren't interchangeable.

Re:Sellouts

[Hognoxious]

And millions of flies eat shit. Your point was what, remind me?

Religion vs. Science and Logic

[Lachlan Hunt]

Evolution itself may not be totally incompatible some religious ideas (except creationism), but any rational, logically thinking person should realise that all religions are complete nonsense.

Re:Religion vs. Science and Logic

[stewbacca]

any rational, logically thinking person should realise that all religions are complete nonsense.

Amen and halleluja! ...oh wait

Re:Religion vs. Science and Logic

[davide marney]

All religions? Every one? All complete nonsense? Every statement, every claim?

For a scientist, you can clearly throw around axioms with the best of them.

How vs. Why

[Per Abrahamsen]

> So what's left in the god basket?

Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how").

I'm an atheist, I believe the only meaning that exists is what we create ourself. But that is a philosophical position, not a scientific position. There are excellent philosophical arguments for why I'm right and the theists are wrong. But they are philosophical, not scientific. Those who believe science can disprove God is as delusioned as the ID people who believe science can prove God.

Those religions that has a well-educated clergy, such as the Catholic Church, have long ago decided to leave the Emperor (science) what is his, namely the mechanisms, and leave God (religion) what is his, namely the meanings. Only, Those churches that mainly consist of in-breed hillbillies, mostly some US Protestant groupings and some Arab Sunni-Islamic groups, still want religion to describe mechanisms, despite the overwhelming evidence that religion sucks at mechanism.

In science class, don't ask why it rains, ask how it rains. Mechanism, not meanings.

Re:How vs. Why

[Marcion]

Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how").

As a Christian I heartily agree with you.

I am English and a member of the Church of England (in America it is called episcopalian) and I heartily agree that on current evidence evolution is by far the best way of describing "how". Indeed, Darwin was a practicing Anglican most of his life, and the fact he could not reconcile his scientific observations with the theological thought of his day was a short-term bug.

So to any six-day creationists reading this, I would say chill out and give it a go. My approach is to follow the works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and John Robinson in putting less emphasis on God as the old angry father in the sky issuing commands and more on a decentralised flowing holy spirit, e.g. the spirit in Genesis 1:2, the spirit 'hovering over the waters'. So you have the holy spirit inside and caring for the cells as they split and life moves on until we get to humans and cats and dogs and so on, it seems rather more beautiful to me.

Re:How vs. Why

[AndGodSed]

Yes. Problem is that there are people on both sides who clamour for the opportunity to smack the opposition with the "YOU ARE WRONG!" plank.

Sheesh if Christians where a little more tolerant and Atheists a little less snooty everything would be much more fun.

Re:How vs. Why

[Alain Williams]

Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how"). But why does there need to be a reason? Can things simply not be ? I find it curious that we believe that there has to be an answer to 'why' questions.

Why do I exist ? Is that really a meaninful question ? It implies that I must be here for some purpose. One of the interesting things about language is that it is easy to ask questions without real meaning.

Re:How vs. Why

[houghi]

> So what's left in the god basket?

Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how").

That, to me is the same question. If you know ("how") you also knwo ("why"). What is left in the God basked are the things we do not know yet what the answer is.

Re:How vs. Why

[GoofyBoy]

>But why does there need to be a reason? Can things simply not be ?

The same reason why scientists need to run around and find out 'how'.

Re:How vs. Why

[dk.r*nger]

But why does there need to be a reason? Can things simply not be ? I find it curious that we believe that there has to be an answer to 'why' questions.

Why do I exist ? Is that really a meaninful question ? It implies that I must be here for some purpose.

If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all. And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely? Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)?

If we are here for no reason at all, what is the justification that I can't just kill left and right, for the hell of it - other then being killed myself, which, given there is no purpose, doesn't matter? Why do I care about raising my children right, and treating others with respect?

If there is an abstract, permanent higher power that we're all ultimately answering to, then it makes sense to follow certain rules, the ones we call morality and ethics. Believing in a god is not prerequisite to behaving nicely, but recognizing the huge impact religion have had on the formation of modern day society is important - and I don't think discrediting everything religion, past and present, with a wave of the hand (which is what many atheists seem to do) is a very sensible thing to do.

As GP said, it's a philosophical question. Because if you believe we are here for no reason at all, but still care about poor people, drug abuse, the environment and war in remote countries, then you are acting extremely irrationally.

I don't believe in a metaphysical god that can intervene, but I do believe in Christian values and morality, and act irrationally according to those, and that makes me a Christian, in my logic.

Re:How vs. Why

[Yetihehe]

Why do I care about raising my children right, and treating others with respect?

My answer: if there is no other reason, then just why not? Because I would just like to treat others with respect and would like to be treated with respect. If Someone doesn't treat me with respect I won't like him. If enough people don't like him, he won't be very happy (unless he likes to be not respected, then this is his decision). Those all "human right" are just results of the way our society is built. If we all lived in society where murdering is very welcome, everyone would murder. How long such society would live? If your society tries to prevent murders, then it will live longer as a whole and outperform those murderous societies. Summing this up: you shouldn't murder because others don't like it. If they liked it, you could be murdered before you could even murder.

Re:How vs. Why

[Tom]

> So what's left in the god basket?
Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how"). Not even those, sorry.

God has simply ceased to be necessary. If you can explain everything without (every "how"), then even with all your "whys" unanswered, you don't need a god anymore. The world works perfectly well without one, so why should there be one, if he has zero effect on anything?

I personally think that the most pressing "why" questions aren't half as important as we make them. Us asking is the primary mover - our brains are trained to find causality, so we ask "why" all the time, but the question isn't anywhere outside of us. There is no necessity for a godly power to answer questions that are purely internally.

Re:How vs. Why

[gertam]

At the very least, the reason not to kill people left and right is that we are all part of a society and we rely on that society for our survival. We function together doing the things that each of us does well to allow us to survive. Therefore we have rules that society has set up to allow it to function and survive. One of those is not killing each other. Another is taking care of children in order to continue as a society. If you look at everything as one organism trying to survive it all makes perfect sense. You do not need any outside force or outside morals. They are all part of the being. That is simply a metaphor, but it explains why things that you are treating as separate and apart from each other are truly not. There is nothing irrational about caring about poor people, drug abuse, the environment, and war in remote countries, because all of these things DO affect me as part of the larger organism known as the Earth. Sticking to principles that have shown their worthiness, whether or not their direct immediate effect on me has been shown, is a sound strategy for the long term of the world and me. I have faith in all sorts of things that are not God. I have faith that the elevator I step into will open up again on the floor that I press the button for. I have faith that money is worth something. I have little or no faith in an external being having anything to do with the creation of life. It is not part of my world. It was an explanation that someone came up with years ago when they did not have the tools to observe the interconnected nature of life and needed some unifying force. There is no inherent need to impose an external God-based set of rules and laws to act morally. If these God-based rules work to further the society then let them be applied. If they do not work, we can change them and ignore the God-enforced stricture. This flexibility is an advantage to listening to one book with one group of people's set of rules that they say they got from a Supernatural entity thousands of years ago. The great part is that the changes that do not work can be changed again if and when they prove non-beneficial. You can't do that with the Bible.

Re:How vs. Why

[wirehead_rick]

I don't believe in a metaphysical god that can intervene, but I do believe in Christian values and morality

Fuck You Asshole.

I am so sick and tired of Christians claiming "ownership" of morality. Here's a news bulletin: CHRISTIANS DID NOT INVENT MORALITY.

I don't suppose it is possible for you to understand that people have feelings and understand compassion without having any idea of who or what a christian god is. We have archeological as well as modern examples of thousands of societies who have had no exposure to a christian religion who seemed to function just fine. Do you suppose these societies exist(ed) as raping murderous folk? How long do you really believe a society could last with a populace with such values?

What I find humerous is that you seem to think religion is the only thing holding you back from killing and raping. Personally I'd recommend you get some physological help right away. Most normal people don't need a mental restraint to understand how to behave in society. They simply inherently know because being a good member of society is inherently in our nature and (speaking of evolution) in our best interest for propogation of our genes.

You're a Fucking Christian Moron and thinking like yours lead down the slippery slope to crazy shit like flying airplanes into buildings.

Re:How vs. Why

[Falesh]

I personally don't understand why religion is needed for moral judgments. If someone needs it as a carrot and stick, e.g. be good go to heaven or be bad and go to hell, then this can be done by society using methods like prison or having people you care about rejecting you. If God is required not for the carrot and stick but for a voice that tells you what is right or wrong then this again can be taken care of by our society, murder is patently bad for society and as such it is wrong.

Re:How vs. Why

[vbraga]

Welcome to existentialism. Existence precedes essence. I'm in this club too, along that funny guy, Nietzsche.

But there are other view points. All of them are outside of the science scope (and should be this way or we get those nasty stupid things like positivism). This is the point of GP and should not be ignored. God is not 'how' and this were ID people get lost. God is 'why'. I don't believe in it, but it's a gap that must (or not) be closed by philosophy, not science.

PS: I'm not a native speaker, so, corrections are welcome.

Re:How vs. Why

[dk.r*nger]

My post was not so much about faith in God - but about whether or not there is a "why" as the OP asked. Your statement implies a basics premise - that survival is worth pursuing (if we don't feel we have a purpose in the world, beyond securing the survival of others, why bother?). I agree with you completely that furthering society is necessary, and that is my point to the OP: it's a *why*.
Then I went on to investigate where that purpose comes from - you call it the organism of earth, I call it religion. Both have to do with what (someone thinks) is best for humanity at large. And I don't think we disagree all that much, given how I don't believe in a metaphysical god implies that I don't think a such can write books.
The interpretation of the Bible does, by the way, change when proved non-beneficial. It has done so several times in history - but that's a discussion for another thread.

Re:How vs. Why

[dk.r*nger]

I am so sick and tired of Christians claiming "ownership" of morality. Here's a news bulletin: CHRISTIANS DID NOT INVENT MORALITY.

Good for you. Can we discuss something I've said, rather what you wanted to hear?

We have archeological as well as modern examples of thousands of societies who have had no exposure to a christian religion who seemed to function just fine.

Yes. But would you care to show me any that's lasted for very long that doens't believe in some sort of deity?

What I find humerous is that you seem to think religion is the only thing holding you back from killing and raping.

What I find humorous is that you talk about feelings and compassion in a reply in which you lead by calling me an asshole, while you obviously didn't care to read what I wrote. If that's your idea of compassion, I'd recommend you'd get some dictionary help right away.
Just so you don't have to go back and read it, my statement was that if there is no purpose for up being here, why do we refrain from mentioned raping and murdering. Which led me to conclude that there must be such a purpose (I assumed that intelligent people could deduce that). This was in reply to a guy who asked why there had to be a "why" next to the "how". Which again has nothing to do with me or anyone else belonging to Christianity or any other religion.

But, hey, I wrote that I consider myself a Christian, so I must five minutes away from blowing something up, that's obvious.

Re:How vs. Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Some US Protestant groups? Can you name a US Protestant group (naming a European Protestant group that has churches in the US doesn't count!) that doesn't demand that religion explain everything?

The largest group of non-Catholic Christians in this nation are evangelical Christians, and they most certainly are pushing forward the teaching of creationism in schools. Hell, even Obama belongs to an evangelical church - which apparently traces its roots back to the Puritans. I'm not sure there's any currently running candidate that isn't an evangelical Christian.

Shows you something about religion in the US...

Re:How vs. Why

[mdwh2]

The same reason why scientists need to run around and find out 'how'.

But we know that "How" is always a valid question - we are simply asking for knowledge on what happens in the Universe; what events take place, which is all potentially observable.

"Why" still presupposes that there is a purpose for everything. It's clinging to the idea that the natural explanation isn't correct, so there must be an intelligent being who made it happen, just to piss you off.

Re:How vs. Why

[k8to]

>But why does there need to be a reason? Can things simply not be ?

The same reason why scientists need to run around and find out 'how'. This is a confused comparison.

On the one hand, scientists, usually, have a *personal* motivation to discover the 'how' behind things. It fascinates, interests, drives them. The accumulation of knowledge, the probing of an area of inquiry is rewarding and satisfying to them and that is why they do it.

The "need" for them to do it is of their own chosing according to their own internal motivations.

The question about reasons is pointing out that the distinguishment of religion vs science (why vs need) is sortinging out two categories of inquiry in which one category does not necessarily have any value at all. Since it is possible that there is no actual meaning to our existence, and that there is only the fact of it, to presume that there is a category of exploration of meaning pre-supposes that there is such a thing, when it is not given. Thus, by framing the question one can dodge the thorny issue of whether there is any meaning at all.

Of course by all means the issue of "maybe there might not be any meaning to it all" has not gone unnoticed by the philosophers of many ages, but it DOES go unnoticed by the general public. Pointing out the ignored presupposition is totally reasonable.

Re:How vs. Why

[mdwh2]

Ah, it's the "atheists must be immoral" argument.

If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all.

Right.

And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely?

Non-sequitor. How does having a reason, imply behaving nicely?

Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)?

Let's start with definitions - when I say "X is wrong" I am expressing my opinion that I do not wish people to behave in that way. I don't want people to rape because rape causes measurable harm, and I don't want a world where I or other people are harmed against their will ("murder is wrong" is a tautology btw, since murder by definition means "killing which you think is wrong"; however, I believe that some killing is wrong for the same reason as rape, it causes unnecessary harm to others).

Your turn: Why are rape and murder wrong?

By your post, it sounds like this is nothing more than "People shouldn't do it because they'll be punished in their afterlife" which in my opinion is completely amoral.

I find it worrying if people like you would resort to killing randomly, if you didn't think there was some big daddy to punish you for it. I also find it worrying that people do resort to killing randomly, because they think that it's what their God wants. All sense of empathy, or arguments based on evidence and logic, go out the window.

But even then, where do you think the religious idea of rape being wrong came from? Unless you believe God really did come down and tell people, someone somewhere must have decided why it should be wrong without resorting to "God", just like I did above. The only point you are making is that many people are too stupid to do this for themselves, and need the idea of someone to punish them - but clearly, there must be some people who can come up with this idea for themselves, otherwise it wouldn't have appeared in religion.

Re:How vs. Why

[k8to]

If there is an abstract, permanent higher power that we're all ultimately answering to, then it makes sense to follow certain rules, the ones we call morality and ethics. Believing in a god is not prerequisite to behaving nicely, but recognizing the huge impact religion have had on the formation of modern day society is important - and I don't think discrediting everything religion, past and present, with a wave of the hand (which is what many atheists seem to do) is a very sensible thing to do.,/quote>

I don't believe it for a second. There are all kinds of human societies in which decorum reigns and many do not have a rule-making abstract higher authority to which our ethical decisions answer.

Groups of people have a social web of ethical expectations to which we expect members to conform, and additionally we expect ourselves to conform. This is true with or without a god in the picture, and predates a concept of a higher power.

Why this is true, I have various theories, but it is sufficient to disprove the "religion provides social order" poppycock.

Some people do find their sense of social order and ethics largely from their religion. Some do not require it (or desire it) to be informed by a large organization or explicit ethical and/or spiritual group. Many people both pre-historic and modern are sufficiently informed by the normal social channels of upgringing, discourse, entertainment (yes! books even!), and other cultural interchange and do not require a specific ethics input.

Personally I would go so far as to say that those who *require* an external source of ethical information as their primary source are ethically lazy and are failing to pull their ethical weight in the society in which they exist, merely acting as pawns or robots in the ethical sphere.

Re:How vs. Why

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm an atheist"

Well, you took some shots at the Christians and the Islamics. Care to have a go at the Jews now, Per "Abraham"sen?...

Re:How vs. Why

[GoofyBoy]

>"Why" still presupposes that there is a purpose for everything.

I don't see that.

Why did that happen?
Answer: There isn't any reason why it happened. There was no purpose to why it occurred.

Re:How vs. Why

[Oktober Sunset]

belief in god does not lead to people behaving nicely. Religion is one of the main causing of people behaving nastily, all throughout history we see thousands of examples of people behaving like total cunts because they believe their god told them too. The bible is full of god telling people to kill other people and to rape and enslave.

If people believe they will be answering to god for things like 'why didn't you kill those infidels?' or 'why did you allow those fags to live?' then they are going to do far worse thing than if they believed in nothing.

Re:How vs. Why

[cruachan]

Your point about an educated clergy is so true. Likewise as a athiest I have little time for any religion in the evangelical mould because at base they are fundamentally anti-intellectual. OTOH it's always worthwile listening to the elite of the non-evangelical sects of any religion. One may fundementally disagree with them, but these are always smart people, do have worthwhile things to say about 'the human condition' and at the very least will hone one's own thoughts.

BBC Radio 4 tends to be very good at producing programmes of this description. The 'Humphrys in Search of God' series for example are well worth listening too (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml). For the non-brits Humphrys is an elderly and vastly respected BBC Journalist who is also an athiest who would like to believe in God, but cannot reconcile this with his experience. Great stuff.

Re:How vs. Why

[GoofyBoy]

>On the one hand, scientists,

(What is the "other hand"? Just interested because you seem to lead to an interesting point and I can't believe that philosphers wouldn't be motivated by something similar .)

>to presume that there is a category of exploration of meaning pre-supposes that there is such a thing, when it is not given.

You don't like the "reason" question because you don't think one of its axiom is valid?

We may or may not be able to find out exactly how the Universe works. Does this make the "science/how" question lesser?

Re:How vs. Why

[Copid]

Yes. But would you care to show me any that's lasted for very long that doens't believe in some sort of deity?

I think that you may be leaping to a causal relationship where there is none.

Re:How vs. Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with your idea, I thought of a poetic quote commonly attributed to Augustine or Galileo:

Science teaches how the heavens go, Faith/Religion/etc. teaches how to go to heaven.

Re:How vs. Why

[porcupine8]

Those who believe science can disprove God is as delusioned as the ID people who believe science can prove God.

Thank you. One of my pet peeves has always been the religious-nut atheists who won't admit that a fanatical belief that there is no possible way that there could be a God is just as much an act of faith as a fanatical belief that there has to be a God. They're the reason why I didn't call myself an atheist when I didn't believe in God - too many negative connotations.

If you don't believe in God, that's fine. You have your reasons. People who do believe in God have their reasons. Neither of you is ever going to prove your case. You can make arguments for your case, but you have to accept the fact that you'll never prove it.

Re:How vs. Why

[Anonymous Coward]

In science class, don't ask why it rains, ask how it rains. Mechanism, not meanings.

Worst. Example. Ever. "Why does it rain" is a *perfect* question for science class.

Re:How vs. Why

[sytonit]

The meaning of evolution is precisely the problem that creationists have with Evolution. Facts don't exist in a vacuum, meaning is derived from facts such as we are not the center of the Universe (Geocentric vs. Heliocentric). Evolution makes us a part of nature not above it. It means that we aren't the special creation of a deity and once again science shows how humans are not the center of the universe.

Re:How vs. Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're stupid. You need to turn the question aroud. The only reason YOU exist is because your parents believed in the future and conceived you. And you don't believe (if you truly are an atheist, children are only a cost, and not any value at all, therefore they're worthless, not that you've actually thought about this, but that doesn't bother you calling everyone else stupid, so I call you stupid). Therefore you don't have a reason to live.

Science, obviously confirms this (only reason to live is to multiply). But I prefer the biblical text, crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram. (as it basically sums up the reasons to live : enjoy yourself, and raise children, the earth is but a gift to make this possible, I cannot, for the life of me, find a better explanation).

That is the only meaning of life.

Re:How vs. Why

[yndrd1984]

Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)? Why do I care about raising my children right, and treating others with respect?

Human beings are social animals, the drives that help us to get along in society are built into us almost as deeply as the desire to have sex. People that don't think that murder is wrong (or something equivalent to that) or don't raise their children to handle social situations are at an evolutionary disadvantage.

... other then being killed myself, which, given there is no purpose, doesn't matter?

It might not matter in a universal sense, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to you. And even Christian morality is based on something that's already built into human beings - why should you care if morality matters to God?

recognizing the huge impact religion have had on the formation of modern day society is important - and I don't think discrediting everything religion, past and present, with a wave of the hand (which is what many atheists seem to do) is a very sensible thing to do.

Atheists don't dismiss the impact that religion has, even if they don't think its effects are all as rosy as you're suggesting - they just don't believe it's true. The sun doesn't circle the earth, but that doesn't mean that that belief had no effect on history.

Because if you believe we are here for no reason at all, but still care about poor people, drug abuse, the environment and war in remote countries, then you are acting extremely irrationally.

It depends on what you mean by 'irrational'. If wanting to live, watch TV, and have sex is irrational, then fine, caring is irrational. Just keep in mind that Christians are just as irrational, because they irrationally want to obey God.

I don't believe in a metaphysical god that can intervene ...

Then you're not a Christian. You may have been influenced by Christianity, your moral systems might be similar, but without a belief in something supernatural you're not religious.

Re:How vs. Why

[Fweeky]

If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all. And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely? ... If we are here for no reason at all, what is the justification that I can't just kill left and right, for the hell of it - other then being killed myself, which, given there is no purpose, doesn't matter? What the fucking fuck? Rape and murder is wrong because there's a Really Big Guy who doesn't like it and will punish you for it once you're dead? The lack of an externally enforced reason for existance would leave you unable to form a decent moral base for life? That sounds.. psychopathic.

Because if you believe we are here for no reason at all, but still care about poor people, drug abuse, the environment and war in remote countries, then you are acting extremely irrationally. In what way is that? See, just because Big Angry Loving Beardy Guy doesn't fly around in the model of reality I have built in my head, doesn't mean my own existance isn't important to me. In fact, the natural processes I'm certain have led to my existance have imbued me with certain drives which pretty much ensures that I want to live, and live well, and want the same for my kin.

That these drives have been built by natural selection and not Magic From Outside Time[tm] is irrelevent; I still care about people in accordance with the Strong Suggestions of the Monkeysphere, and this handy ability to think abstractly about things means I'm even willing to put the effort in to go a bit further than that, because it's good for me and everyone else.

This handy ability to think also allows me to form my own fairly abstract goals about life above and beyond the basics nature has good practice with, and killing people isn't really a very good way of achieving those goals. Are you really so listless that you can't do the same, and instead need to follow someone else's rather strange set of goals and guidelines for achieving them just to stop you murdering people for fun?

Re:How vs. Why

[Tablizer]

Only, Those churches that mainly consist of in-breed hillbillies

You have no proof in your theory that inbreeding causes belief in I.D., so keep it out of the textbooks or I'll blast your balls clean off with my musket and let the possums eatcha!

Re:How vs. Why

[globaljustin]

So what's left in the god basket?

Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how").

I agree, and sometimes I wish /. had a mechanism to make certain comments in very long threads 'sticky' b/c the ideas you present make 75% of the comments I read at my threshold irrelevant.

I am a devout Christian. Some would call me a 'born again', but I loath that term b/c I despise so much of what people who call themselves Christians say and do. I love science, especially cosmology. I probably could have made excellent contributions as a cosmologist or astro-physicist, but...well, the high school I went to would only teach creationism...try to get into a respected University with a high school diploma from an unaccredited school that doesn't teach evolution!

Speaking of 'in-breed hillbillies,' this church, which you'd definitely be interested in (if you haven't read about them already), is pretty much the definition of the kind of church of which you speak.

Now for a question, you're an atheist, and I was wondering if you could possibly give me an insider's insight into why some people seem to NEED for science to disprove the existence of any God? I feel like if everyone on both sides simply thought logically, they would come to the same conclusion as you did in your post and we could save ourselves alot of grief

I guess, in return for answering my question, I could possibly try to help you understand why ignorant hillbilly churches like the one I linked to above act the way they do (from a former member's perspective)...if you are interested.

Re:How vs. Why

[c6gunner]

"One of my pet peeves has always been the religious-nut atheists who won't admit that a fanatical belief that there is no possible way that there could be a God is just as much an act of faith as a fanatical belief that there has to be a God."

I've never actually met that type of atheist. I mean, I'm sure they exist, but judging by my experience they must be pretty rare. Most of the atheists I know seem to agree that the default position on all subjects should be scepticism. In other words, if you want me to believe that God exists, then show me some evidence. Ockham's Razor also plays a part in it. Overall most of us agree that there's no way to answer the question, which is why we consider it a pointless subject. It's like two blind men sitting around discussing the colour of the sky.

Re:How vs. Why

[A-Rex]

> > So what's left in the god basket? > Every question asking for meanings ("why") rather than mechanisms ("how"). Why-questions or questions about meaning are invalid, since they presuppose an agent with intent (God or something similar).

Re:How vs. Why

[porcupine8]

They probably are fairly rare in real life - much like attachment-parenting nazis and childfree crazies, they're probably extremely overrepresented on the internet. But then, I was also roommates with someone who was borderline that fanatical.

My attitude for many years was, if God both exists AND cares whether or not I believe in him (and is omniscient as advertised), he'd know exactly what it would take to get me to believe in him. The fact that nothing in my life had ever led me to believe in him was reason to believe either he wasn't there or wasn't too worried about getting me to believe in him. Then something happened in my life that I realized was *exactly* that kind of thing, and I realized I needed to hold up my end of the bargain and be open-minded enough to believe that he might actually exist. So now I believe in God, though I still freely admit that I might be wrong and it very well might have all been coincidence.

Re:How vs. Why

[k8to]

On the one hand scientists blah blah , on the other hand the presupposed reason question. I'm just pointing out that the supposed equivalence drawn by my parent isn't anything of the sort.

In turn, his parents was saying the given isn't given, and so he rejects the playing field conjectured by the question.

Both of these are fairly narrow (and pretty ironclad) positions.

I think science/how questions are many and I personally think the pursuit of knowledge is worthwhile for its own sake, without having any particular set of reasons why. Knowledge does not (primarily) consist of a set of unassailable facts, so fully knowable or not seems a complete aside.

I dunno what you were looking for. I think the presumption of why is foolish and I don't know why the majority of humans expect it. I create my own why for doing one thing vs another, and for living day in and out, and don't require a larger why than myself to put me here.

Maybe you thought I was cleverer than that, but it's a very simplistic worldview.

Re:How vs. Why

[ultranova]

I personally don't understand why religion is needed for moral judgments.

For the same reason why acceleration is needed to determine which way is "up": it gives a frame of reference. Without it the concepts of right and wrong become meaningless as anything more as matters of taste, because they don't refer to anything beyond a particular person's subjective opinions.

Of course this doesn't mean that people become nasty and amoral, because social instincts don't disappear; it simply means that morality has no philosophical foundation in an atheistic philosophy.

If God is required not for the carrot and stick but for a voice that tells you what is right or wrong then this again can be taken care of by our society, murder is patently bad for society and as such it is wrong.

It may or may not be bad for the particular society in which it happened, but may or may not be helpful to others. Please explain why one should consider the welfare of society in general and some specific society in particular a basis for determining right and wrong.

The thing is, rejecting religion also means rejecting any meaning behind reality, which in turn means rejecting any objective values, since there's nothing left to derive them from. In other words, atheism inevitably leads to nihilism.

Re:How vs. Why

[Falesh]

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on deciding what is right and wrong. In fact I would argue that you need to view religions classifications of right and wrong through your own moral compass as some judgments from some religions seem repugnant to me (example).

hmmm

[William Robinson]

The book also denounces the arguments for a form of creationism called intelligent design, calling them devoid of evidence, "disproven" or "simply false."

True...intelligent design exists or not can be told only by....wait..

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's irrational to believe in something you don't have empirical evidence for, but the next step isn't to dismiss God; it's to suspend belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Re:Sellouts

[Yetihehe]

And scientists can induce this feeling of connection to higher being with some magnetic fields. So are scientists the gods? If there is proven method of making feeling of being connected with nature ddo we still need god?

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

It should. But the reverse is often true.

Look at CS Lewis and Josh Mcdowell. Both atheists that converted. Mcdowell's stated goal was to prove the Christian belief a myth, and what happened? He became a believer.

Really, I welcome the in-depth study of science, and religion. Only through doing that can we come to the correct conclusion no?

Re:Sellouts

[vux984]

Its irrational to believe in something there is no proof of.

There's no proof the universe exists outside your mind. There's no proof you have free will. Between those two alone everything else you might choose to beleive (or think you chose to beleive) is pretty moot.

Weasel Words

[ajs318]

Science is based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable and endeavours to find explanations through observation, experimentation and the progressive incremental refinement of theories. Religion is based on the idea that some things are beyond explanation, and must be accepted as Mysteries by believers. These two premises are about as irreconcilable as you can get. Either Science will progress to a point where all religious Mysteries can be explained in scientific terms, or a proof will be established that shows why certain things are beyond explanation. (Cf. how you cannot determine five variables given a system of four simultaneous equations.)

Evolution provides such a good explanation for biodiversity that it becomes unnecessary to invoke God, except for the awkward questions of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. You can bodge in a kind of "wind it up and let it go", deist God, but this still ends up leaving unanswered questions: If a God could come spontaneously into existence from nowhere, why couldn't a ready-made, non-God-requiring universe come spontaneously into existence from nowhere? And if a highly complex living entity such as God could could come spontaneously into existence from nowhere, why couldn't a few single-cell organisms come spontaneously into existence from a suitable already-existing environment rich in carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and trace elements, with pure energy available in the form of radioactivity or electrical storms? (Evolutionary theory suggests that you only need single-cell organisms to begin with. All the rest will then take care of itself.)

And trying to teach biology without mentioning evolution is a bit like trying to teach electronics without mentioning Ohm's Law. (And Ohm's Law cannot be proven or disproven experimentally, because every voltmeter and ammeter fundamentally depends on Ohm's Law being true for its operation.)

Re:Weasel Words

[Pseudonym]

Science is based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable and endeavours to find explanations through observation, experimentation and the progressive incremental refinement of theories. Religion is based on the idea that some things are beyond explanation, and must be accepted as Mysteries by believers.

Even if you accept, for the sake of argument, that incorrect definition of religion, there's still no problem. You just have to remember that not all "things" are "phenomena". If it's a phenomenon, it's in the magisterium of science. If it's not, then it's in the magisterium of philosophy (of which religion is but one flavour).

Re: Weasel Words

[Black Parrot]

Science is based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable I don't think that's correct. We try to explain what we can, but I don't see any guarantees that we will be able to explain everything, even in principle.

Goedel, the halting problem, the uncertainty principle -- we know that there are fundamental limitations to the knowable.

Religion is based on the idea that some things are beyond explanation, and must be accepted as Mysteries by believers. No, religion is based on some arbitrary tradition (continually spiced up by new inventions). The whole bit about "mystery" is just a reaction to calls for supporting evidence, which is utterly lacking.

Either Science will progress to a point where all religious Mysteries can be explained in scientific terms What Mysteries are those?

or a proof will be established that shows why certain things are beyond explanation. What relevance would that have? We already know that certain things are unknowable, but they aren't supports for any religion.

Re:Weasel Words

[Dirtside]

Could you give some examples of "things" which are not "phenomena"?

Re:Weasel Words

[Pseudonym]

I have in another thread, but since you asked...

"Morals" and "ethics" are not phenomena.

That's not to say they can't be studied that way. You can, after all, work out where the universal prohibition on murder came from. The field of "Evolutionary Psychology" is a thriving area these days.

But, regardless of where it came from, there is no scientific test that can determine whether or not murder is wrong. Science can't even begin to express questions that deal with "right" and "wrong", because these notions are not built into the material world. Same with notions of "justice", "the public interest" and so on.

Nonetheless, these are important questions, and that's where philosophy steps in.

Re:Weasel Words

[Anonymous Coward]

all phenomena are explainable means the same as everything is explainable. There is no difference between thing and phenomenon in this context, so your distinction is not a distinction at all but a redefining of terms.

P.s. Gould's non-overlapping magisteria explanation of how religion and science do not conflict is BS. There are plenty of things that religious people think are solely in the domain of religion, and which they will not give up, which scientists simultaneously believe are part of science and will not give up. The only way they will not overlap is if one side gives up most of what it believes.

Consider evolutionary and religious explanations for jealousy, altruism, sociopathy, etc. Or whether chimps or dogs are sentient?

Saying that religion is concerned with meaning and purpose does not cut it. What is the meaning of altruism? Why does it exist? Why do we see it in certain species but not in others that are or approximately equal intelligence? Religion and science both offer explanations.

Science and religion will always conflict, until religion withdraws completely from any kind of explanation about why things are the way they are and how they came to be that way, or science ends and we regress to the dark ages when there was nothing but religion.

Re:Weasel Words

[Pseudonym]

There is no difference between thing and phenomenon in this context [...]

If you're restricting yourself to "this context", then I agree with you. So would pretty much all scientists and pretty much all liberal theologians.

Gould's non-overlapping magisteria explanation of how religion and science do not conflict is BS.

It is not, though it is incomplete. The areas of human discovery which are not "science" are more properly referred to as "philosophy", and "religion" in this sense is one particular set of schools of philosophical thought. They're not the only ones, and they're not even necessarily the best.

As I noted in a previous thread, Evolutionary Psychology can, and does, examine the origins of morals and ethics. But regardless, there is no scientific controlled double-blind test that you can pose that will determine whether or not murder is wrong. It's an important question, but it's not a scientific one. It's a question that is within the grasp of human reason. Religion does not have a monopoly on it. But it's the sort of area where religion still operates successfully.

Science and religion will only conflict while there is a vocal minority on both sides (a smaller minority on the "science" side, I might add) who have a vested interest in maintaining a supposed conflict.

Re:Weasel Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Gould's non-overlapping magisteria explanation of how religion and science do not conflict is BS.

It is not, though it is incomplete. The areas of human discovery which are not "science" are more properly referred to as "philosophy", and "religion" in this sense is one particular set of schools of philosophical thought.

It's not incomplete. It's wrong. I am not arguing that there are no magisteria, which you seem to believe (since you went on to give an example of 3 particular ones and assert that they are different, which I do not deny). I am arguing that it is blatantly false to assert that they do not overlap.

It is a fact that religion and science sometimes overlap, at least until religion surrenders that particular point to science as it invariably does (but then I'll just find a different example). If they overlap, then explaining them as "non-overlapping" is not incomplete, it is wrong! If I say two sets are disjoint but they have a member in common, I am wrong. It is not an incomplete explanation, it is an incorrect explanation. 2+2 != 5 (standard Peano axioms, etc.), and 'non-overlapping magisteria' cannot overlap. If they do, they are not non-overlapping, and any theory that says they are is wrong.

Here's an example of how they overlap.

What is the cause, or explanation, of the incest taboo between human siblings? (Note: I am not asking "is incest wrong?" I am asking why human beings are generally disgusted by the idea.)

Evolutionary psychology and religion are definitely in conflict on this point. No religion I'm aware of accepts the EP explanation of the incest taboo in humans and other animals. Therefore, religion and science conflict on this point. Therefore it is wrong to say that there is no conflict between religion and science in general. Therefore the theory of "non-overlapping magisteria" is BS.

And if you don't like EP as an example at all, it is easy enough to find examples of genuine conflict in other fields of science.

Re:Weasel Words

[Dirtside]

Morals and ethics are (in theory, anyway) self-contained logical systems, which makes them exactly as scientific as mathematics. They consist of axioms and logical extensions from those axioms. You can take a given action and, based on the axioms and logic of your moral system, determine in an entirely scientific manner whether the action is right or wrong.

So, yes, there is a scientific test for whether murder is wrong, given a specific moral framework. It's a logical test as opposed to an experimental verification, but again, if you think math isn't science, then I don't know what to say. :)

(In practice, almost all moral frameworks define murder as wrong by definition, so it's a bad example; homicide is a better one, since there are obvious cases where homicide is widely considered the right thing to do, e.g. self-defense against someone who is trying to kill you.)

Re:Weasel Words

[Pseudonym]

So, yes, there is a scientific test for whether murder is wrong, given a specific moral framework. It's a logical test as opposed to an experimental verification, but again, if you think math isn't science, then I don't know what to say.

I agree that maths is science, but I don't agree that moral philosophies are "self-contained logical systems" in the sense that you seem to mean it. Moral philosophers do indeed use logic, but it's usually not the kind of mathematical logic that I (with an extremely thorough academic grounding in formal logic and logic programming) am used to.

I agree with you about murder being wrong, BTW. It wasn't a great example, though it does push the problem back one step. If "murder is any killing of a human that is morally wrong", it does raise the question about what a "moral wrong" actually is.

Another example is "justice". What is that, exactly? And how would you test for it?

Re:Weasel Words

[Dirtside]

I agree that maths is science, but I don't agree that moral philosophies are "self-contained logical systems" in the sense that you seem to mean it.

Well, they are, however in practical fact few people ever devise a rigorous, thorough moral system and uniformly apply it to real-life situations. We take a lot of shortcuts to save time. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing better; it just means we cheat most of the time.

In other words, just because I do approximate calculations in my head when doing math, that doesn't mean math isn't fundamentally a rigorous system. One other major difference is that pretty much everyone agrees on what system of mathematical assumptions we should use; moral systems are a lot more numerous :)

Moral philosophers do indeed use logic, but it's usually not the kind of mathematical logic that I (with an extremely thorough academic grounding in formal logic and logic programming) am used to.

It's not nearly as precise or formalized in practice, but there's no theoretical reason it can't be. The practical reason is that it would take too long; we need to be able to apply moral judgements relatively quickly (due to external constraints, e.g. Person A is sitting in a jail cell waiting to find out if he's guilty), which isn't the case for mathematics (no one's life is really depending on whether you we can rigorously prove Fermat's Last Theorem).

Another example is "justice". What is that, exactly? And how would you test for it?

Just like anything else in a moral (or ethical) framework, you define it as precisely as you can, and then test a situation to see if it meets those criteria. However justness is defined by the people in the society; if enough people believe something is just, then it's just by definition (or rather, by their definition). Nothing is inherently "just" or "right" or "wrong"; these terms only apply to moral systems (whether they be devised by man, or devised by man who claim they're provided by God).

A key difference

[Toam]

I am a student of science (currently doing Honours in Space Science) and, to be perfectly honest, no part of my motivation for studying science is to disprove religion.

I like things to make sense, and understand why they make sense. I like mathematical rigor (granted, physics doesn't necessarily have that same rigor - Newtons laws are stated without proof, for example). I could read a religious text (eg: the bible) in order to "make sense of things" but things are NOT clearly explained. Things (generally things which are pretty obviously not correct in the literal sense) are claimed to be "non-literal" and hence left open to interpretation. A science books doesn't do that. It will clearly explain all its key points so that there is only the intended interpretation available. If a scientific theory no longer seems to make sense, it is reviewed rather than reinterpreted.

Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lord

[CrazyJim1]

I was reamed out last evolution post here on Slashdot because I thought speciation needed to happen for evolution to work. Now that I know that natural selection is even considered as one form of evolution, I'm down with the idea of evolution. I'm not even arguing against speciation. Evolution has a large number of concepts though and it infers a Big Bang and a Spark of Life for it to work. While you won't get me biting on those two tickets, I know evolution is solid science. I think a lot of Creationists would bite on evolution if the spark of life wasn't part of the equation. I mean Creationism says how it all started, and evolution says how everything is changing since it began. Just looking at it that way it makes sense. While I can't tell you how old the world is, I can rest assuredly say that evolution works in this post fall of man world.

Re:Sellouts

[jacquesm]

It's not evidence, it's anecdote. If we'd apply the same standard of proof to god that we would apply to a shoplifting then religion would be out of business pretty quickly. The funny thing is that religion should be held to a *HIGHER* standard because of all the outrageous claims they make and the wisdom they claim to profess.

Science, Religion and Politics

[Per Abrahamsen]

Most likely, there are far more members who vote Democratic than Republican. This doesn't mean that the National Academy of Science should start promoting democratic candidates in political elections.

These people who are smart enough to be atheists, and smart enough to not vote for republicans, are also smart enough to realize that these questions are not scientific in nature. The existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis, not is political allegiance.

The can talk science and politics as private citizens, as scientists their obligations ends with explaining people how these questions are not scientific in nature. Which, apparently, they do with the new book.

Why is tagged Flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may have been mentioned a million times before and as such not be particularly Interesting or Informative, but it sure as hell is not Flamebait.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

Two examples doesn't equate to "often".

Re:Sellouts

[Hognoxious]

If you believe in science AND human rights then you're a hypocrite because scientific method can never be used on human rights

A scientist can still come to a belief in human rights based on his own upbringing and morality, or because he thinks it's a better way to run society or from some concept concerning utility. The two things are parallel, but don't overlap, and if they don't overlap they can't contradict.

Religion, however, often does conflict with science - the obvious example being creationism vs evolution; both cannot be true.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[SargentDU]

No, the ability to think does not.

We don't know, and is all right.

[cabazorro]

Religion, like Evolution, is trying to chew more than they can swallow.
Overzealous scientists and religious people must hold hands and tell each other.
"We don't know all the facts on the origin of life and mankind"
And chat their faiths and scientific theories,
together,
over a cup of tea.

Re:We don't know, and is all right.

[ChaoticLimbs]

This cannot be. There must be one truth to answer every question. In a murder investigation, the defense does not attempt to argue that both the prosecution and defense are equally correct. For every peice of evidence, there is one correct explanation of its origin.
This does not mean that either the defense or the prosecution is correct. It means that each will bring to bear that evidence which supports its presupposed conclusion. Science is a method, not an ideology. Once can embrace science and the results of his experimentation will show what is correct. On those questions where evidence is insufficient to draw a proper conclusion, some will have differing theories, but eventually, as evidence is gathered, the truth may come out.
This differs from faith. Faith is the internal certainty of one's own conclusion, evidence be damned. The theory of evolution by natural selection has a lot of evidence supporting it. It can be falsified any time that evidence can be shown to have come about through some other method, but creationism has been shown to be an unsinkable rubber ducky in the minds of its believers. No evidence of natural origin will be sufficient to sway them from the conclusions drawn thousands of years ago in the complete absence of evidence. Experimentation and inquiry did not provide the 'theory' of creation, it was simply written down in a book and all were forced to accept it. This was done with the lash, the spear, cleansing fires, imprisonment and book burning. The so-called scholars of creation cannot simply take the dogmatic beliefs of the past, and insist that because they are no longer practicing the Inquisition, that they be granted a seat as a scholar at the table of discussion. They must first become scholars, possessed of an open mind and bring the evidence to the table.

Re:We don't know, and is all right.

[cabazorro]

I'm a scientist of some sort (computer scientist, for what is worth). I can tell you right from the start that our scientific observations, as such, from the apple falling from the tree to the super-collider, do not reveal the whole truth, or a single true, or the ultimate truth. Our findings and observations as scientists reveal segments and clues of a larger, much much larger puzzle. Being a true scientist is a humbling experience where the truth is accepted as a piece meal that helps you understand only I tingy and dismal part of the universe and satisfy your curiosity for a infinitesimal period of time. As such, religion is the lighting rod that draws from us, humans, the best and worst of our collective trades. We kill and save in the name of it. A true scientist, doesn't search for the truth only in those things that can be measure and quantified. She/He also search for it in the very personal experience of being a human being, with the same patience, kindness and perseverance shown in the Lab or the observatory. And that experiment/journey may or may not be Religious. Either, way, is valid, and a worthy cause.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

Too true. Those are the ones I could come up with without waking up my son sleeping in my lap, going to the room, getting the books and coming back to said son screaming murder 'cause his nap was interrupted, and then copying down every-single-author I can come up with who have become a Christian after trying to disprove the religion...

Try googling it, if you don't mind...

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

Catch much flack for the sig? I think the self-centeredness exceeds the selfishness, with a side helping of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not quite true. You can derive Ohm's law from the Maxwell equations, that is to say, it folows from the theory of electromagnetism. It is possible to check whether this theory, or model, or set of equations, or whatever you want to call it, is accurate by performing experiments and calculating to see if the results check out. Numerous experiments have been done and we are quite confident that within the domain of the theory it is as accurate as we can test. Of course, you posted your comment using a computer, a device which strongly relies upon the laws of electromagnetism to be correct in order to function...

On Genesis, from a Christian

[Gene77]

Most of us who are religious have known that Evolution and belief in God are not exclusive. It's just that mainstream culture does not find us interesting, and so we do not get put on TV, nor do we get much time in [mostly evangelical] churches. This is really unfortunate, to make an understatement.

For the Christian Scientist, all theories of the "natural" world as identified by the set of sciences that interest us are a subset of a larger, engaging reality. For the Christian layperson, having a theory on the working of one mechanism or another, buttressed by direct observation, if not by yourself then at least by others who have established themselves as trustworthy, should be convincing enough for most material at hand. To put this on topic: "evolution" contains robust models and should be seen as both able to provide useful explanations for our own natural history as well as provide insight into our future. And we can safely stop short of the drama right there.

Part of what has gone wrong in the highlighted subculture is that people who are not qualified will sometimes speak authoritatively on topics and end up with moronic conclusions. Sometimes this is how I feel when I read slashdot comments from naturalists that really feel that there is a conflict of interests between religion and science; and it is exactly what grates on me when I hear religious people espouse the same. Both persons will go away from what they fear and toward what they trust, and this is a bad process in general when it comes to advancing knowledge, no matter who does it.

And let me point out the great irony of culturally conservative Christianity: an in-depth attention to the Bible, particularly the Genesis creation myth will reveal that it is *nothing* about actual physical "creation". One thing that conservative theologians like to claim is understanding the historical and cultural significance of the Bible (this is a good thing). In my opinion, it is jettisoned frequently on this single topic for the purpose of funding a culture war.

Briefly, let me summarize that it is common practice among ancient near eastern cultures to take the dominant mythology, particularly the creation myth, and to retell it from the perspective of the current Monarch who uses this retelling to establish their role in the world, specifically their fitness for rule as it is often retold to highlight the character traits this Monarch possesses. In the Genesis creation account, what we see happening is a retelling of the dominant Sumerian/Akkadian creation myths (check out the Enuma Elis cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish for an example) from the perspective of the God of Israel: the major changes are a shift away from chaos and randomness toward order and predictability. The Israelites, safely said, were concerned by things such as established, powerful people groups in the same region, and basic things like sustaining a crop or herd of livestock; living through a winter and avoiding things like being enslaved again were definitely on the mind.

What the Genesis creation myth does say is basically this, if I can grossly oversimplify in a paraphrase: "The God who has lead you out of Egypt is greater than the gods and the people whom you face next; where the world is random and unpredictable, this God establishes order and sustains the land; have no fear."

And *that* is what a conservative pastor should be telling their congregations about creation and the meaning of the stories in Genesis.

Making this conflict with "science" is obviously left as an exercise from an aggressive or intentionally ignorant mind. Or maybe both :(

Re:On Genesis, from a Christian

[Marcion]

People who take Genesis 1 literally are partially the victims of the translation. The original Hebrew is the ancient equivalent of a poem, but the translators normally present in the manner of modern prose rather than in the manner of a modern poem, which is a shame.

Understanding Genesis 1 as a poem leads to some rather wonderful finds. For example, the way I like to understand Genesis 1 is as follows:

                        Genesis 1:1-2
Genesis 1:3-19 Genesis 1:20-30
                        Genesis 1:31

There are two parallel parts.

So in 3-19, the author presents the various elements of the non-living world, the climax of which is the stars in the sky and finally the Sun and the moon, who "rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness".

In 20-31, the author presents the various living things of the world, the climax of which is man and woman who rule over the animals and plants. The men and women are given the same position and same responsibility as the sun and the moon. The same mission to bring light and remove the darkness.

Re:On Genesis, from a Christian

[Cheesey]

A serious question: some Christians say that evolution cannot be true, partly because it appears to contradict the Genesis story, but more precisely because it says that things were living and dying long before humans arrived. I am told that the Bible says that before Adam and Eve's sin, there was no such thing as death, and therefore Adam and Eve couldn't possibly have evolved. How would you reconcile that with your own belief that evolution is part of God's creation, as it seems to be?

Re:On Genesis, from a Christian

[Gene77]

Oh sorry, I forgot to respond to your actual question: "How would you reconcile that with your own belief that evolution is part of God's creation, as it seems to be?" It's a really good question. However, if you don't believe that Adam and Eve were real persons (I really think it to be highly unlikely given the information we have about human evolution, and given that the story is not uncommon in ancient literature in various forms), then you don't have a causal conflict. You may have interesting theological questions about the nature of sin and death: does death need sin to precede it, to cause it in a sequential manner? or is it that death and sin are aspects of the same thing?

People who say that evolution cannot be true due to perceived conflicts with religious texts are really just protecting their hermeneutic, I think. Their hermeneutic is tied to their view of how God relates to people in general, so this is a really hard thing for people to change since it is equivalent to changing your entire epistemology on the whole.

I am not a theologian, though. I'm just a programmer who likes to think about these things and reads as much as possible. I chose to become a Christian later in life, and identify myself as such, but I don't presently attend church. Believe it or not, once you get past the Fox News version of religious life, there is an incredible intellectual history that awaits even the casual person; that is ultimately what drew me to Christianity.

Re:On Genesis, from a Christian

[Gene77]

I think that the line of where mythology ends in the Bible is probably a point of discussion as it's not entirely clear to me, and could probably use insight from someone better educated on this topic. I would hazard to say that this is not divided into fact and fiction, as it seems that the authors of the biblical texts did not/could not have such a world view. Literature, its role within a society, their conceptions of truth and meaning, all functioned very differently.

I would personally assume that the Adam and Eve story is also mythology for reasons similar to what you mention: nothing about the story is actually asking me to take it literally, and it doesn't seem to match our best historical records. So yeah, a literalist hermeneutic has all sorts of problems, and not just in Genesis. This is why most branches of Christianity, save the pronounced post-pietist and conservative Anabaptist movements, do not maintain this hermeneutical approach.

As C. S. Lewis famously stated, and I paraphrase, "Christianity is a myth that is true." To equate myth with fiction due to a binary view on the role of language as conveying either truths or errors seems to be a lazy application of reason. This is where fundamentalists thrive; that is indeed their worldview. It should be rejected by all persons because it is not very unintelligent. By that I mean not well equipped for understanding the world around us.

Re:On Genesis, from a Christian

[Requiem18th]

I don't know where this nonsense that science and religion doesn't collide has its roots in.

  Religions, christianity in particular, makes loads of factual claims. About the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of human civilization, the age of human civilization (even for old earth creationists, the age of actual *human* civilization still happens before domestication of the dog) the origin of language (and cultural) diversity, the origin of illness (demons) the origin of natural catastrophes (God's wraith) and utilitarian measures to prevent them (don't raise the God's wraith), practical advise to bring miracles (praying) a whole lot of historical narration, and many other things.

  True, those who want to think that science and christianity aren't in conflict are constantly *reinterpreting* the bible and admit their belief were wrong (not the bible itself, only their interpretation of it). "But! These other things are true" they insist, it starts all over again, always in constant opposition.

  Summarily, religion is in harmony with science in the same way copyright lasts for limited times only.

  What really irritates me is that they still use religious elaborations in their arguments. Example:

Senator: I'm not legalizing gay marriage, it's immoral.
Atheist: Says who?
Senator: God, in the bible.
Atheist: There is no God.
Senator: Nonsense! Of course there is a God, who created the world then?
Atheist: Evolution explains life, physics and chemistry explain the rest, the big bang explains the shape of the universe.
Senator: But those are theories you invented, do you have any reason to believe this?
Atheist: As a matter of fact I do *hands down a mountain of evidence the size of the Everest*
Senator: Wow that's pretty heavy evidence!
Atheist: Y'see? Everything is explained by a limited amount of rules and cosmological constants.
Senator: But who invented these rules and constants?
Atheist: We don't know. We don't even know if the question makes sense.
Senator: Aha! God invented them! That's my theory!
Atheist: Okay... what would it imply?
Senator: That I'm still not legalizing Gay Marriage

Re:On Genesis, from a Christian

[Cheesey]

Thanks for your replies! I've heard the "evolution can't be true because of death/sin" argument from fundamentalists, but haven't previously had a chance to see what non-fundamentalists thought of it.

The number of gods

[Per Abrahamsen]

> ? Evolution does not have a target or a final destination. It keeps on going.

Evolution is a general concept meaning slow/gradual change, as opposed to revolution which mean sudden/large change.

Biological evolution is only one kind of evolution. Clearly, the GP wasn't talking about biological evolution when he talked about the evolution of gods.

There is a trend to limit the number of gods:

Hunter/Gathers: animism, spirits of nature, every tree and stone has its own spirit..

Agriculture: Polytheism, gods are associated with concepts, such as love, war, fertility.

City states: Monotheism, we have the omnipotent create God.

Industrialism: God is dead.

As we can't really have fewer than zero Gods, that would seem to be the endpoint.

Of course, one could argue that humanism, materialism, and liberalism makes every one of us our own god, multiplying the number again.

Re:The number of gods

[stewbacca]

Negative numbers of Gods sounds good to me. Or even better yet, IMAGINARY numbers of Gods is ideal.

Re:The number of gods

[Anonymous Coward]

As we can't really have fewer than zero Gods, that would seem to be the endpoint. Until we get rid of manufactured evils, that control us in much the same manner, it would seem that we can have fewer than 0 gods (perhaps devils or antigods.) I better stop before this turns into a political rant...

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[sqrt(2)]

Catch much flack for the sig? Oh, not too much so far. It is new after all, give it some time ;)

Although to be fair I did get a little too inflammatory towards the end. But hey, I'm not afraid of punching back if someone starts something. But then again it was my sig to begin with...call it a draw.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[bwalling]

But if you teach kids from an early enough age to view the world critically and scientifically and to think for themselves, one should lead to the other.

Don't be such a fool. You're as bad as the creationists when you posit that science and God are at opposition with each other. They're simply unrelated. The idea that science can be used to explain what God has done is not new. It's been around for years. It simply gets ignored by all the people that want a battle and a fight. There have been many great scientists in history that were also Christian (Newton, for example). We need to simply move on from this religion versus science battle because it serves no purpose. Religion is not a threat to scientific thought. Science is not a threat to religion. The only threat is for narrow minded people on both sides of the argument that can't seem to handle the idea that someone thinks something they don't. I say we forget those people and move on.

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[radarsat1]

Now that I know that natural selection is even considered as one form of evolution, I'm down with the idea of evolution.

Interesting. What form of evolution doesn't involve natural selection?

I think a lot of Creationists would bite on evolution if the spark of life wasn't part of the equation.

A lot of Christians are uncomfortable with the 'clockmaker god' theory, which stipulates that God set up all the mechanics, hit "go", and walked away. They believe God plays an active role in their life.

Re:Sellouts

[wikinerd]

perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith

It is possible, but I am wondering how much social expectations or specifically social consequences affect one's statements about their faith.

If a scientist lives in a society where faith is the norm and those who go against the norms "committed suicide alone, nobody knows why" then it is expected that most scientists will say "I believe! I believe in everything you believe!" whenever asked in public.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[sqrt(2)]

Religion is not a threat to scientific thought. Teaching impressionable children to believe what basically amounts to magic has no effect on their ability to think critically? Do you really believe that?

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith, and there is a long list of scientists who have done so, including the "father of physics" Isaac Newton.

Following your logic, it must be perfectly OK for scientists to indulge in alchemy, numerology, sacred geometry and the quest for the philosopher's stone. The "father of physics" considered this part of his work to be more important than his studies of mechanics.

Um, think about that

[Mateo_LeFou]

Gods -- whether they exist or not -- have been one of the most important concepts shaping human history and culture. It would be like trying to educate children without mentioning "war", perhaps because you think war is immoral.

Re:Um, think about that

[Yetihehe]

Would you like it if those children believed making war is the best way of living?

Re:Um, think about that

[Mateo_LeFou]

Nope, but I'd like it if they were taught that war (like religion) can be the cause of great human suffering and that for this reason it (like religion) must be analyzed with every ounce of critical thinking we can muster.

I know it's optimistic to hope for critical thinking in schools, but the alternative -- simply not discussing such topics -- amounts not to education, but vocational prep.

Re:Um, think about that

[Talchas]

So, they should be mentioned in history class when appropriate, maybe in the english/writing/reading class to discuss reasons someone wrote a book or why it is interpreted that way, etc. It has no real use in a science classroom, because religion is not, and really cannot be, science. Maybe you could mention the opposition darwin + others faced from religion, if you want to do a bit of history in there too.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[bechthros]

wow. ok. so einstein, planck, kelvin, mendel, faraday, boyle, newton, descartes, galileo, kepler, bacon and copernicus were all wrong, and you are right.

got it.

emacs is my god

[wikinerd]

Public education *should* include the limitation of science.

I propose that public education should include the teachings of St IGNUcius.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[stewbacca]

They're simply unrelated.

Everything is directly related to science as science is a human concept that helps us understand EVERYTHING. People who lack the ability to understand things scientifically revert to religious explanations.

The standards of truth are entirely different.

[walterbyrd]

Don't kid yourself, religion and science use entirely different standards to decide what is true. Science uses logic and evidence, religion uses faith and dogma. Dogma is defined as "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof."

Science may not have an answer for everything, science has made mistakes, not every accepted theory can be 100% proven. But religion does not even try to prove anything, religion requires you to accept what is proclaimed without any attempt of evidence, or logic, what-so-ever. With religion, it's true just because somebody said so - no other reason.

Don't let yourself be fooled by an argument of ignorance. Don't think "if science doesn't have every answer that proves religion to be true." Because that is just illogical.

What is known about science is backed by hard evidence - religion has no such standard.

Re:The standards of truth are entirely different.

[theheadlessrabbit]

"What is known about science is backed by hard evidence - religion has no such standard."

what are you talking about....religion totally has a rock solid standard.
1) Religion is based on the Bible, and the Bible is infallible.
2) we know the bible is infallible because the bible says that it is infallible. and if you doubt this to be the case, see reason 1.
3) religion makes people feel warm and fuzzy.

you just can't argue that kind of logic.

How can a vast body of thoroughly tested, peer-reviewed knowledge supported by millions of facts possibly compare to that?

in all seriousness, it's shit like this that makes me feel lucky that I wasn't 'educated' in America.

Re:The standards of truth are entirely different.

[Anonymous Coward]

Phlogiston (cough cough), ether (cough cough), the benefits on transocular leucotomy (cough cough)...

Where's the "hard evidence" for the Big Bang? Or for string theory?

Re:The standards of truth are entirely different.

[skeftomai]

Mathematics? The expanding universe? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html ?

Where is the evidence for your god?

"randomly"

[SanityInAnarchy]

While it may be more difficult to believe if you're brought up in a religion, and while it couldn't really be backed by science, I can imagine that one could believe everything was just randomly thrown together.

No, I don't think any religious people have problems with Evolution unless they are also a Creationist. Creationism is something which is really not compatible with evolution, or with dinosaur bones, unless you just handwave it off as "God can plant whatever evidence He wants."

Mod parent up

[Mateo_LeFou]

Just as science has come a long way from "rocks like the earth, smoke likes the sky", religion has come a long way from "Magic Man dunnit".

Also mod TFA up if that's possible. I think a reason there's so much friction on the topic of evolutionary biology is because people *don't understand that science and religion try to explain different things, and have different ways of testing their truths. If a book can help them out of that habit, I say put it in the schools.

Incidentally, I know we all know people whose religion is still at "Magic Man dunnit" level. But we also know people with similarly insipid ideas about science ("the Uncertainty Principle means we can't know anything for sure" and that sort of thing.)

Re:Mod parent up

[Mateo_LeFou]

See, that's my point. "Magic man dunnit" is no more the core of religious belief than "people came from monkeys" is the core of evolutionary science. When people attack evolution on those grounds, you can't do much but recommend they read S.J. Gould et al.

Likewise, I recommend people look at, say, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Simone Weil, to get an idea of what a sophisticated religious outlook can be.

Re:Mod parent up

[mdwh2]

See, that's my point. "Magic man dunnit" is no more the core of religious belief than "people came from monkeys" is the core of evolutionary science.

So what is the core of religious belief?

I've come across countless people who will say things like "Science can't explain X, but religion can: God did it!" Perhaps this is just a minority - what do the majority believe then, if they don't believe in a God that created the Universe?

Re:Mod parent up

[Mateo_LeFou]

"So what is the core of religious belief?"

Well, a full discussion thereof would be outside the scope of a slashdot thread, but off the cuff I'd say:

the core idea of religion is that there is *meaning in, around, behind, or through the things that occur in the universe.

Re:Mod parent up

[ArcherB]

So what is the core of religious belief?

The core of religious belief is that God created the heavens and the Earth.

The core of science is to figure out how.

I've come across countless people who will say things like "Science can't explain X, but religion can: God did it!" Perhaps this is just a minority - what do the majority believe then, if they don't believe in a God that created the Universe?

From HERE:

Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein.[3] In 1924, Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, predicted that the recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[4] In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom", perhaps echoing previous speculations about the cosmic egg origin of the universe. So it was a Catholic Priest that came up with the "Big Bang Theory". Don't say that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Scientists ask how. Religion asks why.

Re:Mod parent up

[0xdeadbeef]

religion has come a long way from "Magic Man dunnit"

The complexity of someone's fantasy does not make it any less fiction.

Re:Mod parent up

[Rosy At Random]

The core of religious belief is that God created the heavens and the Earth.

The core of science is to figure out how.

No. Why should there be any need for a creation? Time being, as it is, part of the struture of the universe, it is senseless to talk about a time before it, or even the universe changing. It doesn't. The universe _is_. It always has been.

There is science and there is metaphysics. There's no need for magic sky men.

Re:Mod parent up

[ArcherB]

No. Why should there be any need for a creation?

That's what religion is for. Didn't you read my post?

The universe _is_. It always has been.

Not according to modern scientific belief. See "Big Bang Theory". That is when the universe began. Even Einstein had to admit that the Universe is neither static or eternal.

Not according to religious thought. See Genesis. That is when it all began.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists ask how. Religion asks why.

No. The difference is not what questions are asked but how those questions are answered.

Scientists use the scientific method. Religious people read from their holy books.

Georges Lemaître may have been a catholic priest, but, in this instance, he was behaving like a scientist.

Re:Mod parent up

[mrpeebles]

I think the core to western religion is hope, and personal transformation. Historically most lettered people have read the Bible as allegory, including those of ancient times. The assertion made with Jesus' alleged miracles is that he is a figure of hope and healing. It does not try to provide an experimental justification of the existence of God.

Re:Mod parent up

[0xdeadbeef]

Religion asks why.

No, the religious ask, but religion tells. And it tells self-serving lies.

Re:Mod parent up

[Rosy At Random]

Sigh... No. Time - well, Space-Time, since you bring Einstein into it - is an internal part of the universe's structure. The Big Bang is not where the universe began, it is merely a subdomain in which some parameters approach zero from our perspective. It is no more true to say that the universe began there than to say the unit circle began at (-1,0). You might want to google 'block universe' and stop referring to the bible everytime you're in danger of having to think logically.

Re:Mod parent up

[ArcherB]

I said:

So it was a Catholic Priest that came up with the "Big Bang Theory". Don't say that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Scientists ask how. Religion asks why. You said:

No, the religious ask, but religion tells. And it tells self-serving lies. Are you saying that the big bang theory is a self serving religious lie? And you think religious people ignorant? I think you've crossed ignorance and went straight to bigotry.

Re:Mod parent up

[ArcherB]

You might want to google 'block universe' and stop referring to the bible everytime you're in danger of having to think logically.

Uh, I didn't. I said science uses relativity and quantum mechanics to try to explain the beginning of the Universe. Religion uses the Bible, Torah, Koran or whatever. I was explaining that science and religion ask different questions and therefor have different answers and methodology. Science is based on empirical evidence from observation, experimentation, mathematics and theory. Religion is based on faith. They are apples and oranges. You shouldn't point fingers every time you're in danger of facing a different point of view.

Besides, we are talking about science and religion. Block Universe is a philosophical argument. Apples, oranges, and grapes.

Re:Mod parent up

[mdwh2]

So it was a Catholic Priest that came up with the "Big Bang Theory". Don't say that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

He may have happened to have been a catholic priest as well, but I presume he was following the scientific method, not religion, when he developed his theory.

Scientists ask how. Religion asks why.

Yes. The difference is that scientists get their answers, but religion doesn't.

Re:Mod parent up

[uglyduckling]

The universe _is_. It always has been.

What you assert is in direct contradiction to mainstram cosmology, which holds that the universe is expanding, started with a singularity at the 'big bang' and therefore did have a beginning.

Re:Mod parent up

[uglyduckling]

--> Scientists ask how. Religion asks why.

Yes. The difference is that scientists get their answers, but religion doesn't.

But there are different categories of answers. Think about this question: 'I made my wife a cup of tea. Explain'. What reasonable answers are there?

• boiling water mixed with dried leaves and milk produces a drink (this could be expanded to detail the complicated chemistry of a good cup of tea)
• my wife is thirsty and needs liquids to prevent dehydration, renal failure and eventual death
• it is customary and polite in the UK to offer tea to people
• I love her

You could analyse any occurance in a similar way, and I'm sure there are hundreds of other categories in which the question could be answered. All of those answers are correct, but none of them is complete.

In most situations that actually matter to people, the purely scientific answer is usually the least satisfying: 'your father died because he lost most of his blood volume' is far less acceptable than 'your father was a hero, he died in the line of duty, serving his country, under enemy fire', but which is scientifically 'correct'? Is nationality a scientific 'fact'? What is a 'hero'? The second statement is highly subjective but far more relevant than the former.

Re:Mod parent up

[mdwh2]

boiling water mixed with dried leaves and milk produces a drink (this could be expanded to detail the complicated chemistry of a good cup of tea)
my wife is thirsty and needs liquids to prevent dehydration, renal failure and eventual death
it is customary and polite in the UK to offer tea to people
I love her

But all of these answers can be given rationally, using evidence, reasoning and logic. Okay then, so not everything is answered purely by "science" - some things might be a matter of History, Economics, Psychology, Politics and so. But none of these things are religion or faith. You are conflating the scientific method with "pure science" (i.e., what scientists usually investigate). Things like love are still under the domain of scientific enquiry, as is that people die because they were serving their country. Yes, the fact that WW1 started in 1914 might be usually referred to as a matter of History rather than Science, but that doesn't mean that knowing when wars started is beyond the realms of the scientific method - obviously it is. It's just that we label people who research the past "Historians" rather than "Scientists", even when they use evidence and scientific methods in their approach.

So give me a question where the answer is found (and by "found", I don't mean "made up") through religion?

Re:Mod parent up

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

My old high school science teacher was religious, and was heavily involved with his local church (as I was shocked to find out). He taught us the theory evolution without caveat, without overemphasis on the word "theory", and with only one mention of any controversy on the topic. Even then, he only mentioned that he had no trouble resolving science and faith, that faith is something you believe in despite all scientific evidence, that science is done by the scientific method, and that no matter what his faith is, the scientific method delivers the same results, and that he can learn them, and teach them.

I think he was right. If you are truly faithful to your God and his teachings, then no amount of scientific evidence or reasoning should really make a difference to that. Science shouldn't really threaten religion.

Re:Mod parent up

[oliderid]

I beg to differ,

The assertion that the Bible should be read as allegories is quite modern. Don't forget that 500 years ago, you would have been killed/tortured because you thought the earth "could be" flat. The catholic church didn't recognize that the 6000 years old earth (or something equivalent) was an allegory until very recently (decades mean nanoseconds in history).

In the long term I do believe that the Bible will vanish just like all these old religions like polytheism (somes last for 4000 years see the Egyptian religion). It looks like we are a bit in the situation of the Roman empire when all sorts of funny religions (like new ages/Paganism/DIY God today) appeared until christians took the power with Constantin.

But I firmly believe that atheism won't win too. People desesperatly a needs "father/mother" figure, whatever it can be. They need to worship something, death and the human condition are too difficult to accept for most of us.

Re:Mod parent up

[Pseudonym]

So give me a question where the answer is found (and by "found", I don't mean "made up") through religion?

Sure.

There used to be an "argument" for the existence of God, the "Ontological Argument". The argument is obviously flawed, because it leads to absurdities. However, the precise reason why it's flawed is deeply subtle.

It was while investigating this argument that the scientist, philosopher, astronomer, astrologer, theologian and priest Pierre Gassendi (this was at a time in history when it was possible to be all of these at once) came up with the idea that existence is not a predicate.

This idea was one of the key steps in the development of mathematical logic. It was Gottlob Frege who eventually came up with the idea of "quantifiers" to express "existence", and now, the famous "for all" and "there exists" symbols that maths students know and love are commonplace.

Now I'm not saying that this discovery couldn't have been developed by someone else. However, the historical fact is that it was produced by a theologian as part of a theological argument.

Being a former logic programming theorist, this is probably the one example that I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are others, but they're outside my area of expertise.

Re:Mod parent up

[Rosy At Random]

No.

No.

No, no, no.

The universe-as-a-whole (which contains time) is different from the universe-within-time. The difference is equivalent to the difference between the set of positive integers and the sequence 1,2,3,... . The latter begins at 1, while the former merely has a lower limit at 1.

We clearly need to distinguish between the atemporal universe and its temporal counterparts, since by 'universe' I mean the former and you don't. Let us, for now, call the latter the cosmos.

Whether or not a singularity ocurred at the big bang is both debated and irrelevant, since this would merely be a beginning for the cosmos and not the universe. For the universe, the big bang is simply the lower corner of some parameters.

Is this now understood?

Re:Mod parent up

[Rosy At Random]

You think religion counts as an explanation? Seriously? Faith is an explanation now? Screw that.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice dodge though --

The universe didn't 'begin' unless you have a very naive understanding of time.

You: The core of religious belief is that God created the heavens and the Earth. The core of science is to figure out how [god did it! as opposed to what actually happened].

Rosy: No [god didn't do it]. Why should there be any need for a creation [or for a god to have done it]? Time being, as it is, part of the struture of the universe, it is senseless to talk about a time before it, or even the universe changing. It doesn't. The universe _is_. It always has been.

You: Not according to [my misunderstanding of] modern scientific belief [ or rather knowledge based on evidence]. See "Big Bang Theory". That is when the universe began. Even Einstein had to admit that the Universe is neither static or eternal [in the sense that it was expanding and not created in its current state].

Rosy: Sigh... No. Time - well, Space-Time, since you bring Einstein into it - is an internal part of the universe's structure. The Big Bang is not where the universe began, it is merely a subdomain in which some parameters approach zero from our perspective. [i.e., time is zero, nonexistent.]

You: [Blah blah religion religion blah blah I'm ignoring I was just caught being wrong and diverting the conversation.] I [hadn't] said science uses relativity and quantum mechanics to try to explain the beginning of the Universe [only that god did it and science figures out how]. Maybe if you'd said, "The core of religious belief is that God created the heavens and the Earth. The core of science is to figure out what actually happened by using predictions and observations without resorting to supernatural explanations," there would have been less confusion between what you said and what you meant to -- or believed -- you'd said.

Re:Mod parent up

[mdwh2]

I agree logic and philosophy are obviously important, and part of that is theology. But in the example you describe, firstly the answers are still found by following logic and reasoning, and not by religious faith or accepting something written down in a book or said by a person, which is what I meant by "religion". Secondly, the answers come from attacking the claim that God must exist.

As I said in my previous post, there are obviously things outside the domain of science, simply because what we usually refer to science is usually only concerned with physics, chemistry and biology, and not say history - or logic and theology. But this doesn't mean that religion has any answers. It's not clear here that theological thought should be put under the religion camp anyway, since this discovery came from disproving the proof - arguably therefore it's more atheism than theism.

Re:Mod parent up

[mrpeebles]

I think that 500 years ago, the Catholic Church was worried about its slipping political control. You could be killed/tortured for challenging that control. If the Catholic Church didn't recognize that the Earth wasn't really 6000 years old, this was because there was no evidence otherwise. This doesn't mean that it didn't read large parts of the Bible as allegory.

For example, I remember reading Augustine referring to the "stories" of the old testament in 300 ad. He says he initially thought them to be simple childrens stories, unable to compare to the other ancient classics, but that with more readings, his appreciation of them grew.

I don't know a whole lot about Biblical history, but I sometimes wonder if ancient and medieval readers of the Bible would be unable to even appreciate what we mean by "reading the Bible literally", which seems to me to be a statement very influenced by enlightment thinking (even if it is enlightment thinking gone wrong.)

Re:Mod parent up

[spun]

the core idea of religion is that there is *meaning in, around, behind, or through the things that occur in the universe. Why does anyone need to invent more meaning than the occurrence itself? It occurred, that is exactly it means, anything more is not just gilding the lily, it is smearing the lily with shit. I mean, if you want to do that, I won't stop you, but if you try to convince other people that making up arbitrary stories helps anything, I'll respectfully point out that it doesn't. Making up stories because you can't face the world as it is is exactly like taking drugs for the same reason. Religion really is the opiate of the masses. Now even Karl Marx admitted that sometimes, when people are really hurting, opium helps. But for healthy, sane people, it's not only unnecessary, it's dangerous.

Re:Mod parent up

[Pseudonym]

I agree logic and philosophy are obviously important, and part of that is theology. But in the example you describe, firstly the answers are still found by following logic and reasoning, and not by religious faith or accepting something written down in a book or said by a person, which is what I meant by "religion".

Obviously, I'm taking a broader and, I think, much more fair view. Religion is not all about accepting something written down in a book, And, to cap things off, it has made real, useful discoveries.

Secondly, the answers come from attacking the claim that God must exist.

No, this answer comes from attacking a specific, wrong claim. Which also, I might add, effectively refutes the claim that you hear sometimes that theology is not falsifiable.

It's not clear here that theological thought should be put under the religion camp anyway, since this discovery came from disproving the proof - arguably therefore it's more atheism than theism.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you're allowed to claim that the best of religion isn't really religion, then religious people are allowed to claim that the worst of religion isn't really religion either. And if you're allowed to claim that the worst of religion is "real" religion, then religious people are allowed to claim that the worst of atheism (e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot) is "real" atheism.

Alternatively, we could all learn to get along. Just a suggestion.

Re:Mod parent up

[eraserewind]

There is no why. There just "is".

Re:Mod parent up

[eraserewind]

But then people should stop pretending that it has anything to do with reality.
Evidence is how we determine what's what in the real world.

Re:Mod parent up

[c6gunner]

Which also, I might add, effectively refutes the claim that you hear sometimes that theology is not falsifiable.

WTF?

Ok, fine, since you think that theology is falsifiable, explain to me what it would take to prove that there is no God.

Re:Mod parent up

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Why does anyone need to invent more meaning than the occurrence itself? It occurred, that is exactly it means,"

I don't agree w/r/t occurrences that come from our actions. Those are not simple, independently observed events, but derive meaning from factors such as what-we-intended. "A guy died" is a description of a simple occurrence. "I killed a guy" is quite different.

Re:Mod parent up

[Mateo_LeFou]

I agree with Pseud you're trying to have it both ways. Your earlier statement:
"It's just that we label people who research the past "Historians" rather than "Scientists", even when they use evidence and scientific methods in their approach."
applies here.

If people use logical reasoning to explore religious questions, we call them theologians. My whole point in here is that such people are *different from anti-darwin, anti-science "religious".

Using your analogy, the anti-Darwin mob is more like those people who deny we landed on the moon: they're like bad historians, but the existence of bad historians doesn't mean there's no such thing as History.

Re:Mod parent up

[ArcherB]

You think religion counts as an explanation? Seriously? Faith is an explanation now? Screw that.

OK, let's try this one more time. Try to keep up this time.

Religion does not need an explanation. Religion is not an explanation. Religion is based on faith, not logic. It does not require evidence or explanation. It's just believed. That is what faith is. Religion does not care about how things happen. It is completely irrelevant to faith.

Is it science? No. Is it a substitution for science? For some yes. Others like me, no. While there may be some overlap, neither can prove the other. Fortunately, neither relies on the other.

Re:Mod parent up

[Rosy At Random]

I'm sorry, I've completely lost where in any of this religious faith actually counts for anything at all. I like my metaphysics with a sprig of logic; what business does faith have in an argument?

Re:Mod parent up

[spun]

"A guy died" is to "I killed a guy" as "a guy died" is to "an avalanche killed a guy." Intent doesn't enter into it at the level you've laid out. It's a simple matter of fact. Intent, in this case, is like the snowflake that finally set off the avalanche. A decision to kill some guy happened, that is the meaning of that occurence. Sure, you can bring more detail into it, but then you are talking about a broader set of occurrences.

Re:Mod parent up

[ArcherB]

I'm sorry, I've completely lost where in any of this religious faith actually counts for anything at all. I like my metaphysics with a sprig of logic; what business does faith have in an argument?

In an argument about the difference between science and religion.

In a science argument, religion has about as much relevance and philosophy, none. In a discussion about religion and science (like this one), religion has exactly 50% relevance, with science taking up the other 50%.

Since you have no grasp of religion, think of it as philosophy. Except, think of it as a philosophy that means more than life itself to a vast majority of the world's population. When seeking answers to quantum entanglement, are you going to refer to DesCartes? I hope not. When contemplating the meaning of life, are you going to refer to , Hawking or Einstein? Maybe you should ask Schrödinger and his cat. Again, I hope not. Some questions science can not answer. Same for religion and philosophy.

Maybe that will help.

Re:Mod parent up

[Rosy At Random]

In that case, 50% of the relevance in the argument between science and religion is irrelevant.

I don't care what you call it, even philosophy - especially, perhaps - needs to justify itself. It can't just assert itself loudly and hope that counts.

Those looking for an external meaning for their lives are looking in the wrong place. The universe is not built on human 'meaningfulness'.

And yes, I get far more interesting and relevant philosophies from scientific ideas and theories.

Re:Mod parent up

[kartune85]

No. Why should there be any need for a creation? Because science can't explain how something can appear out of nothing... still to this day. Anything we create, any materials used, comes from somewhere or something. Even if we could create something "out of thin air", that "thin air" would have still had to come from somewhere.
Creation is the explanation, science is a continuous venture to figure out how things came to be, and I suppose we can call it "voodoo science", tries to come up with theories and stories of how everything came to be and then states it as fact, without any factual evidence, in an attempt to make the Bible obsolete.

Time being, as it is, part of the struture of the universe, it is senseless to talk about a time before it, or even the universe changing. It doesn't. The universe _is_. It always has been. Time and space must have come from somewhere. Beyond that, you're just creating your own religion by believing that everything already existed for eternity. There's no scientific evidence that the universe has always existed. Now that's faith!

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

Why is it that the ten plagues , parting of the sea, and mount sini, all magically get omitted from these discussions, when they are the biggest and most notable examples of miracles in the bible?

Just curious, you know.

Re:Mod parent up

[ultranova]

In the long term I do believe that the Bible will vanish just like all these old religions like polytheism (somes last for 4000 years see the Egyptian religion).

AFAIK Hinduism is still alive and strong, so it's not like polytheism has vanished anywhere. Besides, Roman Catholicism isn't actually all that far from polytheism; it simply calls its lesser gods saints.

Re:Mod parent up

[c6gunner]

So....in other words, your beliefs aren't falsifiable, only some of the minor details are. Interesting.

Re:Mod parent up

[Some_Llama]

Because they often are dismissed as "there is no proof that these things happened"?

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

and, of course, you can only say there is no evidence if you already set your mind to believe there is no god.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

1) and what makes Big Bang "Theory" a science?

If you look into the sky at night and see stars and think: "they disappeared in day time because the sun light is too strong", and you happened to hate cats, does that means everyone should start avoiding cats because you're right?

2) Religion asks why... really?

Simple, there's a template:

step 1) Why (your question here)?, answer: because of God.
step 2) And you can substitute all your "why" with "faith" and you no longer need to ask "why".

Re:Mod parent up

[Some_Llama]

I often think about the requests for proof, like divine intervention.. I mean if god came down today and parted the ocean, wouldn't this just be a "legend/myth" in 2000 years time?

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

that is true, but how do we know it's not a myth? we can't believe something just because it's old, and we can't deny something just because it's old.

truth doesn't have an expiration date. apparently some people are so caught up in modernism that they can't grasp this concept.

clarification about previous comment of mine: I was agreeing that there is no proof that the Jewish Scriptures (I'm ignoring all other texts and traditions here) are true, because to me proof means evidence that undeniably leads to a specific conclusion. I also added that there is (plenty of strong) evidence that the Jewish Scriptures are true. I feel this clarification is needed because I myself had no idea what I was writing until I submitted it. all I knew was that it was the right thing to say, even though I had no idea what it meant. I was not using the word "evidence" as a synonym of "proof".

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

I really hate it when people talk about "religion" when they mean catholicism, or shiite Islam, or orthodox Judaism. each religion is different, so generalizing from a specific one you've encountered to all religions out there is stupid.

my religion, Orthodox Judaism, seems to me to be not about meaning, but about purpose. it is purpose that gives meaning. all information given is given so that we may accomplish this purpose.

science doesn't matter all that much. it doesn't change our purpose, it just helps us understand it and work towards it.

the idea that evolution contradicts the Jewish Scriptures seems to me to be laughable at best, because evolution describes a mechanism, while the Jewish Scriptures describe who used it. there are multiple instances where an action is described, such as that a person built a city, but any detail of how it was done is not mentioned.

you can take the Jewish Scriptures in the most literal sense, and they still won't contradict science, because science can't tell you what existed before the work of creation was over. however, it could theorize based on the assumption that creation happened earlier. for instance, science now sees the "Big Bang" (or whatever the current leading theory is) as the starting point before which we can know nothing.

as the famous Jewish scholar RASH"I wrote in his commentary for the first word in the Jewish Scriptures (loose translation from memory): "The Tora (literally: teachings) is a book of laws. therefor it should start from the first law: sanctifying the new month. why then did it start from the beginning? to give them (Israel/Jews) the land of 7 nations (Canaan). that if the world would say 'theives you are, who have stolen the land of others' you will say 'the world (this was 800 years ago, so in his time "world" and "universe" were pretty much synonymous) was created by god and belongs to him. in his will he gave it to them, and in his will he took it from them and gave it to us'"

The Jewish Scriptures are not books of nice stories. they have a purpose.

as they say: 2 Jews, 3 opinions. so don't take my words and generalize from them about all Orthodox Jews or anything. these are my personal opinions, not official doctrine being parroted. and as they say, there are 70 faces to the Tora (teachings), so no 1 understanding is the only valid one, but also not every understanding is valid. as they say, that one must be careful of the 71 first opinion which is outside the Tora.

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

sounds like he was making excuses as for why he believes in something he knows is a lie. people should believe in truth, and stop talking about the specific brand of Christianity they are familiar with as if what applies to it inherently applies to every religion that ever existed.

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

you are making here 2 unfounded assumptions:
1. that all religions exists only because people have a need to believe. (i.e., non are true)
2. that religions are going to disappear.

it seems that to your thinking, religion is meant to serve man. this is a concept I only encountered in Christianity, in the 3 religions that I am at least somewhat familiar with.

you accept the above 2 points as axioms because they fit your way of thinking and the world as you know it, not because that is actual reality.

Re:Mod parent up

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

sounds like he was making excuses as for why he believes in something he knows is a lie.

I don't think you understand. Not everyone believes that science is the be-all and end-all of truth and reality. It only sounds that way because of your personal bias. A more devout (and misguided) religious person may see it as making excuses for evolution, since he seems to only teach it, not to believe it. Why can't he just be content with privately viewing science as one of God's logic puzzles or one of his tests of faith?

(Disclaimer: all these views are just followed tangentially from the few words he actually said on the subject, they may not represent his opinion with perfect accuracy)

Re:Mod parent up

[A Jew]

neither do I, but from the way you phrased it, it sounds like he believes in it because it makes no sens kind of like he thinks the the more absurd his belief is, the better person he is because he is sticking with god regardless of it.

but probably you meant that believing in god is not absurd, but that he thinks that there is scientific evidence that says otherwise. as far as I can tell, all science has been doing is filling the gaps in the bible. you know, the parts that were irrelevant to it's message.

The intrinsic limits of science

[Per Abrahamsen]

> True, but it has absolutely no relevance to cult beliefs. The solution to limited
> scientific knowledge is better science, not to give up and invent a god of the gaps.

The great scientific discoveries of the 20' century was the realization of the theoretical limits of science. Not just that there are areas that has not yet been mapped yet, but that there are areas that are unmappable. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Goedel's incompleteness theorem, the halting problem, chaos theory... it is all exploration of what can be mapped.

The existence of God is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. The solution to that is not to "invent a better science", but for people to understand where science is and is not applicable. Science is the best at what it does, but when you apply it outside its domain it is no longer science, but scientism. Something that is no better than when creationists and other religious nuts try to apply religion on the domain of science.

Re:The intrinsic limits of science

[Rogerborg]

There are no "theoretical limits of science", only quitters.

If not evolution, what?

[Omniskio]

If evolution, well understood within the context of science theoretical and practical, does not prompt one to question the necessary existence of a deity, then what would? At the very least, a sound understanding of evolution would require a complete revolution in one's understanding of a deity and its relationship to its purported creation -- something that the French paleontologist and Jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin managed, but who's insights the Magisterium of Roman Catholic Church hasn't been able to fully digest (yet). While an understanding of evolution may allow for the non-essential existence of a deity as a kind of floating sidecar for those who feel the need for such, the kind of deity that a complete understanding of evolution and science allows is not the kind of deity that most theists will be comfortable with: a deity not prone to miracles ... a deity comfortable with millions of generations of fear, flight, slaughter, and death ... a deity which seems more prone to hiding than revealing itself ... a deity which has a necessary existence of precisely zero ... and a creation (including its human elements) that does very well without its deity.

Honest dialogue is a two-way street. Opening a door like this in the adamantine wall between science and religion will affect science little, but that door has already allowed science to irremediably change religion. Evolution is part of science, but so is physics, psychology, sociology, biology, and, more broadly, the historical sciences. Open that one door and the rest fly open. Open that one door and deities and their ways must forever bow in humility to science and its understandings. Evolution may allow for the existence of a non-essential deity, but it will not allow for the existence of a deity called YHVH or Elohim that created the universe in seven days less than seven thousand years ago that planted a garden in Iraq where it made a male human out of dirt. "Reconciling" evolution and religion will demand the reconciliation of all science with religion, and that will be a much greater disaster for religion than for science.

This can of worms may start with evolution and an abstract notion of deity, but it can only continue with the A.P.A. and homosexuality, and end with archaeology and a mythic godman. It's a bad, bad precedent that will sneak a Trojan horse straight into the heart of religion and eviscerate it from within.

Which, to this former theist, is quite okay. Science sneaked in, turned up the heat, and religious doctrine evaporated. Fundamentalists should be exceedingly cautious about what they desire from "science", for it is a potent psychotropic that will alter their religious perceptions beyond their wildest fears.

Re: If not evolution, what?

[Black Parrot]

Which, to this former theist, is quite okay. Science sneaked in, turned up the heat, and religious doctrine evaporated. s/science/reality/

Re:If not evolution, what?

[davide marney]

...a deity which has a necessary existence of precisely zero...

And the Big Bang came from ... where?

Re:If not evolution, what?

[mdwh2]

And the Big Bang came from ... where?

I don't know - what's your point?

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[SanityInAnarchy]

Assuming there is a correct conclusion.

Anyway, I have yet to see a compelling argument by an atheist who converted. The most compelling was Pascal's Wager, which is not logically sound -- it only works if the only possibilities are Judeo-Christian-God or no Judeo-Christian-God, and does not account for other religions one might believe in if one were to wager.

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

[straight from Wikipedia]: Newton's interest in alchemy cannot be isolated from his contributions to science. (This was at a time when there was no clear distinction between alchemy and science.) Had he not relied on the occult idea of action at a distance, across a vacuum, he might not have developed his theory of gravity. (See also Isaac Newton's occult studies.)

Wisdom

[jawahar]

God and religion are distinct.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[bwalling]

Teaching impressionable children to believe what basically amounts to magic has no effect on their ability to think critically? Do you really believe that?

You're still thinking that the two are related. They're not. Teach your kid science. Teach your kid that God created the world. You don't have to pick one or the other. There are many scientists that are believers in God. Do you think that they are not able to think critically? Was Newton unable to do so? I know a number of folks with PhD's in difficult scientific disciplines that are uncovering new theories that are also believers. I know evolutionary biologists that are believers. Teaching your kid that science is a way of uncovering the things we don't understand is not an affront to belief in God. Belief in God is not an affront to using science to understand why things happen.

God is not an explanation of how. It may be an explanation of why, but science isn't looking into why we are here, it's looking into how. Atheism is a belief of why just the same as God is. Everyone has an opinion on why, even if it is "I don't know", "fate", "random chance" or "God". None of these are any threat to thinking critically or using science.

Re:Sellouts

[cheater512]

Apparantly its very difficult to make a sensor to detect things like strings. :)
Its not impossible, its just a matter of giving it time so technology can catch up.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[bwalling]

People who lack the ability to understand things scientifically revert to religious explanations.

That argument is as foolish as the argument of the creationists who fight against evolution. It's narrow minded. There are plenty of people that allow for both. The fact that some people are narrow minded on the other side of an argument doesn't mean you should be narrow minded on yours. That's how we ended up with Republicans and Democrats.

Re:Sellouts

[OSXCPA]

A scientist who pursues belief will find things increasingly difficult unless s/he manages to either broaden his/her take on god, or find a branch of science to pursue where there is either too little data for a 'definitive' answer or an area so new that there is little danger of explaining too many unknowns. Isaac Newton was a man of faith, but in his day, the sphere of human knowledge was small enough that it would be far easier to maintain faith-based explanations for natural phenomena. The more we know, the more we can explain, and the less 'evidence' there is of the classic Abrahamic god. Of course, if you are a Buddhist, this won't phase you, but if you are Catholic, you may suffer extreme cognitive dissonance over time and leave the church screaming and swearing... not that I know anyone like that or anything... but to the point, thinking like a scientist will, over time, push out 'traditional' faith in the mind - it can't do otherwise, as long as traditional faith tries to explain things it was not meant to. Faith is for the faithful alone - the rest of us are happy with science and philosophy, thanks very much.

There is no basket but what we make

[roman_mir]

However since we came up with the idea of both baskets, and the one marked 'Science' is actually useful for our progress (progress meaning ability to support survival of larger and larger population through 'artificial' means,) and the one marked 'Religion' is getting less and less useful for the aforementioned purpose, the conclusion is that the 'Religion' basket is irrelevant.

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[Moofie]

I submit that the people who eat dinner tonight because a religious organization gave it to them would not agree with you.

That's not to say that non-religious people aren't charitable, of course. However, it's unreasonable to discount the substantial investments in charity that religious believers make.

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[roman_mir]

I submit that the people who eat dinner tonight because a religious organization gave it to them would not agree with you. - I understand what you are saying, but understand that it is still irrelevant from point of view of survival of billions of people on this planet. Religion and charity is all good, but basically irrelevant when you are presented with a problem of how to make a system that allows billions of people to survive and do it with comfort too.

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[Moofie]

I take a retail approach to survival. I think individual humans are valuable. I don't have the evolved sensibility to only consider the faceless billions.

I'm sure this is a serious moral flaw. I'll work on it.

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[roman_mir]

Again, your religion/charity is all good but has nothing to do with survival of the entire population at this point. Today population survives not because of any religions, but because the scientifically based progress allows it to. Communications, transportation, farming, housing, clothing, sanitation, providing power, providing clean and safe food/water is not the domain of religion. I consider science to be a million times more useful to the survival of the species and to the progress at this point than religion.

You can believe whatever you want, but when was the last time your religion was able to move around millions of people a day at high speeds around the globe?

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[Moofie]

"but when was the last time your religion was able to move around millions of people a day at high speeds around the globe?"

Um, it didn't. I wasn't aware that that was one of the mission objectives for philosophy. You are grading on an extremely strange curve...

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[roman_mir]

My point is that religions are not useful for the population survival on a huge scale. On a small scale charity and religions are useful, on a large scale only scientific/technological progress provides the population with enough power/knowledge to survive.

If religion cannot move millions of tons of useful products around in a day, then it is not powerful enough to allow billions of people to survive and not to starve to death, not to die from terrible diseases. Religion is irrelevant for survival of 6 billion people, technology is essential and the only thing that allows this population to exist in the first place.

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[Moofie]

I simply don't care. I'm not responsible for 6 billion people. I'm responsible for me. I will make choices based on my own costs and benefits. My religious faith benefits me. You don't get a vote.

Re:There is no basket but what we make

[roman_mir]

But I am not out to change the way you are thinking. I don't want you to interfere with the public education system, science based economy and the social systems through political means. You can practice whatever you want, but the society for its own sake must rely on science, not on useless believes.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Pseudonym]

People who claim they know what "the problem" is are more likely to be cranks than not. I'm just sayin'.

Religion and science are incompatible

[jopet]

On first sight, it won't harm to, while accepting Evolution, believe in God, the easter bunny or anything else nobody has ever seen and nobody has ever come up with any indication for existince.

However, this would really be totally schizophrenic: it would require somebody to base his acceptance about what is on something that is completely without any logical cause (God) and something that has been derived from many pieces of unrelated evidence (Science). I don't see how this can go together in any reasonable way. How should one decide when to believe and when to require evidence? Somebody who believes in God could just as well believe in Creationism or some other silly fairy tale.

The argument of some religious people, some of them calling themselves scientists is that science cannot answer all questions and religion comes in then: why was there the big bang etc.
Of course science cannot and will never be able to answer all question. But what good is it to believe in some fairy tale answer for those unanswerable questions instead of just accepting that we simply dont know? Isn't it evident that "answering" the question about why there was a big bang with "God did it" makes everything just more complicated instead of easier? Why is there "God" then? We do not gain anything by this "answer" but we lose a lot.

I think it is evident that there simply is no place for religion to answer the wonders of what is anymore. None of the explanations for how stuff works thousands of religions came up with ever turned out to be true or remotely sensible.

That leaves religion as some kind of ethical instance: maybe it cannot explain nature and reality, but it tells us how to behave ethically, no?
I think, this is actually not true either, on the contrary: ethical behavior comes from the human ability of compassion. It is biologically built into us. No need for God here either. It is no coincidence that practically all mahir rules of ethics, save some details about sexual behavior, are identical between religions: you dont kill, you dont cause pain, you dont steal etc.
The role of religions here is to make it unnecessary to *think* about ethics. After all God told us the does and donts. And that is the problem: when it is not necessary to think about ethics any more, compassion can be switched off. Yes, it is not right to kill, but its ok to kill that criminal. Yes it is not ok to cause pain, but it is ok with that slave or that member of another religion.

Religion is opium, because its sole purpose is to make thinking unnecessary and make people feel comfy in their self-rightous ignorance.

Re:Religion and science are incompatible

[davide marney]

Religion is opium, because its sole purpose is to make thinking unnecessary...

You are not fairly representing the argument for faith.

Faith is the end-product of thinking. It is simply what one concludes about the meaning of life, based on the evidence one sees. It is metaphysics, not physics.

Faith doesn't have a "purpose" in any of the senses you're using here. It is not some kind of philosophical tool that one hauls out when science fails to adequately explain the physical world. Faith is what comes after all the facts have been presented.

Re:Religion and science are incompatible

[SlowMovingTarget]

Your "opium" argument does not have a lot of force. The Hebrew and Greek Scriptures both recommend the hard work of study and deep meditation (in the sense of deep silent thought) on ethics and the nature of good. Nor does the Bible leave this as the duty only of a priestly class, but it commends every individual to do this. That many organized religions today have distorted what the Bible teaches with mysticism and ritual tells more of Rome than it does of the Scriptures themselves.

Religion was intended to produce happiness in people. Marx was gravely wrong, however, in saying this was a false happiness, judging it to be mere pleasure analogous to what an opiate produces. Happiness does arise from living up to standards of right, and engaging with family, neighbor and stranger. If one throws out the standards in the Bible, then one must adopt relative measures. Any measure that is relative must ultimately reduce to amorality and pleasure-seeking. It is pleasure-seeking amorality that is the true opiate of the people. In a feel-good society, people don't bother with marriage and children, family duties, neighborhoods and communities. "Why should I take care of Grandma? What's in it for me?" They take their pleasure and isolate themselves.

True religion and true science are not incompatible. Religion-as-political-tool and science-as-religion certainly are incompatible. I believe both will ultimately be discarded. True religion's purpose is to teach us about God and about how to live up to his standard's of goodness, and how to treat one another. True science seeks to increase knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

On the matter of whether scientists will ever be able to "observe" God, I suggest a simple question. If every phenomena in the universe is, for lack of a better analogy, computations occurring in God's imagination, then how could science ever step outside of its own system? Can science disprove the notion? No. Can that notion be proven scientifically? No. Can things that are true be unprovable? We know the answer to this question is "Yes" (from Godel, Turing and others). Does the truth of the notion matter? If it is true, it does matter quite a bit. It means that the entire existence of everything around us is evidence of God's existence and doings. If it is false, then it doesn't matter. In either case, it is up to each individual to pursue that choice of belief.

If you say that you have some right to make that choice for another person, then I think you ought to check your thinking. The same goes for anyone, believer or not, that would make that choice for another. That way leads totalitarianism and despotism. These things things are measurably bad.

Darwin

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Indeed, Darwin was a practicing Anglican most of his life, and the fact he could not
> reconcile his scientific observations with the theological thought of his day was a
> short-term bug.

According to Wikipedia, Darwin lost his faith when his daughter died, which is very much a "why" rather than a "how" question (the problem of pain).

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[roman_mir]

But hey, I'm not afraid of punching back if someone starts something. - you are the troll in this case.

Socialism - failure to recognize the power of individualism, subversion of an individual to the collective.

I prefer the libertarians to any other. Actually the anarcho-capitalist - libertarians.

Why is mental illness being given a platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking, belief in a god is a medical condition, one of many types of delusion. It's not regarded as a delusion in psychiatry mainly to avoid the ire of the masses, but there is no doubt that it's as pathological as any other delusion.

It's all a matter of degree. While belief in "God" can be harmless, it can also be a disastrous psychotic disorder. Anyone who thinks that religion is not a pathological delusion clearly hasn't lost a relative to a religious fundamentalist with some kilos of semtex strapped around him. And when this delusion controls a government's policies and actions, it may not seem as dramatic as a bomb but it affects millions of times as many people.

Education and science should not be treating religion as if it were somehow "OK". It's not. It's a medical disorder, and one that can be extremely dangerous to Mankind in countless way. It's about time that the olive branch is withdrawn.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Pseudonym]

Everything is directly related to science as science is a human concept that helps us understand EVERYTHING.

Helps? Perhaps. But science knows its limits. If it's not repeatable and testable, it's not something that science can answer.

Morality, for example, isn't science. If you don't believe me, come up with a controlled double-blind test to prove that murder is wrong.

Not that you need the supernatural to answer that particular question, but science won't cut it.

Science and religion are mutually incompatible

[Colin Smith]

One requires unquestioning faith, the other requires healthy scepticism.

Re:Science and religion are mutually incompatible

[pagaboy]

Although given some of the comments here, it's not obvious which is which.

I have only one question...

[asuffield]

Which God are they promoting as being compatible with their science curriculum? Because I'm pretty sure that they can't be claiming all religions are compatible with it - there are sure to be some which just aren't.

Odds are that they're only promoting one (or a handful of) major religions. Aren't there laws against that sort of thing?

Re:I have only one question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so you say that religion and science are incompatible because some religious believes are incompatible with science.

That's like saying hydrogen and engines are incompatible because if I put hydrogen in some engines they will just blow up.

In fact I only need one example of an engine that runs on hydrogen to prove the concept.

Re:I have only one question...

[asuffield]

Ok so you say that religion and science are incompatible because some religious believes are incompatible with science.

Sheer nonsense. You did not even bother to read the post which you are replying to.

Slashdot Downhill

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone posts about Creation and Evolution on this site, I am reminded of how far it has deviated from the site of 5+ years ago.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Anonymous Coward]

In the minds of most of the religious public that has a real aversion to evolution of any kind - based on my experience with those people - evolution _specifically_ requires abandoning belief in God.

If evolution occurred, then, they would say that the Garden of Eden did not.
If the Garden of Eden did not occur, then you start unraveling original sin, the fall of man, and all that other stuff.
Once you screw up original sin, then there's no need for Jesus or redemption.
The basic foundations of their religion become (and I cannot stress this enough) completely irrelevant.

So, you can't have it both ways. There is nothing that you could write into a new science book that some people will be willing to believe.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot and religion..

[jadin]

I've read slashdot for a long time. And the one thing that irritates me the most is the hatred everyone has towards religion and god. Post after post moderated to +5 insightful for saying "it's stupid to believe in god". What happened to open-minded?

The bible actually agrees with science on a fair number of things. Here's a couple quick examples:

Big Bang - e=mc2 basically a lot of energy can create matter. God is stated repeatedly of having abundant power or energy. Now imagine the beginning of time, empty universe or what have you and God begins creation. He puts his finger to the empty 'canvas' and pours out his energy, and matter 'explodes' from his fingertips outward. (I'm not aware of) anything in the bible that contradicts this. But it would easily explain how science sees the big bang, and how God could've created it. There are also many verses talking about God 'spreading out the heavens', seems fitting for an expanding universe.

Dinosaurs - Everyone loves saying the bible is wrong on the creation account due to the lack of dinosaurs in the bible. All writers were inspired by Holy Spirit (according to the bible). Most people have had in their lives a moment where everything makes perfect sense. They can think about anything at all, and everything about it is absolutely crystal clear. You can think about war, the past, even sex. Whatever, doesn't matter, it just makes sense. I (personally) believe this is how holy spirit works. However, there is a limitation. If you don't think about it, it won't become clear. This means that Moses while writing about the history of creation, would only write down what species were known about during his life. He would not have known about dinosaurs to place them on the timeline in creation.

There's more but I can't think of them atm.. So I'll close with an anecdote:

A few years ago I was into drugs and alcohol, I became depressed and not happy with life. Since I grew up religious my solution was to pray about it, that very day I was watching people download some songs from my computer (napster days). I messaged one to tell the user I had a few more albums of the same band they might want. The way he spoke made me wonder where they were from. He said Germany. About this time the Iraq war protests were going on. So I asked what he thought about the war. His response was basically "I believe god will make things better soon." I recognized the answer growing up as a Jehovah's Witness myself. So I asked what religion he was.

He told me he was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I told him how I was raised as one also, and we chatted for quite sometime. The significance was that if my parents were to ask me about faith, I would've thought nothing of it. But the chances of this person across the globe I've never met seemingly respond to my prayer made me take note. Soon after that time he told me he was going on vacation. During the three months that followed, I returned to my drugs and alcohol and soon became depressed again, never doing anything with religion. Once again I prayed. That very same day I received an email from this same person in Germany saying nothing more than "Well? How's your faith?"

Two prayers three months apart. Two answers on the same exact day of the prayers. It was a coincidence I couldn't ignore. This is the basis of my faith. Something I can't just dismiss because it's "stupid to believe in god" or "religion is to keep the masses under control". Stop assuming that people are religious because they are stupid, or gullible. Perhaps theirs more to their faith then you know about. I consider my logic to be one of my strongest characteristics. And based on the events in my life, belief in God is the only logical choice.

Re: Slashdot and religion..

[Black Parrot]

I've read slashdot for a long time. And the one thing that irritates me the most is the hatred everyone has towards religion and god. Post after post moderated to +5 insightful for saying "it's stupid to believe in god". Would you mind providing links to a dozen or so of those posts?

The bible actually agrees with science on a fair number of things. So does Lord of the Rings. The sun rises and sets. Trees have shadows. When you drop things they fall. Armor provides resistance to swords and arrows.

But that hardly recommends believing in all the rest of the story.

Big Bang - e=mc2 basically a lot of energy can create matter. God is stated repeatedly of having abundant power or energy. Now imagine the beginning of time, empty universe or what have you and God begins creation. He puts his finger to the empty 'canvas' and pours out his energy, and matter 'explodes' from his fingertips outward. (I'm not aware of) anything in the bible that contradicts this. But it damn sure isn't what the bible says.

Given enough of a free hand for interpretation, you can make a religious text "agree" with anything.

Dinosaurs - Everyone loves saying the bible is wrong on the creation account due to the lack of dinosaurs in the bible. Actually, I don't think I've ever head that claim at all.

There's more but I can't think of them atm.. So I'll close with an anecdote: I, OTOH, didn't start pulling my life together until I gave up religion.

So much for anecdotes...

Re:Slashdot and religion..

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>I've read slashdot for a long time. And the one thing that irritates me the most is the hatred everyone has towards religion and god. Post after post moderated to +5 insightful for saying "it's stupid to believe in god". What happened to open-minded?

Most people on /. are of a scientific mindset. They hear an assertion and respond, "Show me evidence. Prove it." Conversely, many of us will change our views on a topic (eventually) based on new evidence contrary to our previous beliefs. These are the foundation to science itself, which has proven very useful for the last thousand years.

Asking a person like this (from now on referred to as "me") to suspend requirements for evidence and logical explanations- why, that would be like asking me to pretend that red was green, or that unconstitutional laws are constitutional because they protect children, etc.
You are asking me to suspend disbelief in favor of completely arbitrary and nonsensical systems.

If I was open-minded to zombie-jesus-type religions, complete with obedience to 2k year old written doctrine... Then I might be the kind of person who would believe a president based on appeal to authority, or believe that socialized health care is evil based on straw-man arguments, or that Godsmack is a good band just because it's been crammed into my ear a thousand times. I might begin to lose what you might call 'critical thinking' or self-determination. I might become susceptible to all the things about american society that my scientist brain has been observing and loathing since I realized that political power lies in emotion and not facts.

I feel like I'd be a cross between the "Math is hard" Barbie and a Big Mac- Willfully ignorant, bland, fat, and useless to society.

Don't take this as an ad hominem. Atheism and religion are NOT two sides of the same coin. As has been said before, coin-collecting is a hobby; 'not-collecting-coins' is not a hobby. Atheism is NOT a religion. Most of all, atheists are tired of having their lives run by people who DO believe in a man in the sky, and it makes us fucking miserable.

-b

Re:Slashdot and religion..

[Scrameustache]

It was a coincidence I couldn't ignore. [...] I consider my logic to be one of my strongest characteristics. A coincidence does not prove a relationship, but related events may be expected to have a higher index of coincidence. From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. The odds that two people share a birthday, for example, reaches 50% with a group of just 22.

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally unrelated. In order to be synchronous, the events must be related to one another conceptually, and the chance that they would occur together by random chance must be very small.

Your logic needs work: You reached out to someone with the same musical tastes as you and it turns out they have the same cultural background as you. You were an emotional wreck when that happened and you imbued that mundane event with a lot of personal meaning.
The fact that you and that other person felt the same need to get in touch with each other after the same amount of time is more telling to the sympathetic mechanisms of human social interaction than they are to the metaphysical possibility that an invisible third party motivated your German friend to act in response to your telepathic request.

Re:Slashdot and religion..

[greyhueofdoubt]

You know, I hate to respond to your post in two separate responses, but I missed part of what you said in my earlier response. Sorry...

>>Two prayers three months apart. Two answers on the same exact day of the prayers. It was a coincidence I couldn't ignore. This is the basis of my faith.

Can I ask how many of your prayers went _unanswered_ during those three months? Not to be a dick or anything, but you sound like the people who claim that seatbelts claim more lives than they save, or that their grandpa lived until he was 100 and he smoked, so smoking is ok.

You completely ignore every single refutation to your belief until you find one piece of corroborating evidence, and then you shout VICTORY! God is great!

You asked about having an open mind... Well, I would have to wonder what your own response would be.

-b

Re:Slashdot and religion..

[Anonymous Coward]

"I recognized the answer growing up as a Jehovah's Witness myself. "

I would suggest that your religions upbringing created deep feelings of inadequacy and unhappiness that you were trying to block out with drugs and alcohol.

That the answer to your problems should be the exact same religion is not a coincidence, it's the most straightforward pathological result.

Re:Sellouts

[Oligonicella]

Up until the point that the body of knowledge refuted them, yes.

Biblical literalism

[midnighttoadstool]

Biblical literalism, upon which creationism depends, is a minority christian idea. Most Christians are not bound to such a view of the Bible, and can accept that God's words to Moses may have been aimed at a non-scientist.

Protestantism, which holds that the Bible has no higher authority on Earth, is liable to biblical literalism since otherwise the Bible requires an interpreter with authority over the Bible (like Catholics and Orthodox, who claim the guidance of God for their authority). Interestingly most protestants indulge in biblical interpretation anyway. It's a mess.

The context of this debate is not examined: Christians, in the main, are not formal creationists.

It is particularly scandalous because Creationists are delivering a message within a realm in which they have no authority, science, rather than witnessing to God the Saviour: Jesus Christ.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

But the thing is, they converted. Compelling argument or not.

Besides, Pascal's Wager might not be logically sound, it is a simple statement intended to surmise how a person could come to a conclusion.

As for the the two possibilities you gave, remember these people converted to Christianity, thus the option being limited to the Judeo-Christian God.

It all depends on which side of the fence you are viewing from methinks.

My witty but unhelpful contribution

[Normal_Deviate]

Believers say "Religion and science are compatible" with the same earnestness that fat people say "Big is beautiful", and for the same reason.

SIlliness to the Nth degree

[geggam]

Faith is the requirement of belief without proof.
Scientific study is the requirement of proof before belief.
Religion and faith are, by definition, the opposite of science and the scientific method.

Additional thoughts

[KaeloDest]

Besides all of the other salient points. We are counting on Judeo-Christian religion. Which is blatantly cobbled together from other bronze age stories. This is the third most populous religion and here in the United States we act as though it is the only true word. The simple fact is These stories in the bible have the same significance as other ancient texts which claim that the world is carried on the back of a great turtle. Or that is was created by a serpent that cleft the waters in two. There are many myths and these contradict each other. And if you can say that one religion is false and was made up by 'them guys' in that 'other tribe' then it is quite possible that 'our' religion was also made up

No I am not saying that religion has no place in the world, it seems to put the believers minds at ease, yet it also seems to cause true believers at least as much angst. Despite my distaste for religion I believe that they are all based on 'love' or a culturally accepted version of 'love'. However religion and science should not be in the same ring. Let these so called christians debate with other and see what they love.
this was the old domain of religious wars

Science has remarkable fidelity. it can be understood and interpreted in both the present and the past. Kepler would have had an easier time with his math if he said that God likes ellipses

Yes, having faith in God can be "logical"

[davide marney]

I'm not up with using faith as a noun ("There is no logic in faith..."). One has faith _in_ something or someone.

The real questions, then, are is it reasonable to believe there is a God? How can one tell if one's belief or non-belief is sound?

To answer these questions, one would explore issues of evidence (What evidence exists for the existence or non-existence of God? What would such evidence look like? What kind of evidence are admissible and inadmissible?), issues of authority (How can we trust the evidence? How can we judge other's claims and answers?), and so on.

"No logic in faith"? No, rather one uses logic to help one decide what to believe or not to believe.

Re:Yes, having faith in God can be "logical"

[JavaRob]

I'm not up with using faith as a noun ("There is no logic in faith..."). One has faith _in_ something or someone. That's still a noun. Maybe you mean it shouldn't work as a general term, only in relation to a specific thing?

The real questions, then, are is it reasonable to believe there is a God? How can one tell if one's belief or non-belief is sound?

To answer these questions, one would explore issues of evidence (What evidence exists for the existence or non-existence of God? What would such evidence look like? What kind of evidence are admissible and inadmissible?), issues of authority (How can we trust the evidence? How can we judge other's claims and answers?), and so on. That's true. I think the frustration of the people who've already gone through that exercise is that it's very do-able, most concepts of God aren't even logically consistent internally, and in the end there is no evidence that supports any real belief in God... certainly not the level of absolute assurance that many people have.

"No logic in faith"? No, rather one uses logic to help one decide what to believe or not to believe. I guess that could be re-worded as "no valid logic in faith."

Sorry for sounding cranky and condescending about it, but it's an important logical exercise that amazingly few people go through. They find a question that we're still puzzling over, and say "ah... perhaps it's logical to believe in God after all," because that's the conclusion they wanted to reach in the first place.

But no, the answer is "ah, so we don't have an answer with any good level of certainty for that one." Suggesting a sentient, supernatural being that violates every law we *do* know about -- and would be even harder to explain than the original question -- is simply not a reasonable conclusion.

In the end, though, I can't just *tell* you this and have you understand it. I didn't just *accept* it from someone I trusted. You have to do the work yourself, and if you live in the US at least, there are probably going to be plenty of people around you who will argue for God until their last breath.

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The occult idea of action at a distance was commonplace at the time, as it was used in folk remedies and superstitions.
Newton rejected the *occult* idea of 'action at a distance', and replaced it with a *rational* mechanical explanation. He saw the 'Occult Qualities' as a dead end.

"Aristotelians gave the name of Occult Qualities not to manifest qualities but to such Qualities only as they supposed to lye hid in bodies & to be the unknown causes of manifest effects: such as would be the causes of gravity & of Magnetick and Electrick attractions & of fermentations if we should suppose that these actions or forces arose from qualities unknown to us & incapable of being discovered & made manifest. Such occult Qualities put a stop to the improvement of natural Philosophy & therefore of late years have been rejected." -- Isaac Newton

I believe I have read this before...

[BigFootApe]

When I read it, it was called "Fear and Trembling". Kierkegaard, who is that?

unbelievable

[Swampash]

The simple fact that a textbook on teaching from the National Academy of Sciences even mentions a god is evidence that the intellectual health of the country is basically screwed.

Re:unbelievable

[Omniskio]

Don't you mean " ... is another piece of evidence that the intellectual health of the country is basically screwed"?

Re:unbelievable

[SpinyNorman]

The same thing happened at the end of the Roman empire - rational thought and intellectualism (which had been highly valued by the Greeks, and earlier in the Roman empire) gave way to religious belief, and no doubt this was partly to blame (along with many other factors - such as mass influx of barbarians) for the decline of the culture and fall into the dark ages.

This really is an end-of-empire bell ringing for the short lived American empire. Extremist (e.g. literal biblical belief) christian religous views are SO common in America that it's hard to see this getting turned around - instead the culture will decline as other empires (europe, asia) that more value rationality and intellectualism will rise.

Re:unbelievable

[c6gunner]

Extremist (e.g. literal biblical belief) christian religous views are SO common in America that it's hard to see this getting turned around - instead the culture will decline as other empires (europe, asia) that more value rationality and intellectualism will rise.

:lol:

I know you weren't trying to be funny, but damn, you couldn't have done a better job of it. Even ignoring the nonsense about "extremist religious views" being extremely common in America, the rest of your rant is just....right out there! Europe's full of idiots who believe in everything from psychics to miracle healing. The middle east and africa are full of religious zealots. South America is still on it's communism schtik. And the Asians are some of the most superstitious bastards on this planet!

Face it, the world's full of moron's, and the US is no exception. The only difference is what particular brand of stupidity the group under discussion happens to believe in. If you truly think that there's some sort of resurgence in religious thought which is about to destroy the US, then I've got some nice beach-side property in Nunavut to sell you...

Re:unbelievable

[SpinyNorman]

Even ignoring the nonsense about "extremist religious views" being extremely common in America

Well, unlike you, I AM an American. I've lived the last 20 years of my life in America, and the first 25 in England, which I think positions me quite well to contrast the two and especially to see first hand what it is like in America (not at all what I imagined it to be like from the outside, notwithstanding having heard about the bible belt, etc).

Aside from first hand experience, polls say it all. You can't get much more extremist as a Christian than literal biblical belief (creationsism, young earth, etc), yet that is indeed what a huge swathe of the American population believe - while things like the recently opened creationist "museum" will still thankfully make most east/west coasters roll their eyes in disbelief, in the heartland this is a fairly mainstream belief.

You will get kooks of all sorts in any country, but there is a difference in having kooks regarded as such as opposed to being regarded as mainstream.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Black Parrot]

Don't be such a fool. You're as bad as the creationists when you posit that science and God are at opposition with each other. They're simply unrelated. Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.

Science is not a threat to religion. Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.

Smart religious leaders limit their claims to a fantasy world that can't be checked on. Idiots stake their beliefs on claims that were refuted 200 years ago, and try to get their school boards and legislators to trump reality.

Re:Sellouts

[adrianbaugh]

That's a ridiculous statement. The scientific method simply isn't the right toolbox to discuss questions of faith (and vice versa). Just because (say) woodworking uses different tools to plumbing doesn't mean you can't do both. Science can answer questions about the physical world, in which context it seems dangerous to use religious ideas; religion (in which category I include atheist religions such as humanism) can answer questions about our moral compass, which science cannot. While science can invent the atom bomb and describe its effects, it cannot say whether or not we should use it.

To put it another way, science and religion are orthogonal. There's no point in trying to apply the tools, the methods or even the language of one to the other. But both can teach us things about the world.

No conflict?

[alcmaeon]

I suppose there is no conflict between science and religion in the same sense that there is no conflict between science and Batman, i.e. one, science, is a way of explaining how the world actually works and the other is a work (or body of work) of fantasy fiction.

But, in the sense that most religious people understand their religion to actually describe the real world, then there is most assuredly a conflict and it is a conflict that science wins because scientific theories are testable and provable, or disprovable. Religious dogma is not.

Re:Sellouts

[roman_mir]

Of-course there is a gigantic impenetrable wall there. If you actually a strong believer in an almighty god, then you may have trouble interpreting results of a scientific experiment.

Here is the problem: if god is almighty, it can simply remove the chaining of cause and effect. How can results of an experiment be trusted if it is unknown whether the same outcome will be observed every time the experiment is performed? If god decides to mess with the experiment you are setting, you may have totally useless data. Maybe god changes the outcome every time to satisfy its boredom. What if you ask a particular question, set an experiment and get consistent YES as the answer. Then the next time you get a consistent NO in the next experiment. Then again consistent YES. Will you trust your experiment?

What if your experiment would have given a consistent NO, if god didn't mess with you?

I am not saying that it is impossible to be a theist and a scientist, but then while you are doing science you must either trust your god to not mess with you or you have to suspend your believe in god while you are doing science. Are you then a real believer if you can suspend it when it is useful to you?

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[nagora]

Einstien did not believe in god, despite using the word as a surrogate for "nature". As to the others, yes, they were wrong. I notice that all the ones you mention believed in one of the the European versions of the Judeo/Christian/Pauline god(s); this was nothing more than social context.

If they had each been Indian they would have belived in Rama, Shiva etc. but their work would have been the same, or at least of the same quality. That's because science and rational thought are striving towards a truth, whereas religion, having no basis in reality, is arbitrary and whimsical with no need to strive towards any particular thing. Indeed, it is one of the defining characteristics of religion that it avoids striving towards any truth since that would require an admitance that the current dogma is not the final word. Such admitance is suicide for something as paper-thin as religious "thought".

TWW

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Black Parrot]

Look at CS Lewis and Josh Mcdowell. Both atheists that converted. Mcdowell's stated goal was to prove the Christian belief a myth, and what happened? He became a believer. What's your point? Do you offer this as evidence that religion is real, or as evidence that they weren't critical thinkers?

What about "conversions" in the other direction? Or from your religion to some other? Have there ever been any? If so, what's the explanation?

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[davide marney]

If one truly keeps an open mind and lets the evidence speak for itself, the more one learns about the universe, the more one should sees how improbable life is. By one calculation, that figure is 1 chance in 10^-282. Citation: Reasons to Believe"

Read for yourself

[mpsmps]

You can read the book online for free here.

You can also hear the press conference (Real media format) and read the News Release, which (surprise!) is a lot different than than the article summary.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Black Parrot]

In the minds of most of the religious public that has a real aversion to evolution of any kind - based on my experience with those people - evolution _specifically_ requires abandoning belief in God. Yes, because they have decided to make "evolution didn't happen" an article of faith for their sects.

Other sects, including many Christian ones, don't have any problem with it.

Religion is exactly as flexible as you want it to be. These people just don't happen to want to be flexible about evolution, even though it brings on a direct collision with reality.

you don't know what logic is.

[pikine]

You should take a course in logic.

Before we can define what logic is, we need to define a calculus, which describes what well-formed formulas are. From that, there are two ways to assign semantics to these formulas. You can either define rules that reduce a well-formed formula to another well-formed formula (operational semantics), or model your well-formed formulas after something else that is well-understood (denotational semantics).

What is commonly understood as "Boolean logic" is just a calculus. They way you typically learn its semantics is by truth table, which is the denotational approach. Modus ponens for intuitionistic logic is the operational approach to define semantics.

A logic is a collection of well-formed formulas under a calculus. A logic being "consistent" is defined by not being able to prove a well-formed formula and its negation. A paradox is a special case of inconsistent logic, where if you hold a formula true, you can prove it's false; but if you hold it false, you can prove it's true.

An axiom in logic is a well-formed formula initially admitted to the logic system without needing a proof. Once after admitting some axioms, you can then prove additional formulas that will be bootstrapped into the logic's collection of formulas.

If religion is a logic, then faith is an axiom. You are admitting it without requiring to prove it. Those who find faults with a religious faith are helping the religion to refine its axioms to make the logic consistent.

The only difference between science and religion is that, science is a special kind of logic such that the logical consequences must be observable *and* deterministically reproducible (meaning: you always get the same result under controlled situation). If it is not, it ain't science, and whatever it is cannot be differentiated from religion.

That said, although many aspects of evolution---such as mutation, natural selection, and viral DNA traces---are observable, but the claim about origin of species is only an interpretation of what's being observed. There is no meaningful consequence out of that interpretation, so it's only a philosophy, not science.

For example, I have another interpretation. I disagree with the common ancestor conjecture that life evolved from a single-cellular life form. My theory is that there used to be much more diverse spread of species in a spectrum. Many of the species that are close on the spectrum scale can cross-breed, so there is no common ancestor. However, natural selection narrows down the spectrum into small pockets of bands, so that species can no longer breed across band. This theory can be nudged to work well with mutation, natural selection, and viral DNA traces. It just doesn't answer the question, "where do species come from." This is the kind of question that science is not supposed to answer because, whatever the answer is, it can't be reproduced.

Re:you don't know what logic is.

[smittyoneeach]

You should take a course in logic.

I would not deny that. Quite a shame that logic has to be so complicated.

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[Black Parrot]

Evolution has a large number of concepts though and it infers a Big Bang and a Spark of Life for it to work. Biological evolution does not require the big bang. It merely requires the existence of a system of imperfect self-replicators. Whether that system arose by divine intervention or purely natural processes is irrelevant.

We infer the big bang from a completely different set of observations. We infer that life started somewhere along the way because we know that the universe was once uninhabitable by LAWKI, but LAWKI exists now.

Strictly speaking we don't know whether the big bang and abiogenesis had natural or supernatural causes, but given the track record for claims of supernatural causes, I'm banking on the former.

Re:Sellouts

[vertinox]

No! That's what some creationists say, but it is a fallacy. It is well known that science makes the materialistic assumption that everything has a natural cause, and this obviously excludes supernatural things such as God.

The key problem is interpretation of religion taken into literally context excludes a universe without supernatural occurrences. Either you have to change the scientific method to take into account super-natural occurrences or you have to reinterpret religion to conform with science.

For the most part religion has discounted science without changing, but one could reverse that and say something like God is a quantum simulation and Jesus Christ was the inevitably outcome of a civilization that had to reach a technological singularity before the next meteor impact because had Christianity not come about the Roman empire would have not fallen as soon and slave labor would not have gone out of style in which technology would not have flourished quick enough to avoid the next impact that would put mankind into extinction which would go against the idea of quantum observation.

Of course this entails nothing of an afterlife or salvation which puts Christianity, Judaism, and Islam at odds with Science if all were taken literally. The only religion as of know that comes close to being compatible literally with science is of course Buddhism which simply explains the situation of the mind, but not trying to claim away all natural phenomena as the will of god or gods.

God in the classroom

[poptones]

Look, I am not defending religious training in public schools, but it really seems the "separationists" have gone off the deep end in recent years. Remember that even Jefferson, that bulwark of the separation crowd, held that it was up to THE COMMUNITIES to decide this issue.

And while we're on the issue, let me say we really need to bring back latin (a subject Jefferson also pointed out the importance of). With most of the world's languages based on latin, teaching this "dead language" could go a long way toward expanding our view of the world stage.

Nothing wrong with education, so long as it has balance. Teaching comparative religion in schools is not the same as indoctrination.

Re:Sellouts

[Wonko the Sane]

Some things can not be proven at the moment, because we lack the necessary resources or because the theory has not yet progressed to the point of making a testable prediction.

Some things are inherently unprovable. That is a large distinction.

I might have some theory that makes a prediction of the behavior of matter at extremely high temperatures. Maybe I can't test it right now because there is no way (yet) to generate that temperature, but it is still testable in principal.

If I speculate about the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient entity that regularly alters reality without leaving behind any evidence then this will always be untestable. No experiment will every be able to conclude: "the result was X, therefore god doesn't exist", because the answer to that will always be, "your result X happened that way because god wanted it to happen that way"

I call bullshit

[Afecks]

God and science are unrelated. If that is true then God has no contact with the physical world and he is irrelevant.

If you believe that somehow the thoughts in our head caused by our neurons and synapses reach God then he must be in contact with nature somehow. If God sends his magical wishes into our world to be written down in a book then it must also be so. If you claim that God affects our world then he must be part of nature or extend somehow into the physical world and science is the only possible successful method at discovering it. If you reject science you reject the only possibility of ever truly finding a god.

You can say that your idea of a god isn't related to science but the Christian God most certainly is and it's absurdly false.

Stop confusing your redefined vague new age bullshit god with the vengeful, jealous and petulant God of the desert.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

If that is true then God has no contact with the physical world and he is irrelevant.

That's a completely illogical statement to make. God not being testable by scientific means does not mean that he has no contact with the physical world or that he is irrelevant. The relationship between me and my brother has nothing to do with science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is irrelevant. God can't be tested or predicted by science, but he can still affect the physical world in scientifically unpredictable ways and still be immensely relevant.

If you believe that somehow the thoughts in our head caused by our neurons and synapses reach God then he must be in contact with nature somehow. If God sends his magical wishes into our world to be written down in a book then it must also be so.

Interactions with the physical world do not have to be testable or predictable in order to occur. They do have to be testable or predictable in order to be science. What scientific hypothesis do you propose we form about God? What are you going to try and learn about the laws of nature from that which is not bound by them?

If you claim that God affects our world then he must be part of nature or extend somehow into the physical world and science is the only possible successful method at discovering it.

No. Creation can be examined by science, but the creator can't because he is not bound by the laws that science operates within. History, revelation and experience are what are used to know about God.

If you reject science you reject the only possibility of ever truly finding a god.

You should read a bit abut epistemology. Or any book about knowing God. Check a good systematic theology - won't have a thing there about needing science.

You can say that your idea of a god isn't related to science but the Christian God most certainly is and it's absurdly false.

Your rather glib answers seem to bear no relation to actual scholarship and thinking about the Christian God. What makes you think you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Re:I call bullshit

[NEW22]

Umm, he doesn't think he is right and everyone else is wrong. You make it sounds like he stands alone in his position. The world is not full of theists, and particularly Christians. What you are doing with that is a sort of false bandwagon argument. I mean, a bandwagon argument is poor anyways, but yours is also false because the "bandwagon" isn't even necessarily holding to your view.

You say that the creator is not bound by the laws that science operates in. Maybe that is somehow possible, in a theoretical sense we have no way of knowing. How do you know this? You say that history, revelation, and experience are used to know about God. How do you distinguish between history and mythology? How do you know who's revelation to trust? Can't one person's "revelation" just be their imagination, or their own wishes, or a lie to coerce others? What do we do when some have no experience of a God, and others do, while others have experience of encounters with extraterrestrials? Choosing to know a God in the ways you describe leads to irreconcilable differences when people have conflicting revelations or experiences with no way to sort out their differences. At least science can attempt to go to the evidence, and if it fails to resolve a difference now, there is a hope evidence may be uncovered as our knowledge advances.

Now, your relationship to your brother... well, science has some things to say about it. Things to say about genetics, mechanisms, how memories form, outside things. Your internal and shared subjective experiences, however, well, it is its own thing. Science is not so much about that internal feeling of social things, though it has certain things to say about objective mechanisms involved. Some people point to these sorts of things as the place for religion, though it has seemed better filled by philosophy and psychology and community to me.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a completely illogical statement to make. God not being testable by scientific means does not mean that he has no contact with the physical world or that he is irrelevant. The relationship between me and my brother has nothing to do with science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is irrelevant. God can't be tested or predicted by science, but he can still affect the physical world in scientifically unpredictable ways and still be immensely relevant.

but, presumably, your brother exists.

for more funny quotes, take your ridiculous post and replace 'god' with 'brother'. see if you can spot where your reasoning spectacularly failed.

Re:I call bullshit

[Blakey Rat]

If that is true then God has no contact with the physical world and he is irrelevant.

If God created all the physical laws that science studies, then he's hardly irrelevant even if he doesn't interfere in the working of those laws. And I don't even believe in God, I'm just pointing out an obvious hole in your response.

Re:I call bullshit

[schweini]

The relationship between me and my brother has nothing to do with science,
But 'relationship' is just a fancy word for 'complex interaction (taking into account their current state, and their vectors of change of properties) between a bunch of molecules, part of them in neurons, but to understand the whole deal, you'd have to have the state-information of almost all molecules in the universe', and if you put it that way, the relationship between your molecules and your brother's molecules certainly do fall in the realm of science. Or, to rephrase the GF's gist: if god had anything to do with your relationship, then point me EXACTLY to the point in the infinite chain of action-reactions that make up your relationship, where god fiddled with things, to make them so, which science can't explain. As far as i can see, the only 'escape routes' for theists are that a) god set up the rules of the game at the beginning or b) god somehow controls the really random stuff like nuclear decay. case a) would make god irrelevant, since he wouldn't be able to influence anything ever again (including the afterlife, since your consciousness is subject to scientific investigation of your molecules), and given case b) would make god's action unstudiable, and unpredictable.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Umm, he doesn't think he is right and everyone else is wrong. You make it sounds like he stands alone in his position. The world is not full of theists, and particularly Christians. What you are doing with that is a sort of false bandwagon argument. I mean, a bandwagon argument is poor anyways, but yours is also false because the "bandwagon" isn't even necessarily holding to your view.

I can pretty confidently say that Christians don't think the Christian God is testable by science. Who can speak with authority about how Christians define their God better than Christians themselves? This isn't a question of a bandwagon, it's a question of who defines a belief: those who believe it, or those who don't.

You say that the creator is not bound by the laws that science operates in. Maybe that is somehow possible, in a theoretical sense we have no way of knowing. How do you know this?

It's one the fundamental attributes of the Christian God, as revealed in the Bible. If you want to talk about some other deity, than by all means do so, but so long as we are talking about the Christian God, this is one of his attributes, regardless of whether you believe in him or not.

You say that history, revelation, and experience are used to know about God. How do you distinguish between history and mythology?

History happened, mythology didn't, therefore there will be historical evidence to verify the events.

How do you know who's revelation to trust?

With regards to the Bible, there's a chain of reasoning that starts with evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection. If they happened, then Jesus' claims are accepted and the gospels are regarded as reliable. From there we go to the authority of the apostles to speak on God's behalf, validating the rest of the NT and also the words of Jesus in Luke 24 for instance, where he verifies that the OT is the word of God and therefore revelation to be trusted. If you're talking about subsequent 'words from God' then I become a lot more sceptical and go back to the biblical stance that all such words should be tested against scripture to see if there is any confirmation/contradiction. Ultimately, it all goes back to whether Jesus really rose from the dead and was therefore the Son of God.

Can't one person's "revelation" just be their imagination, or their own wishes, or a lie to coerce others?

Which and the Bible warns about that and suggests safeguards against it.

What do we do when some have no experience of a God

Christian belief does not require that all people have conscious experience of God, therefore it isn't a problem for the Christian faith to be true.

while others have experience of encounters with extraterrestrials?

What does ET have to do with it?

Choosing to know a God in the ways you describe leads to irreconcilable differences when people have conflicting revelations or experiences with no way to sort out their differences.

Which is why we go back to historical events for confirmation of the gospels and back to the Bible to test what others claim as revelation. There's also the matter of the Holy Spirit convicting others of the truth, so the Christian faith has mechanisms for dealing with these issues. Luke and John's gospels in particular go to great lengths to talk about evidence and reasons for believing.

Some people point to these sorts of things as the place for religion, though it has seemed better filled by philosophy and psychology and community to me.

I agree (largely). My point was simply that science is not the be all and end all when it comes to knowing things.

Anyway, thanks for a reasoned discussion with some good questions.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

but, presumably, your brother exists.

for more funny quotes, take your ridiculous post and replace 'god' with 'brother'. see if you can spot where your reasoning spectacularly failed.

Science examine natural phenomena. God is not a natural phenomena. And you suggesting that my brother is supernatural or that God is natural? Because unless they are both bound by the laws of nature or both above the laws of nature, substituting them would make no sense. If you disagree, please spell out how my reasoning has 'spectacularly failed.'

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Your issue seems to be with a god of the gaps, which the Christian God is not. I don't believe in God simply to fill in what science can't explain. I believe in a God who created the world, sustains it (primarily through 'means' such as the laws of nature), has acted in history, who will judge everyone some day and send them to hell or a new creation and who sent us son to make it possible for guilty people like me to be forgiven and enter the new creation instead of hell. I believe in a God who keeps promises, who loves, who judges, who has relationships. I don't believe in a god which is simply a placeholder for as yet undiscovered natural laws.

Incidentally, God not being bound by natural laws doesn't mean he can't act in the physical world - it just means he isn't limited in what he does and cannot be studied as a natural phenomenon. hence him being outside of the scope of science. His actions are predictable only to the extent that he has promised to do certain things and his revealed a part of his nature. It's a question of knowing someone, rather than knowing about something.

Re:I call bullshit

[bwalling]

Sorry to send you off on a rant. Simply substitute "the idea of God" or "belief in God" in place of "God" in what I said. I guess that could have been more clear.

Stop confusing your redefined vague new age bullshit god with the vengeful, jealous and petulant God of the desert.

Stop completely misunderstanding Christian theology.

Re:I call bullshit

[Scrameustache]

You should read a bit abut epistemology. Or any book about knowing God. Check a good systematic theology - won't have a thing there about needing science.

You should read something with some science in it. Might stop you from saying things like:

The relationship between me and my brother has nothing to do with science, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it is irrelevant. Because the relationship between you and your brother has to do with the following branches of science: Biology, sociology, and psychology.

And you should know this.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

who sent us son to make it possible for guilty people like me to be forgiven

What a sad statement. How old are you anyway? Start to critically reflect your religious indoctrination before it's too late and before you've got too much invested in "believing" such inanities.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

You should read something with some science in it

I have a physics degree from Oxford.

Because the relationship between you and your brother has to do with the following branches of science: Biology, sociology, and psychology.

I should have said that you cannot reduce a relationship to scientific statements.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

What a sad statement.

What an arrogant statement.

How old are you anyway?

25. You?

Start to critically reflect your religious indoctrination before it's too late and before you've got too much invested in "believing" such inanities.

Again with the arrogance. I've done quite a bit of critical thinking, was never indoctrinated (my parents aren't religious) and studied physics at Oxford, so really I have no bias inf avour of being a Christian other than sincerely believing it to be true.

Re:I call bullshit

[schweini]

I am an atheist, but i would still even accept the theory that a god-thing created the rules at the very beginning, and then stood back and watched to see what happens, so to speak, without interfering in any way - but you insist that god DOES interfere. In my previous post i was trying to show you that this is, as far as i can see, impossible, because if e.g. you'd pray before an exam that you'll get a good grade, and i'd start to monitor every little physical interaction that occurs to you after your prayer, i would have to notice SOMETHING that couldn't be explained with our scientific toolbox - which would at least leave the possibility open that some god or something supernatural influenced your actions (i.e. responded to your prayer). If i cant measure ANYTHING out of the ordinary, how exactly did god then manage to modify your neurological signals in a way that you get a better grade at the end?

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Why would you have to see something out of the ordinary? Christianity never claims that God's answers to prayer will be distinguishable from natural phenomena, so that is not a means of falsifying Christianity. Of course It's not a means of proving it either. And there's no guarantee that God will answer the prayer in the way in which the pay-er wants. If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then there we have a miraculous event that stands as evidence. I believe we have that in the gospels. Christianity never claims that God will hop into a test tube on demand.

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

I really thought the GP couldn't put it any simpler, but let me try: you assume god exists. Your relationship with your brother could very easily be analyzed by the scientific method, because your brother exists.

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Gospels written mostly by men who didn't know him? Gospels that contain contradictions even between themselves? Why would you believe the gospels over any other ancient text that describes miracles?

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

Of course you can reduce a relationship to scientific statements. Your entire range of experiences could be described purely by physics and chemistry. Your relationship with your brother can be explained through psychology. As you are an educated person, you should know that. Religion has evidently damaged your critical faculties. Let us hope the damage isn't permanent.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a physics degree and believe in a personal god? Wow that's rare.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Fairly common actually. A fair number of the current faculty at Oxford would believe in a personal god and some would even call themselves Christian. Plenty of historical precedent for that too. Many of the greatest physicists were evangelical Christians, e.g. Faraday and Maxwell.

Re:I call bullshit

[Afecks]

I can pretty confidently say that Christians don't think the Christian God is testable by science. Who can speak with authority about how Christians define their God better than Christians themselves? This isn't a question of a bandwagon, it's a question of who defines a belief: those who believe it, or those who don't. Wrong. You don't get to just say if God is testable or not. I'm sure you wish you could just change things like that on a whim but no not happening. God is defined as testable only because Christians make certain claims about his actions. If ever God contacted humans, there would be a way to detect and prove that it happened. If not, it doesn't matter because God is silent and hasn't given us any rules to follow.

It's one the fundamental attributes of the Christian God, as revealed in the Bible. If you want to talk about some other deity, than by all means do so, but so long as we are talking about the Christian God, this is one of his attributes, regardless of whether you believe in him or not. As in many other places, the Bible contradicts itself there.

History happened, mythology didn't, therefore there will be historical evidence to verify the events. Then you don't believe Jesus Christ died on the cross and then rose bodily to Heaven. There is NO evidence for that.

I agree (largely). My point was simply that science is not the be all and end all when it comes to knowing things. Please go and gain some knowledge about the physical world in any other way besides science then report your results. If you claim to exist in any world beyond the physical then please prove that first. If you can't do either then you must admit you're wrong.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Any god-abstraction is a great way to explain long-term processes in nature. Lets say you are living on a active volcano, enjoying the richt soil. The last eruption of this volcano was several generations ago and you don't remember the warning sings of an eruption. Then the volcano erupts one day, killing entire village. Now, if you consider a god living inside the volcano and you therefore assign human qualities to this living volcano, you are creating a culture of vigilance, for the mind of a volcano god is perceived as volatile as a human mind. An institution is created and the sings of wrath of the volcano god are carefully documented and observed, therefore saving the village when the volcano erupts once again.

Re:I call bullshit

[Afecks]

Right, the most powerful being in the universe made us imperfect then demands us not to sin and of course when we fail the best solution is to kill himself as a blood sacrifice so he can make himself happy?

Wow man, that's just fucking stupid. Trying to change it from the literal interpretation, which is how most people in history took the creation story, to an allegorical one only increases the stupidity. God symbolically killed himself for a symbolic original sin? Oh, ok then, I symbolically give a shit in that case.

You can get all offended and act like you're so much more civilized than us because you have a shit-eating-grin on while spouting fantasy but I really don't care. I'm equally offended by dogma so we're even on that.

Speaking of arrogance. Which one of us is the one that thinks he knows more than science can show us and asserts it without any contact with this supposed other realm of existence?

You are infinitely more arrogant and presumptuous than we could ever be.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Wrong. You don't get to just say if God is testable or not. I'm sure you wish you could just change things like that on a whim but no not happening. God is defined as testable only because Christians make certain claims about his actions.

We're debating about the Christian God. The Christian God is defined as not being subject to natural laws. Ergo, if you want to test a god, you cannot be talking about the Christian God. If you are able to test god, then that calls into question the claim that the Christian God exists, but you cannot demand that he be testable.

God is defined as testable only because Christians make certain claims about his actions. If ever God contacted humans, there would be a way to detect and prove that it happened.

That's somewhat different to testing God and falls more properly within the domain of historical research rather than scientific endeavour.

As in many other places, the Bible contradicts itself there.

What a pithy statement. Where's the evidence to back it up?

Then you don't believe Jesus Christ died on the cross and then rose bodily to Heaven. There is NO evidence for that.

You may not find the evidence conclusive, but it is absurd to claim there is no evidence. The gospels (and indeed the rest of the NT) are evidence, amng other things and there is evidence to support their veracity. Evidence =/= 100% proof and absence of 100% proof =/= total absence of evidence.

Please go and gain some knowledge about the physical world in any other way besides science then report your results.

I'll do that if you go ask all the historians of the world if they're scientist and if their field of study is another branch of science, or a separate discipline.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Are you married? If so, please don't tell me you use the scientific method to analyse how well your marriage is going or I really will despair for the world.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

How do we know Jesus rose from the dead? Gospels written mostly by men who didn't know him? Gospels that contain contradictions even between themselves? Why would you believe the gospels over any other ancient text that describes miracles?

I believe because of the strong historical credentials of the documents, they consistent and coherent testimony with one another, with other New Testament documents and with the rest of the Bible and because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But you're likely not interested in the last one.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

I find it somewhat ironic that your email address begins with 'loverevolutionary' yet you seek to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. If that is truly your position then we are at an impasse, particularly in light of your specious comment than no man who believes in anything beyond the physical and chemical can be educated. Plenty of educated men - well educated - would take issue with your statement.

Re:I call bullshit

[Afecks]

The Christian God is defined as not being subject to natural laws. Then he cannot interact with us.

What a pithy statement. Where's the evidence to back it up? Back what up? That the Bible is full of contradictions or that the scripture you referenced but failed to cite is contradicted?

I'll do that if you go ask all the historians of the world if they're scientist and if their field of study is another branch of science, or a separate discipline. Wow, that's the whole point! Woosh!

Only through science can we actually KNOW things. The rest is just hearsay.

Do we take history at face value because we read it in a book? NO! We dig up the ground and look for evidence and corroboration from other sources that these stories are true. Even then it's only a best GUESS. We assume it's true because we have nothing better. That's not truth.

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

Yes, I'm married. For eight years. Yes, I use the scientific method in my marriage, as I use it in every relationship. I make a hypothesis regarding the other person's mental state. I act on that hypothesis. I observe, using all my senses, and my empathy, the results of my actions. Based on the results, I revise my behavior. If you have a better way, I'd love to hear it.

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

I don't believe there are any strong historical credentials in the Bible. I don't believe the gospels are consistent and coherent, and I asked for that kind of conviction with all my heart and got nothing. Evidently, God plays favorites. Some honest seekers get conviction, some get touched by priests (not that I was, I was an adult when I gave Christianity a try.)

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

Everything reduces to the physical and chemical, but from these humble beginnings, countless new behaviors emerge that can not be addressed by mere physics and chemistry. The system is more than the sum of its parts, there are all the myriad interactions as well. To me, this explanation of reality is far grander and more mysterious than any magical fairytale. When I think of the explanations provided by religion, I feel sad and limited. When I look at the explanations provided by science, I feel awe and exultation.

Re:I call bullshit

[fwr]

Do we take history at face value because we read it in a book? NO! We dig up the ground and look for evidence and corroboration from other sources that these stories are true. Even then it's only a best GUESS. We assume it's true because we have nothing better. That's not truth.

Hmm, so you don't believe what you read in a book. Then you dig up the ground and look for evidence. Then you... write it down in a book, or scientific report. Interesting.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Then he cannot interact with us.

That's completely illogical. No bound by the laws of nature =/= unable to interact with the natural world.

Back what up?

You claimed the existence of contradictions but didn't back up your claim with an evidence or reasoning.

Only through science can we actually KNOW things. The rest is just hearsay.

That's nonsense. You don't 'KNOW' anything through science. The closest you can get to 'KNOW'ing something is in mathematics. Science involves building little models of systems that produce the same results for a given input as the real counterpart they are intended to represent. That doesn't mean reality functions in the same manner as the model; it just means that the model is our best means of predicting how reality will behave. At any time some new result could come along and turn the model on its head. You never 'KNOW' ANYTHING in science. Once you think you do, you're not doing science anymore and you end up with the Flat Earth Society. /p

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

I'm sure your wife to love to hear that your marriage is simply a result of physical and chemical reactions. Is that how you proposed to her, or did you tell her you love her?

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Right, the most powerful being in the universe made us imperfect

Not restricted to being in the universe and didn't make us imperfect.

then demands us not to sin

Actually, Paul's letter to the Romans helps clarify that we were handed over to sin as punishment for disobedience. It's a subtle difference.

and of course when we fail the best solution is to kill himself as a blood sacrifice

Actually it was the Son submitting to the Father's plan and freely sacrificing himself by being put to death by other moral agents (people).

so he can make himself happy?

He was already happy.

Trying to change it from the literal interpretation, which is how most people in history took the creation story, to an allegorical one only increases the stupidity. God symbolically killed himself for a symbolic original sin? Oh, ok then, I symbolically give a shit in that case.

I quite agree. Besides which, why treat a historical event as symbolic?

You can get all offended and act like you're so much more civilized than us

I answered all your questions; if I was outrageously offended, I probably wouldn't have. Additionally, I've gone back to read all my comments and I'm having trouble picking out the bit where I act more civilised than you. Could you possibly enlighten me on that subject so we can explored where our interpretation of certain phrases differs?

I really don't care. I'm equally offended

Uh huh.

by dogma so we're even on that.

Dogma is essentially doctrine that is considered to have supreme evidence for its truth and is therefore regarded as authoritative and foundational to other doctrines. What about that offends you? Or is it dogmatism that is the real problem, which is another matter entirely?

Speaking of arrogance. Which one of us is the one that thinks he knows more than science can show us and asserts it without any contact with this supposed other realm of existence?

Might I suggest the use of punctuation or alternative phrasing in future long sentences? I'm afraid it took me a few attempts to parse. Would help avoid any misunderstandings. And discussion of epistemology do not require contact with another realm of existence. Not sure I'm even happy with the phrase; sounds like superstitious astrological claptrap.

You are infinitely more arrogant and presumptuous than we could ever be.

Don't you find that phrase somewhat ironic? Especially in the light of the rest of your comments? Seriously, what have I assumed about you? Why don't you go through all the comments we've made to each other and note every time someone makes an assumption about the other person. When you've done that, post the list and we'll discuss the validity of your claims.

Incidentally, you never answered my question about your age after I answered yours. You have me at a disadvantage there.

Re:I call bullshit

[Afecks]

Exactly my point again. Only when you can read something out of a book and then go and match it up with the physical world or what I like to call REALITY can you actually know it is true.

Re:I call bullshit

[spun]

Why should the fact that love is just a physical and chemical process make it any less real? Why would it being the result of some kind of mythical 'soul' or 'spirit' make it any more real? Wow, I feel sorry for any students you might have. And you are a very poor Christian, what with all the judging others. One of Christ's main messages, yet you seem to have missed it.

Re:I call bullshit

[JonathanBoyd]

Where did I judge? Concern for someone's dismissal of love as purely physical/chemical reaction is not judging someone. Feeling sorry for someone as a result of the views they hold is not judging them either. I am not comparing our moral goodness, nor am I stating whether you are going to heaven or hell. I have made no comment about whether or not you are saved. I could now say that unless you have asked God for forgiveness for all you've done wrong and trusted in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to accomplish that, then you will assuredly go to hell, but equally assuredly will go to heaven if you do do it. In all this, you are no different to me.

Additional additional thoughts

[jopet]

I was trying to keep my quick post free of references to any specific religion. Of course the fact that there are so many different gods and dogmas especial when it comes to the explanation of nature and reality should be an additional easily graspable argument that not all of the can be true although their believes think that only one can be true.

> No I am not saying that religion has no place in the world, it seems to put the believers minds at ease
Exactly. That is what opium can do quite well.

> However religion and science should not be in the same ring.
I really don't see a ring for religion except the mind-numbing when I look more closely.

> Let these so called christians debate with other and see what they love.
It is not so easy. Unlike atheists like me, the so-called christians and also the muslims, jews etc. have strong opinions not only about what they should or should not do, but what I should or should not be allowed to do.
I have no problem about Christians believing they will rot in hell if they have sex before marriage or sex with a condom, but I do not see why they should mess with what others do in that respect.

And this is one of the most ugly aspects of religion, predominantly the book-religions that have their origin in desert people: they have a built-in imperative to force their own fairy-tale beliefs upon others.

Not a Government Matter

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

This 'problem' of controlling which scientific theories/hypotheses the government schools are 'allowed' to discuss only exists because of government schools. If all schools were private schools, then parents can simply send their children to whatever school they think is best, pro-Darwinian, anti-Darwinian, or mixed ('teach the controversy') biology/cosmogony curriculum. The current 'strategy' of mandating a physicalist/materialist theory of origins, banning and making illegal teleological theories, then using the Federal(!!) court system to defend this setup will obviously only lead to continued attempts to overthrow it every few years (unsuccessfully?) and lead to the continued emmigration from the public schools to private schools and home-schooling, which only strengthens the growing calls for government-vouchers to pay for private school, or for abolishing federal (and state?) government schooling altogether.

That, and twelve-year olds having sex and doing cocaine while being functionally illiterate (and remaining so at their graduations) also probably undermines the government schools' credibility.

The Feds involvement in this all is also on dubious legal grounds for semi-obvious reasons (so where is the Federal Department of Education in the US Federal Constitution anyway?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education#Opposition . But what's a hundred billion dollars of our money between friends, anyway? Unless you happen not to be a friend.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[caseih]

I think that you point out a very strong weakness in the position of the Christian right-wing, particularly protestants as they exist in America. That doesn't mean that Religion itself must always be abandoned to partake of Science, though. Maybe for this group. But in the end, if science demonstrates something conclusively, then a religious belief has to be compatible with it, or else the religion must not be true.

The problem is that many Christians believe in Creation ex nihilo, which is something that Science has essentially disproved for hundreds of years. Even Newton himself put forth some basic laws that state matter can not be created nor destroyed. Well it turns out that Creation ex nihilo is not really a biblical concept. It was simply a medieval explanation of the Bible's simple words about the creation of the earth. That doesn't mean the Bible is completely wrong, it just means that someone interpreted it wrong along the way. All of these so-called contradictions, then, can still be reconciled. If the Creation was an organization of matter, through whatever process, then the Bible words are still true.

As for the Garden of Eden, the Bible really only says that it existed. The specifics of how and chronology are not mentioned.

Regardless of whether evolution occurred or not, the concept of original sin remains the same. Although I am Christian, and think that "original sin" in orthodox Christianity is completely bunk. Sex did not cause the fall of man. But whatever the case, I fail to see how evolution influences the story of the fall.

Furthermore, whether or not evolution occurred is also irrelevant to the Christian idea of the need of a redeemer.

Many believers look into the cosmos and see what's out there (or in here) as evidence of God's handiwork, and evidence of his existence. Others look out and see not God at all. The problem with anyone on either side setting to prove the non-existence or existence of God is that God is not out there in the cosmos. One could travel the length and breadth of the universe and not find him. While others sit close to home and find him as they consider the whys of their own metaphysical existence.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[stewbacca]

It's not that I'm narrow minded, it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events (easily explained by science) so they revert to relgion to help make meaning in their lives. I'm not saying they are right or wrong because that would be narrow minded. Make your own inferences.

Re: Sellouts

[Black Parrot]

If you believe in science AND god then your a bloody hypocrite because the scientific method can never be used on god. I agree with that last part, but I don't see how it makes anyone a hypocrite. There are lots of things that I don't apply the scientific method to.

Its irrational to believe in something there is no proof of. Sounds good on paper, but I'll wager that there's no one on the planet who doesn't believe in things there isn't any proof of. (Even using a very loose notion of 'proof'.)

Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[SpinyNorman]

The only part of religion that are compatible with science are the parts that don't contradict it.

Any religious claims for a god that has even the tiniest power over or interaction with the physical world are demonstrably wrong.

Every time an apple falls off a tree and hits the ground, or heated water boils, or anything keeps on happening (without exception) according to the laws of nature discovered by science, it continues to confirm that any predictions contrary to the predictions of science are wrong.

However much you pray for god to intervene in your life he won't, because never in the history of the world has even a single atom of matter or molecule of neurotransmitter ever been seen to behave counter to the laws of science.

The only value of religion, and part of it not in contradiction with science, is the moral/social element, but frankly I think most aethiests are more moral than most religious folk, and that we'd be better off without religion all together, even if no doubt people would still find other excuses to kill each other and argue over.

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[Anonymous Coward]

It forms an interesting paradox.

If god was to change a few molecules and preferentially heal Christians, then Christians would show an improved statistical chance of recovery compared to people who believed in other gods.

If the existence of God could be proved by statistical analysis then faith is unnecessary.

"Without faith, it is impossible to please God!" Heb. 11:6a

Statistical analysis of patients recovery times and their religious belief does not show any correlation.

Therefore, either God does not heal people who believe in him.
Or else, he did up till we invented statistics. :)

"The only value of religion, and part of it not in contradiction with science, is the moral/social element, but frankly I think most aethiests are more moral than most religious folk, and that we'd be better off without religion all together, even if no doubt people would still find other excuses to kill each other and argue over."

Personally, I think religion exists *because* people can argue about it forever and get absolutely nowhere. It's fun to talk and argue and religion is a never ending source of interesting discussion. We are perhaps simpler beings than we would like to think. :)
Before printed books it was perhaps one of the few cultural things any random group of people might have in common to talk about in any depth.

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[davide marney]

...never in the history of the world has even a single atom of matter or molecule of neurotransmitter ever been seen to behave counter to the laws of science.

Prove it.

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[damienl451]

Think about what you have just written (I know, it's hard and likely to give you a headache - don't worry, you'll get used to using your brain). Let's see

Any religious claims for a god that has even the tiniest power over or interaction with the physical world are demonstrably wrong. Now, explain to me how you intend to prove this negative. At best, you might be able to show me that never in history has the action of a supernatural agent been witnessed or recorded. That's still a far cry from proving that God has no power over the physical world (which would require you to exclude any supernatural intervention in every single thing that's ever happened in the universe).

Every time an apple falls off a tree and hits the ground, or heated water boils, or anything keeps on happening (without exception) according to the laws of nature discovered by science, it continues to confirm that any predictions contrary to the predictions of science are wrong. Wait... I can make an apple fall off a tree but God cannot? Maybe you could try to turn your argument into a valid syllogism. I'd be interested to know how you go from 'the laws of nature accurately describe the way the world works' to 'God cannot intervene in the world'. I really don't see (probably because it's simply not there) what falling apples and boiling water tell you about the existence (or lack thereof) of God.

never in the history of the world has even a single atom of matter or molecule of neurotransmitter ever been seen to behave counter to the laws of science. Never in the history of the world has a man written 'XDDGFDFEGERDND' on Slashdot. Therefore, it will never happen. Wait... I just did it. Guess my message will vanish in a puff of logic.
In addition, you're confused as to what the laws of science really are. They are descriptive and not prescriptive. By definition, a miracle *is* a departure from the way the world usually works (but not a violation of the laws of nature, which describe how the world works in the absence of any supernatural intervention).

but frankly I think most aethiests are more moral than most religious folk Define 'moral' and, if you think morality is absolute (which apparently you do ), explain to me how science studies it and where moral values come from.

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[SpinyNorman]

I rather think it'd have made the headlines, don't you?

Apple flies off tree upwards! Water over flame stays stone cold! Shroedringer wave equation violated!

Space shuttle fails to take off - jumps ten feet sideways instead, and turns green!

Could be that god is just powerless in the science lab. Scared of the white coats.

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[SpinyNorman]

I'd be interested to know how you go from 'the laws of nature accurately describe the way the world works' to 'God cannot intervene in the world'. I really don't see (probably because it's simply not there) what falling apples and boiling water tell you about the existence (or lack thereof) of God.

If nature is controlled and describable by fixed laws then there is no room for it to be controlled by non-fixed laws (such as decision of god)! Simple as that.

e.g. It'd be ridiculous to say that an apple that just broke off it's branch fell down (vs up) due to god's will when science predicts that's what it's always going to do anyway - it makes any such god totally impotent because all you can ascribe to him (without being wrong) is that he will do what science says is going to happen anyway!

For there to be any possibility of a god with some power over the universe you'd have have to have things that occur contrary to science, but history has shown that that the number of things occuring contrary to science reduce as science advances (i.e. they are due to ignorance, not the will of god), and today we have arrived at the point where we essentially have a 100% description of nature (even if it'd be more intellectually satisfying to combine the lowest level laws such as general relativity and quantum physics into a single framework).

The only things that science can't predict today are large scale effects of non-linear systems where things like chaos (in mathematical sense) come to play, but this is matter of mathematical intractability not violation of physical law (which is still used to predict the dynamics of such systems, on different terms).

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[damienl451]

Well, considering that God never promised that Christians would be healed, that he's not a circus animal, that it's basically impossible to make sure that only 'genuine' Christians are part of the experimental group (how to you *know* if someone is sincere or not? Maybe he's just a hypocrite and not a Christian a all). There are so many confounding variables that it's impossible to conduct such a statistical analysis and have it yield valuable results.

While I'm at it, most studies on intercessory prayer are also deeply flawed for the exact same reasons. How do you control for variables such as sincerity of belief, God's sovereign will, the non-mechanistic nature of prayer,etc.?

Re:Religion can not be reconciled with science...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, considering that God never promised that Christians would be healed, that he's not a circus animal, that it's basically impossible to make sure that only 'genuine' Christians are part of the experimental group (how to you *know* if someone is sincere or not? Maybe he's just a hypocrite and not a Christian a all). There are so many confounding variables that it's impossible to conduct such a statistical analysis and have it yield valuable results. "

I suppose so. But that does not seem to dispute the idea that God cannot intervene in areas where his intervention would prove his existence. It just says he is limited to doing things that are difficult to analyse. This would still require him to be cognisant of scientific method and careful to cover his tracks.
Doesn't this make him answerable to the whims of man, as we then become the ones that define his abilities?

God Created It, Science Describes It

[TooLazyToLogon]

God created it. Science describes what God created. Science is still coming up with new descriptions. If on the first day, Adam decided to core a tree to look the tree rings, those tree rings would still have represented a year of growth for each ring. Same principle with plate tectonics. God created it that way. Science is describing his creation. Over the years Science has changed it's description of God's creation. Once Science thought matter was made of particles, then not, now particle again. I'm still not sure whether God made light from particle or waves. But I do know that Science will come up with new descriptions.

Re:God Created It, Science Describes It

[Anonymous Coward]

I use this description myself.

To me, it's not about faith vs. reason; it's about obedience vs. reason.

The mindset that pushes creationism so vehemently wants people to accept what their "betters" tell them, rather than use the brain that God gave them, or consider that He/She may give a revelation to someone other than a religious leader. This is the mindset that burned Tyndale and Caxton for printing a Bible that the common man could read for himself (if he could read), rather than blindly accepting a priest's interpretation.

As you say, science tells me about how God's creation works, and religion tells me why He/She made it.

No, standards of truth are similar

[davide marney]

But religion does not even try to prove anything, religion requires you to accept what is proclaimed without any attempt of evidence, or logic, what-so-ever.

You've improperly stated the nature of faith. Faith is not a fact like gravity is a fact. Faith is a conclusion one reaches based on one's interpretation of the facts. It's metaphysical, not physical.

All that is required to believe in God is to add up everything we know about the world -- who we are, where we came from, where everything came from -- and then simply ask, why? What's it all about? What's it all for?

The answer you come up with is what you believe, what you "have faith" in. You can have faith that it all means nothing, that it came from nowhere and is going nowhere. Or you can have faith that it must have a meaning above what we can see, that there must be something else beyond it all.

Speaking for myself, I do believe that life has meaning.

Re:No, standards of truth are similar

[walterbyrd]

>>Faith is a conclusion one reaches based on one's interpretation of the facts.

Interpretation of what facts? There are stars in the sky, therefore there must be a god - something like that?

In that case, does everybody get to all the same religious beliefs individually, or does somebody proclaim something, and all his followers believe it?

Also, what about all the specifics? Did Jesus come back from the dead? What facts are interpreted to support that?

Not Insightful

[aepervius]

Although I fully agree the GP amde a fallacy, you used a strawman : the confusion between "I believe in god" where belief=religious faith without evidence, and "I believe in science" as in "I am confident in science" as in "If I did the experience myself i could prove point by point the principle already discovered in the past, no matter my religious belief in god or not". The word believe here is not taken as "faith without evidence". Moderator, this was not an insightful jab at the troll, this is one of the oldest strawman argument used by religious faithful. Don#t fall for it. The troll was not hypocrite, he was using like most of us the word in the non religious sense. I believe/I think/I am confident that....

err...

[Tom]

acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God. Not "god" in the sense of "some über-powerful being" perhaps, but certainly the biblical version. When your holy book starts with claims that your scientific knowledge refutes as nonsense, it's very hard to continue being convinced of both.

There's a reason all the xian fundamentalists so desperately oppose evolution, and that's precisely because understanding evolution means understanding that most of the bible is badly written fiction.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[bechthros]

your original point was that to engage in rational thought one must suspend belief in God. i pointed out several people who both believed in God and engaged in a great deal of rational thought. you admitted that many of those people did indeed believe in God and also engaged in rational thought. anything further to add?

Send out gratis copies?

[pbooktebo]

I hope they send copies to the Republican candidates who don't believe in evolution... :)

irrationality and religion..

[rs232]

'I've read slashdot for a long time. And the one thing that irritates me the most is the hatred everyone has towards religion and god. Post after post moderated to +5 insightful for saying "it's stupid to believe in god". What happened to open-minded?'

What people object to is the basic irrationality of all religlous belief systems, in order to be a member of the club, you have to be certifiably insane.

"Now imagine the beginning of time, empty universe or what have you and God begins creation .."

How did 'God' come into existence, if you say 'God' existed forever, then why not say the same for the material universe.

"He puts his finger to the empty 'canvas' and pours out his energy, and matter 'explodes' from his fingertips outward"

Where's the evidence for such an occurrence, can we measure it. If not then it isn't science. Observation, speculation, theory and testing with experiment - that's science. Religion says believe what I say because I say so.

Actually the current scientific thinking puts it as the Universe being created by two multi dimentional branes colliding.

Of course there is only the one true religion the church of Pastafarianism. All hail his immensity the Flying Spaghetti Monster ..

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I'm a Master's Student at MIT in Electrical Engineering, and I did my undergrad here too. I became a Christian while at MIT. Most of my Christian friends at MIT (there is quite a large community at MIT) have also gone on to top graduate schools in Nuclear Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Biology, Mathematics, Aero/Astro Engineering. Many of them found their faith while at MIT or in high school. So please, don't say that.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[pkphilip]

That is a very arrogant viewpoint. If you are associating the ability to think (that is intelligence) with atheism, then how do you explain the fact that Issac Newton, Pasteur etc were all believers in God? Were they stupid?

Also, are you claiming that pretty much the entire planet (apart from a small minority who call themselves atheists) are stupid?

"Does not require abandoning belief in God"?

[Belisarivs]

I read the chapter on Creationism, and it's basically a point-by-point beatdown of said ideology. In fact, apart from a couple brief FAQs at the end of the text, they really don't address the theological aspects at all. It's basically a manual on how to rebut a creationist - not a look at how to reconcile science and religion, as the summary would have you believe. In fact, they treat creationists as little more than anthropological curiosities.

False Dichotomy

[neurosine]

I've always thought that the mutually exclusive nature of science and religion was perhaps elevated by example to the minds of people as fact. I've always considered it a false dichotomy. We all know the bible was written, revised, and published by man. Men who lived a long time ago and were unaware of many things we consider common knowledge today. Written for people who were even more ignorant. If we focused as much on the points where the Bible is viable as much as we focus on the points on which we disagree, I think everyone would be more tolerant. Atheists could stand Christians more if they lived by their principals. Christians could stand atheists more if they really had the higher ground. But we love conflict. Without it there is no story to tell in the minds of most people. And therein lies the bullshit tragedy of religion versus science.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[david_thornley]

The problem is that many Christians believe in Creation ex nihilo, which is something that Science has essentially disproved for hundreds of years.

Nope. Consider the Big Bang, which has been scientifically established. What came before it? For all you or I know, there was nothing but a Supreme Being then, who started the entire Universe by saying "Let there be light!" The days of Creation aren't too bad a summary of the development of the Universe, assuming that somebody with infinite knowledge is trying to explain things quickly to a bunch of shepherds completely innocent of formal education. (I have this mental image of Moses saying, "Oh Lord, is it really necessary to learn these tensors?")

It's just autocratic politics

[dbIII]

Too many lay people see scientists as modern priests

I would say that this mistake is due to a poor science education. We should be seeing it as commonplace and not getting it mistaken for a holy mystery.

Neither science nor religeon are really the issue anyway, it's just politics. As I see it there are a variety of offshoots of Christianity that rejected an educated clergy and now that they have succeded in that they are rejecting the educated in general as a threat to their organisations. It's just simple autocratic politics at work - if you do not obey the leader you are ostricised or verbally attacked. Those who are very far gone are forbidden from using the net or even telephones anyway but they have influence on the more moderate groups right through to causing discord between the mainstream churches and biologists, geologists etc. Feel free to tell me I'm bound for hell - my entire nation was "damned for all eternity" by Oral Roberts when he was subjected to the indignity of an airport baggage search.

I suspect that those at the core of "Intelligent Design" advocacy would see a Jesuit with scientific training as their own personal antichrist. Remember folks, it's not just bad science it's apparently bad theology as well.

It's called atheism.

[PhxBlue]

It takes a narrow minded person to believe in the basket analogy, whether you're on the God side or the science side.

A lot of very reasonable people could easily believe in the basket analogy. They're called atheists.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[Bearhouse]

Ouch. I think that the better forms of religion are perhaps not striving for truth, but 'perfection' and a sense of altruism that will lead people to behave in a better way to themselves, and others.
(And I say this as an agnostic).

They also teach tolerence and charity.

The vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and whatever don't go around trying to shove their faiths and ways of life down other people's throats, they are just happy to live within a system of beliefs and associated rules that suit them. A bit like many people like being in the armed forces, (many have problems adapting to the 'real world' when they leave).

Even if science finally does 'explain everything', will it make us and the world a better place?

All well and good but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the one thing I've never understood is where the matter and energy involved in The Big Bang came from. What started the process of evolution? Maybe it wasn't the Christian God, or the Jewish Jehovah or Islam's Allah, but I've never heard a good explanation for how Space and Time began. Seems to me something -- I don't know what, exactly -- but something bigger than humankind had to be involved somehow.

pseudo-reality

[spongebobsquarepants]

This is a sad development. There is no reconciliation to be had between science and religion. Anyone who will tell you such a thing is lying. Anyone who believes it is deranged. The best way to kill scientific, technological, medical, and social progress would be to adopt such a philosophically indefensible view.

Don't do it!!!

[Orig1]

The schism between science and "religion" is mainly a Christian thing. The other religions don't have the problem. I think it is a way for God to protect humanity from the Christians. After ethnically cleansing three continents and much of the plant and animal life, burning millions at the steak in Europe, colonizing and enslaving much of Asia and Africa we can only imagine what would be left of life on earth if the christian religious elect had embraced technology even more. Remember it was the inter-christian hostility that caused Europeans to emigrate to the new world on the Mayflower and a continence of this hostility that lead the founding fathers of the US to try to prevent the government from being used as a tool of this hostility with the very first amendment to the constitution. But if you question this analysis, study the "Christian Values" unpresident bush demonstrated in shipping cluster bombs to Israel to bomb the civilian population of Lebanon. The schism should be enhanced not smoothed over.

Re:Don't do it!!!

[ProteusQ]

The schism between science and "religion" is mainly a Christian thing. The other religions don't have the problem.

If atheism is defined as a religion in a social sense, then you're wrong, as Richard Dawkins and others have demonstrated.

I think it is a way for God to protect humanity from the Christians.

You're showing your hate and intolerance here; why should you treat hateful and intolerant Christians differently than yourself?

After ethnically cleansing three continents and much of the plant and animal life, burning millions at the steak in Europe, colonizing and enslaving much of Asia and Africa we can only imagine what would be left of life on earth if the christian religious elect had embraced technology even more.

Every migration includes vast changes to the landscape and thus the native flora and fauna. Read 1491 to see this. Christians burned about 2,000 people at the stake in the history of Europe, not millions. Again, read 1491 to see how the Mexica forcibly converted their fellow man (i.e., via a religion that involved human sacrifice of those who didn't accept their control). Africans and Asians colonized and enslaved each other also, so such activity is not exclusively Christian.

Remember it was the inter-christian hostility that caused Europeans to emigrate to the new world on the Mayflower

That and wage control. And the price of land. And entrenched bureaucracies. And the lack of economic development. And the lack of free speech. And so on.

and a continence of this hostility that lead the founding fathers of the US to try to prevent the government from being used as a tool of this hostility with the very first amendment to the constitution.

Which modern atheists are trying to rescind. It is not Christians who are going to court to repress the right of minors to speak about atheism in schools.

But if you question this analysis, study the "Christian Values" unpresident bush demonstrated in shipping cluster bombs to Israel to bomb the civilian population of Lebanon. The schism should be enhanced not smoothed over.

Do the Muslim fanatics have nothing to do with it? Why is it a Christian's or a Jew's fault whenever there is violence in the Middle East? And if one hypocrite destroys the bunch in the case of Christianity, where does that leave atheism after Stalin? And Mao? And Pol Pot?

Your analysis is merely an excuse list as you why you hate Christians, I'm sorry to say. Your call to increase the schism would lead to... what? Would you go as far as Robespierre with those he considered his enemies? Or would it be enough to chant, "Hate! Hate! Hate!" at a crucifix at regular intervals?

It's time to stop hating.

Science/religion coexistence

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply, one could not hold both ideas without seeing terrible conflicts between them, there is one thing though, religion is relatively immutable by all except those who are ordained (for "official" changes). Unfortunately, such things as religion (most) are entirely fideistic, and if you start to chisel away the parts that are contradicted by science you get something completely different, you can't call it Christianity with a few changes, it's either or Christianity or it's not (or its one of the denominations), at which point what you believe is heresy. At least until you get a large enough following in your beliefs where it may have another title and even then, you're probably damned to hell anyway; the teachings were intended to be taken as a whole.

Too any extent, I'm not trying to say that there isn't a god (though I am athiest), just not your god or at least how you perceive him.

If anything you're better off being deist or some subgroup (but salvation is not insured).

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Moofie]

"it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events"

OK. Many of the people I've met in religious organizations understand everyday events perfectly, up to and including advanced physics sorts of events.

Just because YOU don't happen to know smart people who are also religious doesn't mean they don't exist. Your conflation of the two unrelated characteristics makes me think you're not very scientifically minded, either.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Wildclaw]

But by definition, if we exist in this universe, there is a 100% possibility of life in this universe. And saying god did it isn't an explaination either, since it wouldn't explain the existance of god.

If the article in question does anything, it is argue for two things. The existance of multiple universes, and that we are most likely alone in this universe. And that is if you agree with the numbers in the article, which are up for debate.

Re:Sellouts

[Scrameustache]

It is perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith, and there is a long list of scientists who have done so, including the "father of physics" Isaac Newton. He was also high on mercury vapors from believing in alchemy.
Just because you're good at math doesn't mean everything you believe is true.

What can be gained from studying religion?

[totierne]

There are lots of people involved in religion and the big religions try to stay relatively stable.

It follows that a study of religion is essentially a study of controlling devout people, it also follows that where, why and how the devout paper over the cracks to appear consistent in a changing world is a circus act that all of us can watch.

Credo.
I believe that any place we have access to free information about people should be mined relentlessly and vigorously with the minimum of belief.

Re:What can be gained from studying religion?

[totierne]

Maybe the death of religion is the ability to find groups of people with whom you could share/learn useful information/best practice. The problem is our shared context is English language - try www.italki.com . That is my fault I have been fed English language even other countries radio (on short wave from the age of 12) in English has not been enough to train me to communicate, and a environment that was poisoned by bipolar and a monoculture of single sex schools and Irish Catholicism. I tried to escape it but if you try to be from nowhere you meet nobody.

Allegedly - maybe it was all a dream

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[gardyloo]

That argument is as foolish as the argument of the creationists who fight against evolution. It's narrow minded. There are plenty of people that allow for both. One of the jobs of scientists is to be narrow-minded, in the sense that they try to explain using the simplest possible explanations. Once Ockham's razor principle is slighted, scientists often get a little touchy (as they should). In this sense, science and religion are fundamentally incompatible, because religion proposes some very complicated, unexplainable, untestable, overreaching essences which science says shouldn't be allowed to the tea party.
      Religion's job is to be narrow-minded, because religion either i) proposes a very generic "power" or "force" or "entity" which mops up between the gaps unexplained by "common sense" or hard science -- this form of religion is virtually worthless as either a comfort to people, or (especially) as an explanatory tool; or ii) a very specific god, endowed with a long white beard, or eight arms, or noodly appendages, which is definitely multiplying quantities unnecessarily.

stop capitalizing random words

[Scrameustache]

The idea of God was around before we understood much Civilizations and agriculture predate monotheism.
Your understanding of ancient beliefs is tenuous, at best.

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[bertramwooster]

Mod parent up. Science has limitations, but the only way around it is more scientific research, not substitution with religion. In fact, if you view religious beliefs from a scientific view point, there is no evidence to back religious claims (including the God hypothesis) and there is no reason to believe in God more than in a celestial teapot revolving around the earth (Bertrand Russell) or in the Flying Spagetti Monster.

As HL Mencken says "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." I think it is a good thing that religious belief should be questioned in the classroom and what better forum than a science class.

Dawkins makes all these points and more in his book "The God Delusion".

Are NOT the limits of human knowledge!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The problem with the "public should be taught the limitations of science" model is that the limitations of science should be seen as the limitations of human knowledge.

Ridiculous. We know plenty of things we cannot hold to scientific rigor. Not that there aren't people like you trying to exclude them from being called "knowledge" by various means.

I know that my mother loved me. I know that other minds exist. I know who gave me those shirts. I know a lot of things that will never be repeated and for which little if any evidence remains, putting them well outside the possibility of scientific rigor.

Please quit with the "only science can produce true knowledge" bit. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask how you know that, because I've yet to hear someone who doesn't beg the question when answering that. And yes, I really do mean "beg the question" because they work out complex ways to assume precisely what they're trying to prove in ways that would make baby Godel cry.

Re:Are NOT the limits of human knowledge!

[0xdeadbeef]

As if hypothetical examples of non-repeatable events for which no evidence exists and a naive definition of "knowledge" aren't begging the question. Your experience isn't knowledge. Your experience isn't even necessarily real. Please quit invoking Godel, or I'm going to ask you to demonstrate how his theories are germane to this discussion.

Re:Are NOT the limits of human knowledge!

[uglyduckling]

Your experience isn't knowledge. Your experience isn't even necessarily real.

Well, all 'knowledge' is based on experience. How do I know that any datum within the body of accepted scientific knowledge is 'real', how do I know that the computer I'm sitting in front of is 'real'? All scientific experiment relies on the recorded experiences of human individuals - there is not such thing as true objectivity - so by your reasoning we could never debate anything and never draw a conclusion.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[tgibbs]

Einstien did not believe in god, despite using the word as a surrogate for "nature".

Then why would he need a surrogate? If he meant "nature," why not say "nature?" It seems more likely that Einstein did not think of God in the same way as you do, and did not see a meaningful distinction between "God" and "nature." Who is to say that this is not a form religious belief, even if it is not the kind of personal God that many people visualize?

Einstein === Atheist;

[Scrameustache]

wow. ok. so einstein It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-Einstein

Because the more we stop believing...

[kc2keo]

The weaker the Ori will become and we might face a mass plague to renew our faith in Origin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ori_(Stargate).

The Minoriy Report

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Here are some alternate views on that report:

National Academy of Sciences Report on Evolution is Long on Assertion, Short on Evidence

"In the ample space of 89 pages, the NAS manages to celebrate evolution as an unassailable truth, completely misrepresent intelligent design, and rehash the same standard Darwinist arguments which have been refuted by critical scientists time and again. ... Instead of treating evolutionary theory as an area open to further scientific inquiry, the NAS report canonizes evolution as perfect and immutable, 'so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it.' 'Under their definition, a theory is not a testable area of science but rather an unquestionable dogma,' said CSC program officer Casey Luskin. ... this report does little more than reveal a tired and weary voice of an establishment unwilling to actually address the scientific claims or the thoughtful skepticism of a growing number of scientists who disagree."

Report from the NAS Book Release

"Most ironic was that, while the whole room fumed with animosity toward religious people and, one sensed, the "religious right," the NAS panelists sought to promote the view of the new booklet that science and religion do not conflict because the two ways of knowing do not overlap. As Richard Dawkins has noted, this is a blatant political and rhetorical strategy, believed by very few who advance this proposition."

An actual link to the actual book, woohoo!

[cayle clark]

Before everyone completely disappears in a cloud of disputation, here is where you can actually read the actual book: www.nap.edu -- as opposed to reading the NYT's linkless description, or worse, reading reactions to the NYT by a lot of people who have read neither that nor the book... I am disappointed in the Academy: they do not offer a free downloadable copy. You can read it for free but only online on their site, page by page, in a format that does not permit increasing the text size or searching.

Re:An actual link to the actual book, woohoo!

[stm2]

If you get that link from a underdeveloped country, you get a free copy. At least I found something good of living in Argentina :)
Here is your link (please go there only if consider that you live in a 3er world country)

http://rapidshare.com/files/81620401/evolucionNAS.pdf

yawn

[bechthros]

wow, athiest spin from dawkins. you can do better than that.

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." -a.e. as quoted in brittanica (teensy bit less biased methinks)

from what i've gleaned over the course of the morning, einstein denied belief in God's interest in mankind's day to day affairs ("a personal God"), but maintained that the universe was created by a deity. call him ambivalent or agnostic, but to call him an atheist is nothing more or less than redefining the word.

Re:yawn

[Scrameustache]

from what i've gleaned over the course of the morning, einstein denied belief in God's interest in mankind's day to day affairs ("a personal God"), but maintained that the universe was created by a deity. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-Einstein

You. Were. Lied. To.

Re:yawn

[mdwh2]

wow, athiest spin from dawkins. you can do better than that.

Wait - you happily what "godandscience.org" says, but you refer to a direct quotation from Einstein as "atheist spin" because it's on Dawkins's site?

call him ambivalent or agnostic, but to call him an atheist is nothing more or less than redefining the word.

Well he wouldn't be agnostic either, if this was true.

I wouldn't call him an atheist simply because he didn't identify as such, but that's not the point. Just because Einstein used the word "God" doesn't mean he has anything in common with the billions of people who believe God to be some thinking interventionist being.

When I say I don't believe in God and refer to myself as an atheist, I am doing so in the context of "God" as defined by the usage of billions of people. My stance is not invalidated because a minority of pantheists etc who use "God" to basically mean "nature", just as someone using "God" to mean "elephants" doesn't make it true that God exists. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that people share a common belief, just because they use the same labels.

I can't speak for the OP nagora, but I suspect he refers to "God" as the common majority usage, not those who use "God" to mean other things (be it "nature" or "elephants").

Re:yawn

[bechthros]

repeating what you already said in boldface... what exactly is this supposed to achieve?

are you familiar with the context of the quote you cited? the "lie that is being repeated"?

anyway, here's the only one that matters to me in this discussion (although there are many more:

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

Re:yawn

[bechthros]

"Wait - you happily what "godandscience.org" says, but you refer to a direct quotation from Einstein as "atheist spin" because it's on Dawkins's site?"

the quote that i cited, while published on godandscience.com, was attributed to encyclopedia britanica. which i mentioned.

"When I say I don't believe in God and refer to myself as an atheist, I am doing so in the context of "God" as defined by the usage of billions of people."

which billions? Christians? Hindus? Bhuddists? Muslims? Pagans?

"My stance is not invalidated"

well of course not. neither is it validated. the existence or inexistence of God are both equally and utterly non-provable. this is my whole point in this thread. religion and science do not apply to each other. science deals with the natural world, with provable fact. faith deals with the supernatural, with things that are not testable. both are valuble tools. and, like all other tools, can be abused as weapons.

Re:yawn

[Scrameustache]

here's the only one that matters to me in this discussion (although there are many more:

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

Where, in that paragraph (the only one that matters to you in this discussion), does he say what you claim he said: "maintained that the universe was created by a deity"?

He said in that paragraph that science does not replace religion. That is far from maintaining that the universe was created by a deity. All he is saying is * Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us.

        * The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God.

That is what he has to say about religion and god: Societies create gods and religion to ease their existential pain.
This is what he has to say about his own belief: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

You take a statement about the coexistence of religion and science, and you twist it to mean the opposite of what he expressed quite plainly. Stop that.
Don't try to twist one of his statements to mean something else than what he said clearly, when he says religion and science can coexist, he doesn't mean he thinks a sky daddy is watching over his test tubes, he means that: "The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it."

His religious side means reverence to the world in all it's rational glory, not the worship of an invisible superbeing. He's very clear about that.

Re:yawn

[mdwh2]

which billions? Christians? Hindus? Bhuddists? Muslims? Pagans?

Yes to Christians, Hindus and Muslims. Christians and Muslims both have pretty much the same view of God (the Abrahamic view), and form over 3 billion - about half of the population, and the majority of theists on this planet.

Hindu perceptions of God vary, but AIUI, they still generally believe in a powerful personal God. Together, these now form over 4 billion people on that planet. They have a view of "God" which has many things in common, that is distinct to the meaning as used by Einstein. I have no time to get into a word definitions debate - if I make a statement about "God" as viewed by the majority of people on the planet - billions of - people - it is not helpful to the debate to say things along the lines of "But so-and-so believes in elephants, which he refers to as 'God', therefore God exists, or belief in God is intelligent".

Bhuddism does not specify a belief in God (though some Bhuddists may happen to believe in God), so that's not relevant here. Paganism can refer to all sorts of different beliefs and religions, so you'll have to specify.

both are valuble tools.

I was with you up until this point. I have nothing against someone who simply believes, but I can't see how it is a valuable tool - you acknowledge yourself that it is unprovable, untestable, dealing with things that don't even have a common definition. What value does it have as a tool?

Re:yawn

[bechthros]

i should have been clearer that the two points were unrelated.

where did he say God created the universe?

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

there.

but that really was a secondary point. the thing that i'm trying to get across to people is that faith and science do not apply to each other. faith exists outside reason and logic. that's why they call it faith.

Re:yawn

[Scrameustache]

i should have been clearer that the two points were unrelated.

where did he say God created the universe?

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

there. You need to learn what an "allegory" is. He clearly stated he did not believe in a god as in a supernatural individual, but in Spinoza's god: By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite -- that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation -- I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

He means the universe, not a person.

Re:yawn

[bechthros]

"What value does it have as a tool?"

okay. personally? my faith has value to me because when one suicide attempt failed, as i was planning another, God communicated to me that even though i didn't believe in him, he believed in me. which nobody had ever told me before that day. my faith in God is important to me because, when nobody else did, God had faith in me. and i'm alive today because of it.

talk about illogical.

i've never experienced that degree of personal involvement before or since. but then, it's never been as important as it was that day. and remember what he told bender: use a light touch. when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

on a broader scale? faith has value because sometimes it's all that can keep a person going. not strictly religious faith, it could be faith in the sunrise tomorrow, faith in one's self, faith in karma, faith in true love, faith in all kinds of elusive, unprovable things. faith has value because, when held deeply, it is the most indestructible thing ever. faith has value because it helps people survive war, disease, and all kinds of other worldly atrocities. faith has value because it is a key component of trust, and without trust there could be no society. i could go on for hours.

the point is, as mission-critical as science is - and it is - faith is the opposable thumb.

Re:yawn

[bechthros]

so he wants to know how the universe created the world? and he wants to know the universe's thoughts?

SIR. if you can say for certain, decades after the fact, what einstein meant better than einstein himself could, you are certainly wasting your intellect on slashdot.

albert einstein was a theologically educated Jew and a scientifically educated genius. i think when einstein said "God" he meant God. i think when einstein said "the universe" he meant the universe. i think when einstein said "nature" he meant nature. i think einstein's mind and vocabulary were large enough to encompass and distinguish all three. and i frankly don't give a shit if you agree with me or not. to be charitable, you are really reaching.

NOW. if you mean to imply that einstein rejected the anthropomorphization of God, i would agree. one of the interesting concurrencies in my dual baptist/unitarian upbringing is that the doctrines of both churches soundly rejected, and were careful to warn against, any anthropomorphization of God. it's human nature to try and identify with anything unusual we encounter (see alien encounter stories featuring binocular, bipedal humanoids). God has been anthropomorphized for as long as there have been anthropos. and it is only ever fallacy.

speaking strictly from personal experience, it seems to me that the only things humans and God have in common is love.

but i could always be wrong.

could you?

Re:yawn

[mdwh2]

Fair enough, I can agree there may be psychological benefits to religious belief.

faith has value because sometimes it's all that can keep a person going. not strictly religious faith, it could be faith in the sunrise tomorrow, faith in one's self, faith in karma, faith in true love, faith in all kinds of elusive, unprovable things. faith has value because, when held deeply, it is the most indestructible thing ever. faith has value because it helps people survive war, disease, and all kinds of other worldly atrocities. faith has value because it is a key component of trust, and without trust there could be no society.

Be careful not to conflate different meanings of "faith" here. It can mean:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
5. A set of principles or beliefs.

So by religion, we're talking 3 or 4. You generalise to 2 - although I'd say only karma falls into this. Again, I agree that it can have psychological advantages to believe in it, but beyond that I see no use. Faith in love, that the sun will come up, trusting people, are all things that fall into 1 - this is a different meaning of the word altogether. These are things which we can have evidence for.

Re:Sellouts

[Cheesey]

Creationists also worry about that very problem. Some genuinely believe that there is a conspiracy of atheist scientists attempting to marginalise religion by presenting the scientific assumptions of materialism as fact! Ever wondered why some scientists don't believe in God? The creationists say it's because other scientists put pressure on them to conform.

But really, science has nothing to say about faith at all. I wish that more atheists and religious people would accept that!

einstein rises above the mud-slinging

[johnrpenner]

most of the debate between science and religion takes place at a very stupid level -- between simple-minded religious zealots and sometimees narrow-minded scientific adherents -- therefore, it is refreshing to have a somewhat more insightful take as given by mr. albert einstein:

"It is, therefore, easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue.

"What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics!

"Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious workers are the only profoundly religious people.

"In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this [cosmic religious] feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. "

(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954)

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

That probably was Dawkins posting.

One scientist's perspective on God

[tgibbs]

Why do I have to believe or disbelieve in God? Some religious views I find repugnant, in the sense that I would not consider such a God as deserving of worship, but that is not disbelief. I don't have any personal emotional need for "meaning," nor do I have any emotional need for everything in the universe to be explained to me right now. I am comfortable with mystery, and am more interested in the process of discovery and puzzling out the answers than in what the final answers might be. If everything were explained to me tomorrow, it would spoil all the fun, like somebody telling me the end of a movie when I walk in the door. What would be left for me do?

God as a general concept is just not interesting. It is too vague too be testable, so it falls into the category of ideas like solipsism or the notion that the entire universe and all of our memories were created 10 seconds ago. It certainly could be right, but so what? It is an intellectual blind alley that does not lead anywhere interesting. It is boring. You take it as far as it goes (not very far) and then you look for something more interesting to think about.

If somebody wants to propose a testable God hypothesis, fine. I'll give it the thought that it merits. God created all of the species at one time a few thousand years ago? OK, that one's been tested and it's wrong. Next?

Re:One scientist's perspective on God

[Anonymous Coward]

I am comfortable with mystery, and am more interested in the process of discovery and puzzling out the answers than in what the final answers might be.

Seems like a queer belief for a scientist. It almost sounds like you have no preference between knowledge and ignorance.

When you say you don't care what the final answers are, does that extend to your experiments, if you perform experiments? And do you mean that you don't care whether your hypotheses turn out to be true or false? You don't care if you never learn anything in the rest of your career as a scientist, except that every experiment failed, because you're totally happy with mystery?

Conversely, if you say that you do desire answers and that you appreciate learning, but just don't happen to care whether it's final or not, does that not imply that you prefer answers to mysteries?

Re:One scientist's perspective on God

[Jim_Callahan]

It's a good emotional shorthand for dealing with the universe, plus a general exercise of some of the capabilities that humans have found useful during our history.

Or, putting it another way, anthropomorphizing natural forces lets us blow off steam and bounce ideas in a manner that would normally require another cooperative person of comparable intelligence were we behaving in a manner that was strictly rational. And it sort of stretches our brain's capacity to comprehend things that don't actually exist -- as that's the same general thing that's given us all our technology and a lot of our social and philosophical ideas and ideals, I'm not really gonna complain when it decides to go out for a walk and conjure up some lightning-slinging bearded guys.

I've kind of fallen out of any specific modern religion due to a combination of apathy and not liking how seriously most of the other guys take it, but I don't intend to depart entirely from a useful and entertaining form of literature any more than I intend to stop playing with paper airplanes during boring seminars. You should give believing in a God or two a try, it's handy. And even if it doesn't work out for you, it's not like you can't stop anytime you want.

Re:One scientist's perspective on God

[tgibbs]

Seems like a queer belief for a scientist. It almost sounds like you have no preference between knowledge and ignorance.

When you say you don't care what the final answers are, does that extend to your experiments, if you perform experiments? And do you mean that you don't care whether your hypotheses turn out to be true or false? You don't care if you never learn anything in the rest of your career as a scientist, except that every experiment failed, because you're totally happy with mystery?

One thing that you have to accept when doing science is that there are no final answers. The only facts are your data. All interpretation and generalization is provisional--"just" theory. We expect, based on experience, that most of our theories will turn out to be wrong--in detail, if not in overall outline. The value of a hypothesis is not in whether it is true or false, but where it leads--how well as it works as a tool for discovery. We are constantly learning more, but we have no certainty that any answer is the final answer, and no way of recognizing a final answer if we succeed in discovering it.

You don't care if you never learn anything in the rest of your career as a scientist, except that every experiment failed, because you're totally happy with mystery?

A successful experiment is one in which I learn something, even if what I learn is simply that my hypothesis is wrong.

Conversely, if you say that you do desire answers and that you appreciate learning, but just don't happen to care whether it's final or not, does that not imply that you prefer answers to mysteries?

I prefer finding answers to having them given to me. And to find an answer, you must first have a mystery.

Re:One scientist's perspective on God

[eraserewind]

in other words you don't actually believe in god or gods, but for some social reasons you feel better not actually saying that, or take some sort of pride in not saying that so as to appear tolerant or just like to play some kind of word game?

Re:One scientist's perspective on God

[tgibbs]

in other words you don't actually believe in god or gods, but for some social reasons you feel better not actually saying that, or take some sort of pride in not saying that so as to appear tolerant or just like to play some kind of word game?

Not really. It is more accurate to say that it is a possibility that has little personal relevance to me, and one where I see no real basis for investigation, so I neither believe nor disbelieve.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[mdwh2]

Then why would he need a surrogate? If he meant "nature," why not say "nature?"

Why do I say "God damn it"? Many scientists use "God" as a metaphorical personification for nature - it's a figure of speech. "God does not play dice" sounds better than "Nature does not play dice", at least, it does for people who realise this isn't to be taken literally.

Consider "Mother nature does not play dice" - would you say that also implies no belief in God? But what if then there were a load of people who worshipped a being called "mother nature", claiming she was an intelligent thinking being who created everything, and also claimed therefore that Einstein shared their beliefs?

Who is to say that this is not a form religious belief, even if it is not the kind of personal God that many people visualize?

And who is to say it is? If you make the claim that Einstein has some undefined form of religious belief, you can show the evidence.

What do you believe?

[zigziggityzoo]

So this is what they tell me: The big bang randomly happened. from that, by chance, everything in the universe came to be. By chance, Earth was positioned at the correct distance from the Sun so that life as we know it is able to exist. By chance, biological material was created in a little pit. By chance, that pit's life form evolved, and from that evolution, it evolved into many different things. (Think about this, Why were they different? Evolution is supposed to be survival of the fittest, and these all survived?)

In all of this, we have a lot of chance which requires a lot of faith in order to believe it. Gee, that sounds familiar. So we can believe that we're an accident; a result of many occurrences that have odds worse than winning the lottery 5x in a row, or we can believe that we're not the smartest ones in this universe, and that being(s) exist that have more knowledge and control over the universe we know, and may have even set life as we know it into motion.

If you asked me, I'd say either side takes a fairly large spoonful of sugar to swallow. I wasn't there to see any of these processes in action; no one else on earth today saw it either. So it all comes down to faith.

Re:What do you believe?

[gotpaint32]

The universe is a big place, far larger than the scales we are used to. In that big place there are countless stars with even greater amount of planets orbiting them with about 13 billion years (as far as we know) to configure itself. So I'd say the possibility of nature finding the winning combination to life given these extreme tolerances are quite good.

Re:What do you believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

"By chance, that pit's life form evolved, and from that evolution, it evolved into many different things. (Think about this, Why were they different? Evolution is supposed to be survival of the fittest, and these all survived?)"

In a monoculture, even the tiniest beneficial mutation would be very advantageous.
Remember that Darwin meant 'fittest' as not 'best' but most suited to a particular environment.
A species that does well at the bottom of the sea does not compete with birds.
Around hydrothermal vents, 'fittest' can mean changing environments in just a couple of meters.

"So we can believe that we're an accident; a result of many occurrences that have odds worse than winning the lottery 5x in a row, or we can believe that we're not the smartest ones in this universe, and that being(s) exist that have more knowledge and control over the universe we know, and may have even set life as we know it into motion."

Actually the earth is a very hostile and ever changing place. Life has had to really struggle to survive here in a constant war with the environment. The very fact there is oxygen in the atmosphere is a testament to an environmental disaster caused by a species of cyanobacteria polluting the atmosphere with it to the extent it nearly caused the extinction of all life. We are also at the wrong distance from the sun, making it too hot for all except a certain few possible life forms to survive on much of the surface, and even then they require complex heat regulation systems to live.

It's not chance and you don't need faith if you see it as a desperate struggle to survive.
Anyway, we have had the luxury of rolling the dice for billions of years, something is bound to work sometime.

Shhhh, you can get a free copy

[StringTech]

After going to their online reader, you'll see a link on the left saying you can download the pdf if you "login". No login/signup pages are to be found anywhere, but follow the link and sign up with just your zipcode and something about what "sector" you are from (ie. education, government, commercial). Then you can get the .pdf (all without turning off noscript).

Re:Sellouts

[Cheesey]

I am not saying that it is impossible to be a theist and a scientist, but then while you are doing science you must either trust your god to not mess with you or you have to suspend your believe in god while you are doing science. Are you then a real believer if you can suspend it when it is useful to you?

Yes and yes. You assume that God isn't interfering with the world constantly, because without that assumption you can't do any science at all. But you're still a real believer: you're just applying the rules of science, which ensures that no-one can tell you that your work is invalid because it doesn't fit their own religious beliefs.

But then again

[star_aas]

If you think along these lines, acceptance of evolution also does not require you to abandon your beliefs in fairies, Santa claus, or the evil monkey in the closet

Re:Sellouts

[Cheesey]

Just because you're good at math doesn't mean everything you believe is true.

I couldn't agree more. But that statement applies to all scientists, not just religious ones! Good scientists can keep faith and science separate and use both as appropriate: the fact that Newton produced lots of good science despite being religious indicates that being religious doesn't imply you'll be a shitty scientist.

Do you think "God Cares"?!

[erroneus]

I just love the "God is what you make of him" point of view that believers continue to maintain. Every time I have to sit through a prayer, people thank god for their achievements and ask god to care about their business and personal lives.

Perhaps god's personality did actually shift dramatically from the old testament, turns you into salt, casts you into hell, makes you kill your babies, god and the new testament, kinder-gentler god that heals the sick. (They really seem like two completely different gods to me) But neither of those gods ever cared about how well a football team played or how well your business or financial matters worked out. (In fact, there's evidence to the contrary that god doesn't like rich people!)

So every time I hear a prayer asking for anything at all from god, I imagine them sitting on santa's lap! It's the same damned thing but without the elves taking your picture and selling it to you for $20.

Just as I give the devil his due, I give the faithful their due -- it's hard to be "objective" on the subject when some of your perceived reality and your sense of identity are wrapped up in the god myth... it's nearly impossible to think of things under any other terms. But when you look at other cultures, both ancient and present, each with their own set of mythologies, each of them clinging to their gods and goddesses with equal faith and devotion, it's easy to see why it's foolish for them to act and behave as they have and do. But the faithful were to dare to compare the other myth-believers with their own faith, they would find the fundamental differences are few to none. And perhaps by seeing where one myth is foolish, it can be seen that ALL of them are foolish... and even dangerous.

After all, cases where following religious belief is dangerous not only to human progress, but to human survival aren't only historical, but are present day! Every religious-driven killing you hear about on the news, every time you hear about stem cell research being forbidden, you should be reminded that while eventually scientific and human progress eventually pushed through religious blockades against knowledge and understanding, the same resistance is present. The EXACT same resistance. Only the issues have changed. There are still people who will kill and destroy anyone else who dares to tamper with "god's realm."

People would say that "times have changed" or that "times are changing." I would argue that only the numbers on the calendar have changed. There are still those that would push us back into the dark ages and discard all knowledge just as has happened in the past.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[mdwh2]

I wouldn't go as far as the OP - certainly one can be very intelligent whilst still having irrational beliefs, phobias and so on.

However, one should be wary of using this as a counter-argument. People have already disputed Einstein. The problem with many of the rest is that they lived before Darwinism, and in general they didn't have the benefit of hundreds of years of scientific knowledge. Before knowledge of evolution, it was hard to counter the claim that there must have been a God who made everything.

I mean, Newton believed in all sorts of crap such as Alchemy . This didn't mean that he was stupid, because he didn't have the benefit of what we know today. But if people were trying to force Alchemy to be taught in place of Chemistry lessons, I might think of them as stupid - I'm not sure that's best countered by pointing to Newton's belief.

(Also, an argument on suggesting that it is ludicrous that they "were all wrong" is not a good one either - these people are now known to have been wrong on all sorts of beliefs they held - Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, for example.)

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that the list includes galileo. I mean i'm sure he had plenty of opportunity to say he was not religious. He was only branded as a heretic and risked death by saying earth wasn't the center of the universe. I'm sure saying god didn't exist would have been a piece of cake. Many of the others you mentioned were non-religious or under a similar level of scrutiny by the religious community.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[GoofyBoy]

>because religion proposes some very complicated, unexplainable, untestable, overreaching essences which science says shouldn't be allowed to the tea party.

Read up on quantum mechanics much?

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't think you need some miracle "spark of life" to transfer from no living to living (we already have structures such as viruses that exist somewhere between living and non living). The creationism dogma that it seams to be most prevalent (or at least the group that is making the most noise) is the literal description in genesis. So while a god isn't incompatible with evolution the biblical version of creation is completely incompatible with science. You can't have God creating all the plants and animals and humans in their present form and have evolution. Nor can you have an earth that is ~7,000 years old which seams to go along with the creationism theory. (I feel sorry for the geologist because I have a feeling that they my be the next under attack)

Maybe we can take a deep breath. Finally.

[H3six]

I know it seems a little silly to have to spell out the differences between science and religion but if the evolution/creationism debate has taught us anything it's that we're gonna have to. The National Academy of Sciences is looking for a cool neutral ground here where the two sides can be reconciled. This is most important as is dispels some of the fear and myths that have been fueling this debate and the children will for the first time actually be able to choose for themselves. When there is no fear, they will choose both.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[GoofyBoy]

>Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.

I never understood this argument as a strike against religion

Theory: Christ existed and said X. (Or use any "Event X occurred.")
Test: Build something that can view the past and observe.

Now, we don't have that "something that can view the past" but that doesn't make it less a test. We can't perform the test YET, but there are lots that were accepted as scientific theory based on tests that we couldn't perform yet. (e.g. Theories of life on other planets, quantum theory and I believe that Einstein never performed any tests himself before he proposed something.)
In any case, because the test cannot be performed, at the very least, should make the person with the "scientific" mind say "Maybe its correct, maybe its not" even to religous aspects.

Jews

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Well, you took some shots at the Christians and the Islamics.

Only *stupid* Christians and Muslims. No intelligent Christian or Muslim (and there are plenty) needs to feel offended.

> Care to have a go at the Jews now, Per "Abraham"sen?...

Jews are cool, and I sometimes want to change my last name to ben Abraham to be more cool.

Mostly Jews are cool for being non-missionary. Both Christians and Muslims are commanded by their prophets to bring their confusion to other people.

Something bad about Jews? The ritualistic mutilation of male children is of course totally unacceptable by any civilized person.

Happy?

The question "who created god" misses the point...

[mark-t]

Everything that exists in a story exists there because the author put it there. Does the author, in turn, need to have a story written by somebody else about him writing that story before he may write it? No. The same thing applies to the concept of an eternal God. Consider that everything that we perceive as reality is in fact merely a figment of an eternal God's imagination, and although everything we could ever begin to understand as real needs to have a beginning, the God who is imagining it would not necessarily have to follow that same reasoning since he does not fit inside the domain of "reality" in the first place.

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL yeah, like someone claiming that directly heated cathode filaments are spiral wound. LOL.

http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x3wrzo_fabrication-dune-lampe-triode_tech
Here's a nice video of a man building his own triode, as you can see it is directly heated and the filament is a straight piece of wire.

So, did you bother to learn what "secondary emission" means yet, or is that beneath you?

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they were not stupid.
At the time, if Newton had talked openly about his real heretical beliefs he would have lost his Royal Society position and funding.

Pasteur was a deathbed conversion.
"The virtues of the gospel were very present to him. He came to his Christian faith simply and naturally for spiritual help in the last stages of his life" (Founder of Modern Medicine, p. 175).

It would be unthinkable at the time for a men in their positions to be atheists. They simply had no choice.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[nagora]

you admitted that many of those people did indeed believe in God and also engaged in rational thought. anything further to add?

I admit it, I was being idealistic.

The ultimate goal of thinking rationally is to abandon all irrational beliefs, clearly. Sadly, most people do not achieve perfection. I, for example, have managed to shake off superstitious fears of almost all sky-deities but would never have come up with Godel's theorm in a million years. The people you listed had indeed managed a great deal of rational thought but their childhood programming and social context had left them without the ability to judge (or even question, in most cases) the irrational, trivial, and nonsensical whafflings of badly written jewish folklore correctly.

Being right about calculus does not mean that you're right about everything else.

TWW

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[mdwh2]

I never understood this argument as a strike against religion

Well you're both right really - yes, religion has made many testable claims about reality. But time and time again these are disproven by science. You then get one of several responses:

1. A denial that it has been disproven (e.g., those who still believe in ID over evolution) simply by ignoring or misunderstanding the evidence.

2. A denial based on "God made it look that way" (e.g., saying God put the dinosaur bones there to confuse us, or he created the world recently but made it look older).

3. Those who retreat into a position of "But God is the one behind it" (e.g., theists who believe God started life, and then things happen according to evolution, or that he somehow influences evolution in that mutations are caused by God, not random chance).

2 and 3 are now unfalsifiable positions. Furthermore, even though specific claims of religion can and have been falsified, the fundamental religious belief in their God is never falsifiable, because they will always retreat to "God was the one behind it". Even if some core belief such as Jesus being the son of God, or existence of specifically the Christian God, was disproven, I bet billions of Christians would then retreat to some more vague notion of "God" (consider the Christians who think Einstein shared their belief in God, simply because he used the label "God", even though he specifically stated he didn't believe in a personal God).

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I'm a Master's Student at MIT in Electrical Engineering, and I did my undergrad here too. I became a Christian while at MIT. Most of my Christian friends at MIT (there is quite a large community at MIT) have also gone on to top graduate schools in Nuclear Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Biology, Mathematics, Aero/Astro Engineering.

Sorry, but you can't serve science and religion. It's a search for the truth or subserviance to dogma; pick one or the other.

Science and Religion are incompatible.

[ChaoticLimbs]

I don't think one can be both religious and scientific. The reason is that science tells you to believe that which the evidence shows to be true, and religions give the answers up front and then tell you not to even do the experiments.

'Do not test the Lord your God' is what we're told when we seek to investigate the existence of gods.
'Faith is the belief in things not seen' is what the religious man tells us as he waves his hand in the manner of a jedi after experiments and analysis fail to show the Almighty.

Religions seek an exception to the scientific method, specifically the parts where you do any science. Experimentation is forbidden, doubt is sin, and failure to believe can result in eternal damnation.

Religion and science are not simply two ways of looking to the universe for answers to our questions. They are absolute opposites of each other. If I were a boy asking his parents a question about something I observed, such as the growth of a plant from a seed, a scientific parent would have to encourage me to experiment on seeds, dissect them, and find out when a seed becomes a tree. A religious parent would simply hand me a book and tell me that if my answer wasn't in there, it probably wasn't important, and may be heretical.

Heresy. A concept foreign to science, but present in all the world's major religions. Freedom to think as you choose, to ask questions without being burned alive at the stake, hung, tortured, stretched or beheaded is a part of science and not a part of religion.

The choice between science and religion is the same one as the choice between trial by peers or simple lynching.

Re:Science and Religion are incompatible.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is that science tells you to believe that which the evidence shows to be true, and religions give the answers up front and then tell you not to even do the experiments.

That may be true of some religions, but that doesn't make it true of all religions. Catholics are encouraged to question not only the world around them but their own religion and faith as well. If science is about dispelling ignorance, it has failed for you.

Re:Science and Religion are incompatible.

[tfiedler]

>>I don't think one can be both religious and scientific. The reason is that science tells you to believe that which the evidence shows to be true, and religions give the answers up front and then tell you not to even do the experiments. Why, because you can't? Perhaps the problem is that your view of religion is narrow and constrained by what you see from fundamentalism? Perhaps because your arogance tells you that yours and yours alone, is the correct way to view the universe? I have no problems being religious and being scientific. The two endeavors address different things, one is "how" and the other is "why". "Why" will always be a philosophical discussion that science can't address. "How" on the other hand is something that science and only science can answer.

Re:Science and Religion are incompatible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Catholics are encouraged to question not only the world around them but their own religion and faith as well.

Actions speak louder than words! Have you heard of "The Office of the Holy Inquisition"?

Catholics pay lip service to questioning their beliefs, but The Holy Church would still be torturing heretics if it could get away with it.

Re:Science and Religion are incompatible.

[jazman]

> I don't think one can be both religious and scientific. The reason is that science tells you to believe that which the evidence shows to be true, and religions give the answers up front and then tell you not to even do the experiments.

I don't see why. Here's an example:
Drop object 1, mass m1, hits the ground at time t1.
Drop object 2, mass m2, hits the ground at time t2.
Repeat several times, not forgetting to allow for wind resistance (for example by using exactly the same container each time with different contents).
Observe t1=t2=t3...
Conclusion: contrary to expectations, heavy objects don't drop faster than light objects. Further, given t_n, a value for the acceleration can be obtained (s=ut+att/2)
I believe God created gravity, and there's two of the ways it works.

Could you point out exactly where this is unscientific? (There's probably a lot of scientific rigour missing since I'm not a trained scientist, but the above should at least qualify as an outline for a suitably qualified scientist to follow). If I were to perform the test in reality and give you quantified values for m_n and t_n, along with the descriptions of object_n, then anyone with an "I don't believe in God" axiom should be able to reproduce exactly the same results and come up with exactly the same conclusion. Does the different axiom make their result "scientific" and mine "unscientific", even if we both come up with exactly the same results?

> 'Do not test the Lord your God' is what we're told when we seek to investigate the existence of gods.

That's because a relationship with God is based on faith, not proof. "Do not test..." was Jesus' answer to Satan when he suggested he jump off a cliff to prove that God would prevent him coming to any harm. You will not come to know God through scientific proof, but you can easily get there through faith. This does not prevent the vast majority of scientific research.

> 'Faith is the belief in things not seen' is what the religious man tells us as he waves his hand in the manner of a jedi after experiments and analysis fail to show the Almighty.

Actually "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV) or in a modern translation (NIV) "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. This is nothing to do with the biblical view on scientific experimentation, but from a treatise on faith, which is defined in the dictionary as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Since science is all about logical proofs and material evidence, all this verse shows regarding science and religion is that they can quite easily coexist.

> Religions seek an exception to the scientific method, specifically the parts where you do any science. Experimentation is forbidden, doubt is sin, and failure to believe can result in eternal damnation.

Really? Where do you get that from? Does my thought experiment above really condemn me to hell? In some religions it might, I accept that, but it doesn't in Christianity.

> Heresy. A concept foreign to science, but present in all the world's major religions. Freedom to think as you choose, to ask questions without being burned alive at the stake, hung, tortured, stretched or beheaded is a part of science and not a part of religion.

Not at all foreign to science. "Evolution isn't proven fact" is the ultimate scientific heresy. Try investigating the falsifiability of the theory of evolution and see what happens. Dictionary(heresy): "A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science." String theory is scienfic heresy, going by that definition, although I wouldn't have thought to call it that before looking up the definition.

Re:Science and Religion are incompatible.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because a relationship with God is based on faith, not proof. "Do not test..." was Jesus' answer to Satan when he suggested he jump off a cliff to prove that God would prevent him coming to any harm. You will not come to know God through scientific proof, but you can easily get there through faith. This does not prevent the vast majority of scientific research. Huh!? If you believe the existance of personified "evil", that is some sort of "Satan", you are most likely already presuming a world view with personified "good", that is some sort of "God". Is your faith really so strong that you can discard Jesus' teachings about man and society, witch could be verified by experiments in the Jewish community under the Roman rule, and take the know Christian cop-out by believing Jesus as God and saviour and continue your "normal" life by judging and classifying people as good, evil, enemies and friends?
And what is "wrong" with that small minority of scientific research?

Re:Science and Religion are incompatible.

[jazman]

I don't follow you. This is a discussion about science, not sociology. What teachings about man and society do you think I'm throwing out?

Believing Jesus is God is not "the Christian cop-out" - it's the whole basis of Christian faith. If Jesus is not God then Christianity is null and void. See John 1 - the Word is clearly Jesus ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us for a while"), who created everything ("without him nothing was made that has been made"), and Genesis 1 makes it clear (however you interpret it) that it was God that made everything. Also see Matthew 26:62-65 where the high priest asks Jesus directly if he is the Son of God, Jesus' answer is equally direct: yes, and the HP judges him guilty of blasphemy for giving that answer.

I try not to judge or classify people. I don't think my previous post suggests I do.

> And what is "wrong" with that small minority of scientific research?

Nope, you've completely lost me there. I didn't suggest any scientific research is wrong; on the contrary, I was arguing that scientific research is not incompatible with religion which seemed to be the previous poster's position.

Actually

[Freedom451]

it says if evolution exists, you are a big monkey ;-p.

Consistancy, hobgoblin, small minds

[Freedom451]

etc. Sciences requires a testable explanation for why and how of the flying spaghetti monster, which no religion can provide.

Darwin said it best

[Danny Rathjens]

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science." -- Charles Darwin

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[gardyloo]

You're calling quantum mechanics untested? Overreaching? Nice.

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[darkhitman]

To answer your first question, perhaps sexual selection?

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[ChaoticLimbs]

Evolution theory does not presuppose the Big bang or the Spark of Life. Those are completely different theories dealing with completely different questions. Evolution is the theory that through natural selective pressures, creatures make small changes and that over time these small changes become cumulative and organisms become different in form and in behavior. This has been completely supported in the late 20th century as the ability to view and compare the genetic code of the organisms on this planet. For example, you are 75% genetically identical to a pumpkin plant, and that pumpkin plant is 90 percent identical to a palm tree which has most of its genetic code in common with a donkey. In other words, the genetic codes you use in your metabolism have been forged over time and plants and animals are not as different as we might have thought they were. We truly are minor modifications of some code used to make proteins and construct organisms. Darwin could not have known this, but his theory has been shown to be correct now that we can look where he could not. His theory was based largely on the physical qualities of the different animals and plants, and now we know that they do not just look similar, they in fact are similar to a degree we could not have anticipated.

FAIL

[Nursie]

""where do species come from." This is the kind of question that science is not supposed to answer because, whatever the answer is, it can't be reproduced."

Err, no, we can observe historical and reasonably contemporary examples of speciation, we know where species come from and your theory is a load of old cod.

Re:Sellouts

[meringuoid]

Following your logic, it must be perfectly OK for scientists to indulge in alchemy, numerology, sacred geometry and the quest for the philosopher's stone.

Why not? Newton's work as an alchemist was a good deal better than most - he was more methodical, more careful, more, well, scientific about it. That Sir Isaac Newton spent much of his life working on alchemy and got nowhere has got to be a big factor in why the practice fell out of favour in later years. His years of failure did a fine job of demonstrating that it just didn't work. But as a side effect, he laid the groundwork for the future systematic study of chemistry. Scientific study of alchemy in time did away with the superstition and gave us knowledge of immeasurable value.

Numerology and sacred geometry are really more related to mathematics than to science. Numerologists never discovered a reliable method of divination, but they did a great deal of work in what we would now recognise as codes and ciphers - the art of consistently converting between text and numbers, I'm sure you'll agree as you read this stream of Unicode, is a valuable one. As for the sacred geometries, I can only assume that you find the golden ratio entirely useless in your work in art and architecture.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[caseih]

I agree with you on all points, except for using the theory of the Big Bang as a demonstration of some kind of creation from nothing. Big bang theory postulates that what was before the big bang was lots of matter that compressed together. Most big bang scientists would view it as a cyclic thing. Big bang, expansion, contraction, big bang, expansion, etc.

As for the image of Moses and learning his tensors, I say why not?! :)

No Matter What You Think

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is not a science, it can't be explained in the logical sequence so many of the tech types on /. believe in. Even as I write this, there are those of you who will say "see how they (believer) dodge the explanation, because they can't explain it".

Belief in God and His son Jesus Christ is widely held throughout the world. There are those that take the name of God and his son for their own benefit and they are wrong in doing so. Believing in the Lord doesn't have to be in a big church, run by a bunch of men with questionable backgrounds. It can be nothing more than living your life by a set of moral standards; for example, the Ten Commandments and quietly saying "thank you for this day" while in the shower, or in your car on the way to work. The Lord will hear you.

I'm not here to convince you that any of you are wrong by being non-believers. God may show you that in His own time. But, as you continue to post comments assuring yourself and others that religion is all just BS, please consider the question of how science came to be. How did all of those things in the universe get there? How did the fabulous human mind become the powerhouse that it is? Was it truly just a happy coincidence that all of the right amino acids and proteins came together? Are you really certain that God didn't have a hand in it all? Would it be so terrible that you acknowledge that God may exist, and may have had a plan for the human race that we just can't understand yet?

I enjoy technology and science as much as anyone here and often wonder how it all came to be. I do acknowledge the existence of God because even if we somehow can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it's all BS, I won't be any worse off. And, since I believe that God does exist and I see proof of it every day, on the day when I draw my last breath, I'll do so believing I'm going home, and hope that my years as a living, breathing human made a difference, even in a small way. Having helped bring three kids into the world was all the evidence I needed that God is real, and as they live their lives, maybe that's how I'll have made a difference.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[bechthros]

"The ultimate goal of thinking rationally is to abandon all irrational beliefs, clearly."

uh, whose ultimate goal would that be? not mine. my goal in thinking rationally is to solve immediate problems and prevent future ones.

as far as irrational beliefs go, i have many beliefs that may be irrational. there is no empirical evidence that causing others harm is morally wrong, but that doesn't stop me from believing it. there's no proof that a plane won't fall on my house overnight, but i believe that it won't. and, like somebody else in this thread already commented, i don't even have proof that the universe exists or that i have free will. but i believe that it does and that i do. none of those beliefs are provable - but they help me sleep at night.

as for my faith, it's a very personal thing that was brought about by things that actually happened to me. things that couldn't be explained rationally to anybody who hadn't experienced them. that's pretty much the definition of faith - that which transcends logic and reason.

"The people you listed had indeed managed a great deal of rational thought but their childhood programming and social context had left them without the ability to judge (or even question, in most cases) the irrational, trivial, and nonsensical whafflings of badly written jewish folklore correctly."

first of all, i don't think you give them enough credit. from what i've read of him, isaac newton was not a man easily brainwashed, browbeaten, or bamboozled. i find it difficult to believe that he was incapable of asking deep theological questions.

second of all, even assuming that the best pre-20th century thinkers were utterly incapable of the kind of hard questions about the existance of God that people have been asking for at least 3,000 years (the first records of atheism are from the fifth century BCE), that still doesn't explain why
two thirds of modern scientists surveyed believe in God.

anyway, this is all icing on the cake. my only point in delurking in this thread at all was to make the case that science and religion have about as much to do with each other as a bulldozer and a daydream. science deals with the natural world and provable, testable things. faith deals with the supernatural world and unprovable, untestable things. apples and oranges. neither is applicable to the other. and a great many better thinkers than you or i have been coming to this conclusion for centuries.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[bwalling]

Simple minded people will chalk things up to God and move on. That in and of itself does not mean that Christianity dictates this behavior. It seems people want to look at a certain subset of Christians and use them as an example of what Christianity really is. Are all college students pot smoking vegans? Just because I can point to a bunch of pot smoking vegans who are in college doesn't make that what college is all about.

How can you eat your pudding...

[Anonymous Coward]

Science builds self consistent models based on observation.
Glob them together as one big model and this is how science explains the universe.
This is rightly taught in science classes as such.
There can be no controversy with religion because there is no religion in the models.
Conflict arises on the religious side of the fence when one is unable to distinguish a metaphor from a model.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[bwalling]

Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.

Christianity itself doesn't make these claims. Some of its followers do. Some of its followers also say you shouldn't drink alcohol, despite the fact that the Bible clearly says drinking wine is good for you. So, don't believe all the things that come out of the mouths of people and don't assign all of the foolish things to the religion as a whole. It seems that a lot of people want to go out and find the foolish people and knock them down while saying they are knocking down the whole of Christianity. There are foolish atheists the same as there are foolish Christians. Knocking down the foolish ones doesn't serve as much of an argument towards anything.

They should also mention

[Sleeping Kirby]

That understanding the laws of physics doesn't mean you can't believe underpants gnomes come in the middle of the night and steal your underpants and kills kenny occasionally... I'm tired of everyone treating the science vs. god argument as if there's only one religion in the world. I think I'm going write to my congressman about making sure everyone knows that evolutions is BS and that the world is really a giant cow and that the trees are the hairs of that cow and the rivers the blood of that cow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology#The_beginning Treat all religion equally or don't put one religious theory above another rah damn it!!!

Cover Religion as a meme or mythology

[xtronics]

Science should just treat religion as a bronze age urban myth, meme, or mythology. As a academic history subject it lacks any validity.

The study of why people believe weird things is something that science can tackle.

Theodicy

[mangu]

You do realize God is the Good One, right?

That is a disputed assertion. I knew someone whose son was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of eighteen months. That child underwent surgery that extirpated a large part of his brain, leaving him severely handicapped until his death at the age of four.

You may say we do not understand God enough to know why He let that happen, He might have had His reasons, but that's certainly not what I define by "good". Either He is not omnipotent or He is not good.

Re:Theodicy

[mangu]

Why is he only blamed for bad and not praised for good?

Because if He were truly good and omnipotent, He wouldn't let bad things happen. Either He isn't good and therefore doesn't care, or He isn't omnipotent and cannot stop evil. How could something like a cancer in a child be blamed on man's "free will"? It may be Satan who caused it, but, if so, God is unable to stop it.

After my friend's son had his first surgery, his father had a thanksgiving mass (he's catholic) celebrated for his son's "recovery", so you cannot blame it on the father's lack of faith either.

The point is that everything that happens on this planet is a result of a material world and it is ruled by Satan basically.

If God is so powerful, why doesn't He defeat Satan? If He were truly omnipotent, He would be able to stop Satan right now. A perfectly good and omnipotent being would never let something totally random like child cancer make people suffer.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think it funny that your understanding of the biblical creation myth has now become the scientific version? What happens when the scientific version changes?
If the bible is so vague that it can only be truly understood in the light of science, why not just go straight to science?

Even Jesus admitted that a lot of the bible was terminally incomprehensible to anyone outside of a dozen or so people that he had personally explained it to:

"Knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been granted to you; but to the rest, they are made known through parables so that 'they may look but not see, and hear but not understand.'
Luke 8

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith"

Your unshown list of scientists definitely suffered from cognitive dissonance. Maybe it was Newton's quest to resolve his dissonance that led him to be the "father of physics." If he was on such a quest (consciously or not), at least he carried it as far as understanding that the universe can be completely understood using reason and that it adhered to physical laws, and he attempted to understand those laws using reason. Of course, the consequence is that a perfect god creating such a universe may not interact with it in a way contradicting the laws; otherwise the god is imperfect... so much for miracles and religious texts.

Most of us are brought up from birth being told to believe in a supernatural god. Shaking off this belief in favor of scientific evidence necessarily leads to some dissonance, and unfortunately some never escape it. The scientists that are in this position aren't hypocrites because their motives aren't malicious; they're unfortunate victims of a childhood indoctrination. However, the ones that are high profile are certainly harmful because others use them to form the non-sequitur that their existence shows the existence of a god.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[bechthros]

this thread keeps digressing. i'm not here to convert anybody and i don't wish to discuss the rightness or wrongness of religion (mostly because it always begs the question, "right for WHO?").

here's my points.

1) great historical scientists who believed in God were a statistical majority. current scientists who believe in God are a statistical majority. maybe they're onto something.

2) science and faith are utterly and equally non-applicable to each other. science deal with the natural world and provable facts. faith deals with the supernatural world and non-provable mysteries. believe in either, or both, or neither. but don't try to apply them to each other. you will fail.

botched the link

[bechthros]

2/3 of eminent modern scientists surveyed believe in God

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be the case, for your personal undisclosed definition of God, that science is not at odds with it. However, I assure you that not everybody defines God the same way. God is just a word, and depending on how you define it, God and science very well might be at odds. Why can't we lay out our premises, put the pejoratives aside, and at least try to define what we're talking about? Unless, of course, God can't be rigorously defined, in which case is there any point in even discussing it?

Quote from David Hume.

[anwyn]

I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning here delivered, as I think it may serve to confound those dangerous friends or disguised enemies of the Christian Religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of human religion. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is, by no means fitted to endure.

So that, upon the whole, we may conclude, that the Christian Religion not only was first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince of its veracity: And whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

Speaking of creationism...

[Slashboo]

The quote at the bottom of /. is "The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. -- H.L. Mencken" How fitting...

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[mdwh2]

current scientists who believe in God are a statistical majority. maybe they're onto something.

I'm curious, do you have a source? (We must also be careful with the definitions issue, as with Einstein - scientists using "God" to mean "nature" may be onto something, but that doesn't mean billions of theists believing in a personal interventionist God are onto something.)

At least one source disputes this - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html .

72.2% disbelieve in a personal God? Yes, I suspect they are onto something.

science and faith are utterly and equally non-applicable to each other. science deal with the natural world and provable facts. faith deals with the supernatural world and non-provable mysteries. believe in either, or both, or neither. but don't try to apply them to each other. you will fail.

I agree entirely - I would be happy if religion was kept out of science, out of science lessons, out of politics, and anywhere else that concerned the physical world and dealing with facts. Keep faith to personal beliefs and the philosophical debates on the supernatural world and other unprovable things, and that's fine by me.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

Socialism - failure to recognize the power of individualism, subversion of an individual to the collective.

Society is made up of individuals - by ignoring society, Libertarianism ignores the individual.

Ok, I'll take the bait.

[npboley]

1) The 'discovery' that there was a 'moment of creation' (aka big bang) by a Vatican astronomer.

2) The fact that a particle's state is indeterminate, and physics inability to precisely define what is an observation ( in the collapsing wave sense )

Not that you're not mostly correct, but it's tough to deny that the 20th century hasn't yielded surprises to the scientists that believed the universe was static and unchanging and was capable of being described, at least in principle, by a set of natural laws.

Science has not only failed to explain, but actually proven, that it is impossible for humans to perfectly model even the smallest subset of the universe. A theist could just as easily construe this as 'proof' of a god, as an atheist could say it shows the opposite.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

It only took 37 minutes for one to hop in and respond your post with a pithy comment. I left him one in kind. :)

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

Try googling it, if you don't mind...

Oh, I wouldn't deprive you of the pleasure of proving your points. Go ahead and list every atheist you can find that has converted to Christianity. The problem for you is that there are 20 to 30 million atheists in the U.S. - what is your percentage of converts going to be? And that's just in the states, not the rest of the world...and Lewis was from Ireland.

And as long as we're throwing stuff out, I bet the number of atheists who have converted to Christianity is insignificant to the number of people who started off as Christians only to become atheists.

It's a question of *certainty*

[JavaRob]

> The problem with the "public should be taught the limitations of science" model is that the limitations of science should be seen as the limitations of human knowledge.

Ridiculous. We know plenty of things we cannot hold to scientific rigor. Not that there aren't people like you trying to exclude them from being called "knowledge" by various means.

You're thinking of "science" in the most limited sense, results obtained through the simple scientific method. We can "know" an awful lot more than that still using a scientific approach, just with differing levels of certainty. Here, this may help:

science n.
1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
1b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
1c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Note #4 in particular, which still does not admit any religion-based "knowledge".

I know that my mother loved me.

You know she acted in a way you'd expect from someone who loved you. So yeah, it's quite probable that she did. "Love" is a mushy thing to define, but it's one of those words that does have meaning even though it's very blurry at the edges.

I know that other minds exist.

Sure, though what "minds" means exactly is tough to say. We can more or less assume that our interior lives have their parallels in the other people we see around, anyway, though the exact experience is going to be different for everybody.

I know who gave me those shirts.

Was it God? No, seriously, "science" agrees that your memory of this kind of event is probably true, though you'd be surprised by the tricks memory will play on you.

I know a lot of things that will never be repeated and for which little if any evidence remains, putting them well outside the possibility of scientific rigor.

Your level of certainty on those things is thus far below where you might consider putting them in a textbook or publishing a scientific paper, but well above the level of certainty where you can take them mostly as "assumed" to go about your everyday life.

Even *you* are not placing that much certainty in them. Take one of those shirts. Wait a few years, then have a conversation with someone who says "Gift? No -- you're thinking of the one with gray stripes.. *that* was the birthday present. This shirt was one you already had that was similar." And you'll be uncertain, then they'll pull out the video you have from your party, and sure enough, it's a gray-striped shirt you're unwrapping. And you'll update this particular "fact", just like that.

Please quit with the "only science can produce true knowledge" bit. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask how you know that, because I've yet to hear someone who doesn't beg the question when answering that. And yes, I really do mean "beg the question" because they work out complex ways to assume precisely what they're trying to prove in ways that would make baby Godel cry.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but how exactly are they defining "true knowledge"? Basically, there's pure science, where we state some things are as close to "true facts" as we can know because they've been tested in a million different ways, then there's an extremely long tail after that from laws to very-well-supported theories (plate tectonics, evolution and suchlike) to less-researched theories, up through various types of memories of perceived events and histories and interpretations of those... Area of

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[david_thornley]

Um, what scientific version of the bible myth? Personally, I think it would be a fairly good example of a knowledgeable being making a creation myth for uneducated people for the purpose of getting that out of the way so that the being could concentrate on other important things.

As far as getting information about the physical universe, I prefer to get it from science. Or maybe /.. Wherever; the bible seems like a remarkably poor choice.

There are things in the bible that are not subject to scientific inquiry, and the bible is much more useful on those things.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! You've found out what 'the problem' is with people claiming to know 'the problem'. Now you're probably a crank.

What's north of the north pole?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be as silly a question as "what happened before the big bang" and a little more silly than "when did the big bang begin" (since it didn't really start, but time may be limited in the past).

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[bechthros]

rice university and, independentaly and simultaneously, the university of chicago.

the rice survey included social scientists as well as natural scientists, although even among natural scientists over 60% reported personal belief in God. the U of C study was given only to doctors. the 1914 leuba survey was limited to natural scientists only; presumably the 1997 reiteration followed suit.

it is unclear whether either the rice or U of C surveys used the phrase "personal God" (it seems a trifling distinction to me... given the disparity in results perhaps it is not). the rice survey asked 36 questions, which appears to have explored some variety of nuances of belief. the citation you have provided me regarding the original 1914 leuba survey and it's 1997 reiteration seems to give little detail into the content of the survey questions. if i read it correctly, the 1914 leuba survey and it's 1997 reiteration seem to have had only two. the 1914 leuba survey was sent only to those mentioned in a particular publication, while the 1997 reiteration was sent only to members of the NAS. might the publication and the NAS have similar axes to grind? might rice university and the university of chicago? who knows. the surveys were different and the results were different.

here's what's most interesting to me - the letter you cite makes mention of a booklet issued by the NAS encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools. this booklet states, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."

this has been my point all along.

"I would be happy if religion was kept out of science, out of science lessons, out of politics, and anywhere else that concerned the physical world and dealing with facts."

then we are in solid agreement. God is God and science is science and never the twain shall meet. until it's too late to make much difference. but to conflate science and faith weakens both.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Jeian]

That is one of the more impressively arrogant things I've read. "If you're not a mindless sheep incapable of critical thought, CLEARLY you will agree with my point of view!"

And, oddly, if I made that same claim from my (Catholic) side of the isle, I'd be downmodded "Overrated" and "Flamebait" before I could get back to the main thread.

Ah well, that's Slashdot these days.

Brothers Grimm

[Anonymous Coward]

Who, though prolific authors, merely RETOLD stories from other people.

Stories require two things:

1) experience
2) the ability to lie

the experience can be "having read someone else's story) but fiction requires the ability to lie, else all you have are facts and biographies.

You are part of a growing trend

[Per Abrahamsen]

Religious fanaticism is on the rise, in particular in North America and in the Islamic world, but also in the rest of the world. Theist of all faith are getting increasingly literal minded, unwilling to see or tolerate any truth but their own.

Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the same happens to "my" faction. I see many testaments like yours, from people who used to be able to see merits in other point of views than their own, but recently have come to the realization that theists are just stupid and evil, and deserve no respect at all.

Apparently the global trend is that Absolutism, in its most stupid form, is taking over from Relativism, in its most stupid form.

The few freethinkers of the world will have to get used to arguing with close minded bigots, rather than with fluffy minded relativists, for whom every point of view is equally valid.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Pseudonym]

Most amusing, Sire.

For the humour-impared, identifying a group as being "more likely to be cranks than not" is hardly the same as identifying "the problem". This, of course, does not invalidate any other reason why I might be a crank.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[tgibbs]

And who is to say it is? If you make the claim that Einstein has some undefined form of religious belief, you can show the evidence.

Abundant in Einstein's writings

For example

every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. (1936)

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion." ...As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals andevaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. (1948)

Re:Two Baskets, was going to mod, posting instead

[ElBeano]

Those replying to you seem to be limiting themselves to critiquing Roman Catholic priests. I am a United Methodist pastor and my perspective on "professional" ministers is very direct and confirms the majority to be hard working and generous people. There are posers in every group of people, but making reckless generalizations, as slashdotters are prone to do, only produces heat without light. As an example of work done in my conference, visit http://www.missioncentral.com/

Many of us donate time to work at the linked mission. They even have a computer ministry that recycles used computers.

"No Conflict" Too Sweeping A Generalization

[Tablizer]

it's "good" that they came out with a guide explaining there is no conflict between evolution and God,

That depends on the religion. It may conflict with some beliefs but not others. It's too sweeping of a statement. For example, if a religion has Prophet X that says/said evolution is "wrong", then saying there is no conflict would imply that Prophet X is wrong.

Re:"No Conflict" Too Sweeping A Generalization

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, if a religion has Prophet X that says/said evolution is "wrong", then...

I belong to the Temple of the Mach-Five, and Racer X said evolution caused his car to crash. Thus, it conflicts with my belief system.

Stallin' for Stalin

[Tablizer]

nowadays religion brings nothing good it seems

Religions often point toward Stalin's mass murders when this is brought up. The bigger problem is zealots, not religion itself. Zealots can be atheistic zealots also. However, religion does seem to trigger more zealotry then atheism. But one could also argue that Stalin *did* believe in God. The difference is that HE was God (in his mind).

It's right under your nose, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature

> You forgot to explain what's wrong with the basket metaphor.

No they didn't. I highlighted the part where you quote them describing what's wrong with it, just so you know. Of course you wouldn't realize that without a much more detailed argument, but you are just perpetuating a bunch of old propaganda that's simple, but wrong.

You obviously don't know that the very idea that there are natural laws to study came about because Christian philosophers reasoned that a rational God would create a rational universe that could be studied and understood. And don't give me any crap about ancient Greeks knowing more. They certainly did know a few things, but they also thought that one could reason everything out without any experiments at all. So you had a lot of simple but wrong ideas floating around that didn't get investigated until a long time later.

Now I'm sure you'll love to trot out a bunch of science vs. theology examples. But every explanation of them I've read from people arguing what you're argue misreads them completely. Folks love to substitute their own made-up evil motives and completely ignore all the evidence we have for why people did the things they did. If you had investigated, you'd find that a lot of times they were supposedly acting on "dogma" they weren't. You see, the people advocating the new theories didn't have any good evidence yet, and the evidence people DID have was well accounted for in the current system.

Heliocentrism, for one: it took a LONG time to gather the data to prove that. You say it's "obvious" but that's now, after the fact, when you're used to the idea that stars are so far away light takes many years to get here from there. We couldn't measure the parallax of the stars for a long time. It's too damn small, and the people knew that it should be there if we were rotating around the sun. So it took, you know, extraordinary evidence, before they'd believe extraordinary claims, like stars really having a parallax, just one far too small to measure with crude equipment.

But screw that. Who has time to investigate actual history when you can repeat some talking points that are oft-repeated but wrong?

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You cannot be a a Christian without submitting some part of your will to another human (the religious leaders). Another human who's just as scared, ignorant, and fallible as you are. Different sects of Christianity require varying degrees of this, since some focus on a more personal relationship with god and leave out the bureaucracy and leadership structure present in the, comparatively, monolithic Catholic church. But in the end, you're still reading a bible. A book conceived, written, published, and distributed by men. So yes, if you're a Christian, you're not exercising your ability to think critically as much as you could be. No arrogance required.

Huh? Atheist != Pessimist / Clinical Depression

[vistic]

I object to your portrayal of an atheistic life as something so dismal and depressing.

I'm an atheist, and I feel I have a very full, rewarding, rich, enjoyable, and fulfilling life.

Re:Huh? Atheist != Pessimist / Clinical Depression

[blahplusplus]

Would you be saying that if you were among the genetically unfit, had a very low IQ, were retarded, or had some kind of terrible disability?

I'm not saying atheists can't be happy, I'm saying that most people are forced into a 'competition to the death' over wealth and resources, and as new technologies come online the vast majority of the population will be left behind (not be able to afford them, etc, etc). Most people in the world today live in poverty, you're one of the lucky ones because you live in a place that is a good place to live.

Taking Ray Kurzweilian view: Any life before life extension is pretty shitty, since you were born in such backward and mediocre times.

I'd rather have been born in the far future personally then this extremely primitive time, since all men of this age are little more then barbarians.

Re:Huh? Atheist != Pessimist / Clinical Depression

[vistic]

If I were in such a situation, I don't think believing in a God would make anything better, no. Life would still suck. And I don't think having someone to yell at would improve my life much.

Re:Huh? Atheist != Pessimist / Clinical Depression

[blahplusplus]

"If I were in such a situation, I don't think believing in a God would make anything better, no. Life would still suck. And I don't think having someone to yell at would improve my life much."

Again we're talking about real evidence here, the evidence in america and human psychology shows us there are quite a substantial number of people who do need it. Whether this applies to us is quite irrelevant, we're talking about genetics and especially psyhicatric genetics.

Re:Huh? Atheist != Pessimist / Clinical Depression

[vistic]

How do you see evidence that people need it?

If a large part of the population deals with stress by smoking, does that mean they need it, too?

'Need' must mean something different to you than it does to me.

Re:Sellouts

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly possible for someone to "think like a scientist" and also have strong religious faith...

The problem is how you define religious faith. I don't think the average bible-thumper creationist has some sort of Buddhist faith in the supernatural that is in-harmony with the scientific method; instead, he/she literally believes the fanciful stories of the Old Testament, picked and choosen by his/her specific denominational leaders, without any bit of scientific thinking.

Things really are that black and white in this context: Either you believe that God created things as literally described in the Bible or you believe that these stories were invented by humans.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[mdwh2]

Right, and the point is there's nothing about God in there. You can be religious and not believe in God.

Re:The question "who created god" misses the point

[JochenBedersdorfer]

I hope you are not really proposing that is how the world works. This theory is not testable at all and anything can happen in this world. So the predictive power of this theory would be exactly zero. We can do better than this.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[GoofyBoy]

Please post a scientifically valid test for the Everett-Wheeler interpretation.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[gardyloo]

Please post a scientifically valid test for the Everett-Wheeler interpretation. (My emphasis added to "interpretation".)

      I can't. Please post a reason why I should, given that MWI isn't at this point a testable hypothesis, nor is it needed to interpret the extremely detailed, extremely accurate predictions which quantum mechanics (which is what my other post addressed) makes.

Science vs. Evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the theory of evolution violate one of the most basic tenets of biology, that life comes only from life?

Re:The question "who created god" misses the point

[mark-t]

Were I a person who believed in an eternal God, that is exactly how I would propose the world works. The explanation is not remotely inconsistent with any observable evidence, and places God well outside of any potentially successful attempts to explain his nature, which *IS* consistent with attributes that one could reasonably ascribe to an eternal and omnipotent God. It wouldn't mean, of course, that we aren't really real... because it would be meaningless to conclude that. What it actually means is that God would be something bigger or grander than that... that what we identify as reality is compared to something imaginary, God would thus be to us. "Superreal" could potentially be an adequate term, but language may lack the means of truly conveying the notion in a small number of words.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[tgibbs]

However, Einstein did speak of God, although it is clear that he did not believe in a personal God who answers prayer:

About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[GoofyBoy]

>given that MWI isn't at this point a testable hypothesis

Then why is it at the scientific tea party? How can you test MWI? Is there a scientifically valid test for MWI? And that testable/untestable part is what I was pointing out.

(Saying that its a "theory"/"hypothesis"/"interpretation" as part of the justification is just a play on words. (E.g. - If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science?))

>nor is it needed to interpret the extremely detailed, extremely accurate predictions which quantum mechanics (which is what my other post addressed) makes.

But its part of quantum mechanics in the scientific community.

The problem with Evolution is it has no Soul

[OldSoldier]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speak for the religious fundamentalists who profess to not believe in evolution.

I believe the problem these folks have with evolution has nothing to do with what they're complaining about. Religious people believe God created Man with a Soul. But when evolution came along it suddenly appeared that science contradicted that belief. Where in the chain of evolution did Man get his Soul? It is simply much easier for these religious fundamentalists to believe that God created Man whole-cloth and hence Soul came in there. Or that God directly tampered with evolution (ID) and Soul came in there. To believe that somewhere between Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens the soul jumped in is apparently too much for these people to believe.

Until these religious fundamentalists come clean with themselves and realize that THIS is the heart of their problem with evolution, this debate will unfortunately continue to rage on and on.

Re:The problem with Evolution is it has no Soul

[amRadioHed]

You can fully believe all of the currently accepted science of evolution while still believing that god directed the course of evolution and gave humans a soul when he deemed it appropriate. Many Christians and Catholics do believe this and they have no need to invoke ID either. Pope John Paul II himself believed this.

Their is no reason for a conflict save for the fact that fundamentalists want conflict. One of the problems with fundamentalists is that they believe what they want free from the constraints of what is true.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[gardyloo]

It's labeled an interpretation because it is an unproven -- and, at this point, a purely hypothetical -- postulation about reality, which brings nothing new to the table (yet). That is, you've surely gathered, why I chose to stress the "interpretation" part of the name. Once these paradigms gain some power of prediction, they are no longer labeled as "interpretations". For example, both Newton's F = ma and Lagrange's action extremezation procedures are equivalent, at least when things like "mass" and "force" can be readily interpreted. When the principle of least action was formulated, it could easily have been termed an interpretation, but it quickly proved itself to be of more general use and power than N's 2nd Law. Stressing "interpretation" is NOT just playing semantics games.

If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science? Absolutely not.

But its part of quantum mechanics in the scientific community. Yes, but everyone recognizes the untestability (or at least the currently amazingly remote possibility) of showing the interpretation is correct, including the theory's leading proponents/authors. Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective and complete in its purview, without MWI. This is not to say that the thing is wrong, but given our current level of understanding, it doesn't help anyone at this point. That was all of my original point. Taking MWI (a very small corner of QM, which currently has no influence other than philosophical) to somehow invalidate all of QM is like taking the electric universe hypothesis (which contains some salient points, but is a complete mess logically) to invalidate Maxwell's equations.
        I think that was your original point.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity makes lots of falsifiable assertions. The existence of Jesus Christ and various magical deeds is one. The effectiveness of prayer might be another (ask and you shall receive & all that), which has been disproven incidentally.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Copid]

By one calculation, that figure is 1 chance in 10^-282.

*Ahem*

GIGO.

Re:The question "who created god" misses the point

[Copid]

That would be a perfectly reasonable position except for one thing: The "who created god" question is usually asked of people who invoke gods as a solution to the "everything that exists needs a creator" problem. It goes like this:

1) Everything that exists needs a creator.
2) The universe exists. 3) I invoke a creator that violates rule (1) to explain (2).

Isn't it just easier to assume that rule (1) may not be true for everything--including the universe? It seems to me that proposing an exception to the rule isn't a particularly clever solution.

Re:Sellouts

[c6gunner]

While science can invent the atom bomb and describe its effects, it cannot say whether or not we should use it.

Neither can religion. In fact, science does a much better job of it than religion ever could - it lets us study statistics and probabilities, allowing us to make a logical choice about whether using or withholding the bomb would bring us closer to our aims. All religion can tell us is the opinion of some guy in a funny hat.

Consciousness?

[Msdose]

If the religious mythologies (bibles, korans, torahs etc.) are the most important books, then they must answer the most important question: What is the nature of consciousness? If they don't, then the book that answers that will be more important than them. Therefore, they are only valuable to us if they can be interpreted in a way that answers the most important question. Obviously, the people who recognize the importance of these mythologies are unable to correctly interpret them, and religious administrations have taken advantage of their confusion to to give them a phony interpretation which justifies the power and profit the administration derives from their inability to correctly interpret these mythologies.

Darwinism is dead! Long live Darwinism!

[Per Abrahamsen]

> To question Darwinism is to risk losing your job if you are a scientist.

No it doesn't, all biologist reject Darwinism as originally proposed in favor for more modern theories of evolution.

There is a huge difference between questioning the established theories, and promoting something like ID. The later would be like a geologist promoting Flat Earth.

> Ninety percent of NAS scientists are atheists.

Smart people almost always are.

> Teaching evolution teaches their philosophy.

Philosophy tend to fill very little in the minds of a scientist, for (most of) them, Science come first. Philosophy, like Politics, is mostly seen as an distraction. They may have opinions on the matter, but they are not important to them.

> Teaching ID would promote critical thinking, not blindly following the scientific
> overloads.

ID is the opposite of critical thinking, and your point of "scientific overlords" underscores my point of how uneducated people tend to see scientists as priest, because you don't understand how science works.

> How can evolution be science when it can not be falsifiable since it is the only acceptable theory?

Theories called "Evolution" has been falsified many times, and been replaced by better theories that have also been called "Evolution". There is a huge difference bet

> Evolution can't explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, the creation of
> mankind, or the increase in the complexity of life.

There are zillions of things, including gravity and modern art, evolution can't explain. If you want explanations for everything, you are better of with Religion than with Science.

> Teaching science that has been proven by falsifiable testing would prohibit the teaching
> of evolution.

Technically, falsifiable testing can only disprove theories, not prove them, so by not having a clue you have been able to come up with a technically true (the best kind of true!) statement. Maybe there is a god!

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[GoofyBoy]

>Once these paradigms gain some power of prediction, they are no longer labeled as "interpretations".

But isn't that a slippery slope? It could be untestable but as long as it predicts something we can put it into science? Think about how much of religion falls into this (E.g. - I predict if I follow these laws then when I die I will go to heaven.)

>If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science?
>Absolutely not.

Exactly why not? I'm honestly interested in your opinion.

>Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective and complete in its purview, without MWI.

Yes I agree. But scientifically, your statement should end with "so far" because things could change. (Isn't that the strength of the scientific method?)

>Taking MWI (a very small corner of QM, which currently has no influence other than philosophical) to somehow invalidate all of QM is like taking the electric universe hypothesis (which contains some salient points, but is a complete mess logically) to invalidate Maxwell's equations.

Yes but it is a valid method of logical deduction and application of Ocham's Razor to look at what QM leads to and think. (You need this to detect contradictions or to make adjustments in a theory.) MWI is pushing what is considered to be scientific.

The first, first post implied that religion is just to wild and crazy to be part of science. MWI is built on QM which is good science but MWI is also part of science (developed by, written about, talked about at conferences by scientists performing scientific work). Why MWI and not religion?

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

Uh okay. I found this site:

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_44.html

Now even if your figures are correct, which I tend to doubt but lets say they are correct for the sake of argument, I see a minority group.

The US population is over 300mil. That makes the number of Atheists at most not even 10% of the US population.

As for Lewis being from Ireland, what is your point with that statement exactly?

As for your bet. Give me something better than that to work with, that is an unfounded statement until you can give me some reference and then we can work from there.

Remember, from your side it seems one way, and from my side it would seem the other way.

Re:Two Baskets, was going to mod, posting instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Those replying to you seem to be limiting themselves to critiquing Roman Catholic priests. I am a United Methodist pastor and my perspective on "professional" ministers is very direct and confirms the majority to be hard working and generous people. ...

making reckless generalizations, as slashdotters are prone to do, only produces heat without light. Here's one more reckless generalization for you: We Catholics may be a fucked-up lot, but we certainly recognize the smug condescension of a Protty when we hear it. ...and for the love of God, fix your site so it displays correctly in Firefox. IE is the tool of the devil. Hallelujah.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

The post I responded to said that if children get a proper and unbiased scientific education then they SHOULD abandon God. As for proof that a religion is real or not, that is not the issue here.

I simply pointed out that the reverse is often true.

I made no comment on whether they were critical thinkers or not. That is up to you to decide. I think that they were very critical thinkers.

As to your final question, I know of conversions from Christianity to other religions, and to Atheism. I never said there were none. As to a reason, I don't know. I have not spoken to anyone who has, nor do I know anyone who has permanently abandoned Christianity. In fact most of those who has moved away from Christianity has returned at some point.

I am a missionary, and have seen people accept Jesus as their Saviour often. The why is varied, and I am sure the why for not being a Christian any more differs from person to person.

*Why do we believe?*

[Xodmoe]

"Yes. It is called mass delusion."

...and we know that you yourself are less deluded because...?

"You believe it because so many others believe it. After all, how can all these people be wrong, eh?

Everyone who is capable of thinking tries to make sense of the world as best they can. Not everyone has the same capacity for logical and critical thought. Also, not everyone has the same capacity to think things through for themselves. ...and they haven't all had the educational advantages that you've had.

"Use examples from the past. Greek gods and Roman gods would be one. Egyptian gods another. Also Japanese emperor is a god figure as well. No one believes any of these anymore, yet not so long ago, A LOT of people believed it and you would be killed for saying different. A LOT of people can't be wrong."

That's actually a very good point. At that stage of history, the line dividing religion and science was not well-defined at all. Logic and reason was still new to the world. In many respects, religion and science were very much the same. Come to think of it, religion and government were the same where tribal chiefs to kings were serving double-duty as priests. ...and even as living gods on earth.

So, it does at times bother me that history repeats itself

"All current religions are just a natural continuation of the past religions. As people outgrew their deities, we needed to create more powerful ones."

How many new deities can you name? ...and which of them have caught on since Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposed to worship the same god, even though they seem to have different ideas about Him.

"Why do we believe?"

"...we..."?

"People can't accept futility of their lives."

...and your own life is more meaningful because...?

"They think they are special and try to justify it with religion (eg. afterlife and "god's will")."

If only they could all see the world the way you do, O wise one.

"Finally, people do not just start to believe in a religion. 95%+ percent, they are indoctrinated into that religion from a little kid that can't think for themselves."

Do you have any kids, Gnuman?

"Then they stay in that religion mostly out of fear - leave and maybe get the wrath of god as preached by almost every religion so most don't want to take risk like that. This explains the lack of mobility from one religion to another."

...another good point. Religion as a matter of history, also serves a social purpose as well as a spiritual one.

Do your own children have the same ideas about the world that you do?

Do you think that they always will?

"Aside: Santa has a basis in historical events that are a lot closer than 2000 years yet look what happened to that. Santa now lives in the North Pole, sports a Coca Cola suit (yes, they made it red), and eats cookies and milk. Santa, from real facts to current myth seems to mimic the so called "religious historical facts" quite well."

On top of all that, some of the best schools and hospitals in the world were built and are owned and operated by religious organizations.

Granted that some really horrible crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of God, but faith-based groups have consistently fed, clothed, housed and educated more people than the richest and most powerful of governments.

So...

What did YOU get from Santa?

Re:*Why do we believe?*

[Anonymous Coward]

"How many new deities can you name?"

The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

QED.

Re:The question "who created god" misses the point

[mark-t]

With that position, God isn't particularly an execption to the rule that everything that exists needs a creator, because God wouldn't "exist" in the same frame that we recognize everything else to exist (and don't offer the suggestion that what I just said would be just as correct with a period after the word "exist", it completely misses the point). So the notion of what we define as "real" is simply too narrow to fully encompass the nature of such a god. Metaphorically, it is not God who would be imaginary, but we who are the imaginary ones, pointlessly debating the existence of the being who thought of us in the first place.

Just a few things ...

[jopet]

> Happiness does arise from living up to standards of right, and engaging with family, neighbor and stranger.
That might be true, but what is right is not what is in the bible or what the dogma of old men who call themselves "priests" says. On the contrary: this is often wrong, because it sets some silly tradition or what can be interpreted from a stone-old book over what compassion and human feeling would dictate.

> True religion
True religion? What is that supposed to be? I just see religion as it happens, as it exists in reality. And everything about true religion is incompatible with reason and enlightenment based on what is instead of what one wants to be.

Regarding your "God is the computer the universe is running on" argument: in the very basic sense this would just mean that what you call "God" is just another word for "laws of nature". This notion of God has nothing to do whatsoever with a God who created, who designed, who listens to prayers or whatever other things make the Gods of religions Gods. This God is so abstract that it is irrelevant.
And that brings us to the second point: if God cannot be seen and does not in any way interfere, if everything observable can be explained without god or be equally unexplainable, what then is the point of inventing the concept of some God in the first place? Sounds like a desperate attempt to not abandon something your grandparents told you about and that you are emotionally attached to.
There is an infinite number of things that can be imagined but would be unprovable. None of these things can be disproved, but what is the point of insisting on their existance? The great invisible Hubu in the center of the Mars is equally likely as the God of Christians. I could invent a whole story about her and you wouldn't be able to disprove it. Does it mean that the great invisible Hubu exists? Of course not you would say. It just doesnt make sense to assume that everything that cannot be disproven exists. And that applies to the Christian God as well as to all the thousands of other Gods and fairy-tale beings humankind invented.

> If you say that you have some right to make that choice for another person, ..
I never said that, on the contrary. Read again:
"Unlike atheists like me, the so-called christians and also the muslims, jews etc. have strong opinions not only about what they should or should not do, but what I should or should not be allowed to do.
I have no problem about Christians believing they will rot in hell if they have sex before marriage or sex with a condom, but I do not see why they should mess with what others do in that respect."

Its usually religious people who care strongly about the choices of other persons and it is religious fanatics who care about what others should be allowed to do or not fanatically. It is usually religious people who care in a way that ignores the pure compassion with other people and establishes some "higher principle" like the "will of god" or the "principles of islam". Where it is ok to stone a woman who has been raped or make the life of somebody miserable who loves another man.

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[radarsat1]

Interesting. What form of evolution doesn't involve natural selection?

To answer your first question, perhaps sexual selection?

So, sex isn't natural?

I believe that sexual selection is considered part of natural selection, though I guess I could be wrong.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Mateo_LeFou]

"It's not that I'm narrow minded, it's that every person I know who is religious doesn't seem to understand everyday events (easily explained by science)"

It sounds as though your sample size may be insufficient to support your generalization

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[darkhitman]

Natural selection and sexual selection were originally two different theories; natural selection focusing on traits beneficial to survival whilst sexual selection proposes that more attractive traits survive due to them being preferred - these traits may even hinder survival. Both theories were coined by Darwin, I dunno if they're still both separate or not.

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[fzuccaro]

Man is certainly stark mad: he cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen.
~ Michel de Montaigne

Re:The question "who created god" misses the point

[Copid]

With that position, God isn't particularly an execption to the rule that everything that exists needs a creator, because God wouldn't "exist" in the same frame that we recognize everything else to exist (and don't offer the suggestion that what I just said would be just as correct with a period after the word "exist", it completely misses the point).

As I read it, you're just explaining why God is an exception to the rule. That doesn't really make it smell any less like special pleading to me. At best, it's a case of fiddling with the word "exists" to define oneself into correctness. It seems to me that by using the "everything needs a creator" argument and then adding nuances until only their particular god will do, theists are simply building their conclusion into one of their axioms. That doesn't make the "everything needs a creator" axiom very palatable to the rest of us.

True Democracy

[pentalive]

Remember True democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on "what's for dinner".

Re:The question "who created god" misses the point

[mark-t]

Consider that it's a *general* rule that the letter Q is almost always followed by a u, yet in languages other than English which still use the Roman alphabet, this otherwise quite ubiquitous rule simply does not exist. Words in other languages are not exceptions to the general rule, they are just examples of the fact that the rule was narrowly meant to apply to the English language only. Similarly, the rule that everything needs a creator to exist is thus not necessary still a completely valid axiom, as much as it necessarily is still confined to the notion of "existence" that we understand to be real.

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[sumdumass]

You cannot question religion in the class room of public schools. The problem is the first amendment. The same thing that keeps religion out keeps you from questioning it. And I think it is a little chicken hearted to want to question religion on a forum that religion can't be present in.

If by the class room you mean the private school or private college then by all means, go ahead. But the separation of church and state (which isn't actually in the constitution) says that you can't talk one way or the other about religion in schools. The first amendment says congress shall make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exorcise there of.

Now, this isn't toughing on whether this is a good idea or not. It is just that rights are rights regardless of who possesses them. The say right that keeps you free from religion in a public school is the same right that stops the government from denouncing someone's religion. You either accept it or deny it all, but don't take one and refuse to accepts others at your convenience.

Actually, the main article is a proposed solutions to end most of the conflict created by people like you. It is simply teaching science so it doesn't touch religion. Most all of the controversy will disappear when Science is taught in the classrooms without touching religion. ID, warning stickers, Emphasizing theory and so on are all attempts at stopping science from being taught in a way that disproves or negates religion. This is also why the problems crop up in small school districts and it isn't a nation wide problem. Most of the science taught in the schools across the country doesn't mention religion at all and that is how it should be.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[SanityInAnarchy]

But the thing is, they converted. Compelling argument or not.

But what does that prove, if there's no argument?

Your original comment suggested that one might set out to disprove Christianity and arrive at the conclusion that it's all true, but I'm curious how. Certainly, if Christianity could be shown to be true, I'd want to believe. I mean, no matter how skeptical I might have been, I don't want to burn in Hell, right?

Besides, Pascal's Wager might not be logically sound, it is a simple statement intended to surmise how a person could come to a conclusion.

It's more than one statement. It's an attempt to define, logically, why one might believe, and why one should believe.

As for the the two possibilities you gave, remember these people converted to Christianity, thus the option being limited to the Judeo-Christian God.

Nope. See, if Pascal converted to Christianity because of his wager, then it is flawed. Why didn't he convert to, say, Satanism?

That's the Bible's fault

[damncrackmonkey]

On the opening page, it says that it is the "word of God" and that it contains no errors. If the church that promotes (sells) it knows that to be false (ie requires interpretation), how can anyone trust them at all?

waste of ink

[RockDoctor]

it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.'"

A complete waste of ink, brains, money and time. Just let the god-believers go back to living in caves, shitting into their water supplies, and dieing in their 40s if they didn't die in their first 3 years of life. That's the natural way that religious belief systems are designed to keep people inhabiting. If you want a better life style, show religion the inside of the shit can that it so richly deserves to inhabit.

Re:*...flying spaghetti monsters*

[Xodmoe]

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster."

...and I take heat for quoting other people out of context

There was more to it of course. My question was "How many new deities can you name? ...and which of them have caught on since Jews, Christians and Muslims are supposed to worship the same god, even though they seem to have different ideas about Him."

...my emphasis added, but then again it was my question, wasn't it?

...nice try, but thanks for playing.

Newton

[damncrackmonkey]

You're like the 8th person to mention Newton or some other scientist from hundreds of years ago. That also makes you the 8th person to mention his religious beliefs while conveniently leaving out a discussion of religious tolerance in pre-enlightentment England. These famous 'religious' scientists didn't actually have a choice. We'll obviously never know, but I'd guess that they'd have drastically different views if somehow brought into the 21st century.

Ya'all missing the real point.

[Anonymous Coward]

God = science.

End of story.

Why can't the scientific method be used on God?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how the universe came into existance? What is the scientific explanation? Was it inevitable?

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

Now even if your figures are correct, which I tend to doubt but lets say they are correct for the sake of argument, I see a minority group. The US population is over 300mil. That makes the number of Atheists at most not even 10% of the US population.

Oh, don't go changing the subject now. The issue is not the number of atheists - I am perfectly aware there are several times more Christians in the United States than atheists. The issue is the number of atheists who have converted to Christianity.

As for Lewis being from Ireland, what is your point with that statement exactly?

That 50% of your examples aren't from the U.S., and can't figure into the percentage for this country.

As for your bet. Give me something better than that to work with, that is an unfounded statement until you can give me some reference and then we can work from there.

I think it's fairly easy - name more atheists who converted to Christianity. If it happens "often" as you suggest, there surely must be some articles on the subject, maybe some organizations for such individuals, guestimations on the number of converts, etc.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[nagora]

uh, whose ultimate goal would that be?

The goal of rational thought is obviously to abandon irrational thought - duh! - you don't understand that because you have embraced irrational superstitions as an explanation for experiences you don't understand - the classic "god of the gaps". Fortunately, such base and craven desires to bend the knee to bogymen is something that is dying out in the West as science gradually closes those gaps.

And, Newton was a guy who spent his later years trying to calculate the end of the world. He decided it would be 2020; I might not be Newton, but I'm pretty sure he was wrong.

TWW

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[kartune85]

Emphasizing theory and so on are all attempts at stopping science from being taught in a way that disproves or negates religion. This is also why the problems crop up in small school districts and it isn't a nation wide problem. Most of the science taught in the schools across the country doesn't mention religion at all and that is how it should be. There are no attempts to stop science from being taught, although there are attempts to stop "voodoo science" from being taught, science that is unproven, wrong, and in opposition to what the Bible says.
If science is to be taught in schools, it should be testable and observable science, not based on theories that are based on speculations, that some "scientist" developed through guesswork.
Science and Religion are not in opposition. "Voodoo Science" (old earth theory) and the Bible are in opposition.
"Voodoo Science" is a religion in its own right, not science.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

Oh, don't go changing the subject now. The issue is not the number of atheists - I am perfectly aware there are several times more Christians in the United States than atheists. The issue is the number of atheists who have converted to Christianity.


I wasn't trying to change the subject, it was merely an observation. As to the issue you noted, I think an accurate gauge would be to see a percentage comparison. A mere number comparison might not be as good a gauge. As for how many Christians became Atheist, from where I am standing they are not that many. Remember though that I am Christian, and a missionary. So not only is my Job to convince people that Jesus is Lord, I do not mingle with many Atheists socially, so my view is biased - from where you stand the reverse might be true (i.e. from your viewpoint)

That 50% of your examples aren't from the U.S., and can't figure into the percentage for this country.

What country my examples are from is not the point. I am not from the US, and I had no idea where you are from, so naturally my examples where not chosen from any geographical location.

I think it's fairly easy - name more atheists who converted to Christianity. If it happens "often" as you suggest, there surely must be some articles on the subject, maybe some organizations for such individuals, guestimations on the number of converts, etc.

1. I could name and you could name and what we really would need is a peer reviewed scientific study on the subject, no? I found nothing like that in a (admittedly quick) googling.
2. I found a few websites for ex atheists - check out www.ex-atheist.com
Now a quick disclaimer, it's the first time I checked out this site, and I found it a bit "in your face", having not browsed through it much I cannot ascribe to it's content or tone. It seems scarily a lot like more Hovindish Atheist bashing and offensive drivel, but for lack of anything better...

Here are a few names of Atheist convertees that you could look up, there seems to be quite a bit written about them online:

A.S.A Jones
G.Z. Jordan
Josh Mcdowell
Lee Strobel

An interesting case study would be Bill O-Hare, Madelyn Murray O-Hare's son. He converted to Christianity as an adult, his mom campaigned against prayer in schools.

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[sumdumass]

There are no attempts to stop science from being taught, although there are attempts to stop "voodoo science" from being taught, science that is unproven, wrong, and in opposition to what the Bible says.

reread what I wrote. The voodoo science among other techniques are ways of stopping science from being taught in a way that specifically counters religion. Science in and of itself doesn't necessarily do this, the ways it is being taught is. These are/were the answers to that.

If science is to be taught in schools, it should be testable and observable science, not based on theories that are based on speculations, that some "scientist" developed through guesswork.

I don't even have a problem with theories such as guess work. As long as it is presented properly and withing the scope of science.

Science and Religion are not in opposition. "Voodoo Science" (old earth theory) and the Bible are in opposition.
"Voodoo Science" is a religion in its own right, not science.

Well, this point is sort of mitigated if science is taught in the respect of science and doesn't touch religion at all. I mean simple by compartmentalizing the information is simple enough to avoid conflicts. Simple saying this is how science sees things and it is how it has built it's basis in the last few years is enough to compartmentalize the issues away from ID, Religion, The CFSM or anything else. It would seriously be no different the saying C:\ or / for the root of the drive depending on which OS you are dealing with. This might not be enough for some people, it might not be enough for you but I think it separates the core of the issues enough for them to coexist.

Creationism is the Opium of the Poor

[igb]

The core of religious belief is that God created the heavens and the Earth.

Really? Really? Or is that just the American Protestants speaking? By religion to you mean religion in the large, or do you mean what's happening in the revival tent by the mall? Creation consumes about four pages in the Old and New Testaments. Although Genesis is canonical to Judaism as well creationism doesn't split Jews apart, and the only reason it's become an issue (in Europe at least) in Islam is that any sense of persecution the Christians can muster is attractive to the Muslims as well. There is no schism between `believers' in Evolution and others in Shinto, or Hinduism, or Buhdism, in any of the other major world religions.

There isn't really in Christianity: it's just that America dominates Anglophone discourse, and the tension between fancy intellectuals from the coasts who think they're no much smarter than the rest of us but aren't really on the one hand and stupid farmers from the flyover states on the other hand (to parody their mutual images) happens to have gone to Evolution this century. Last century the flyover states wanted the right to lynch niggers if they wanted to vote, next century who knows? This century, you justify the fact that your farm's gone bust, your son is dead in Iraq and your daughter can't read by telling yourself that them damn New Yorkers are going to go to hell by believing in evilution. Go girl: who needs a job and healthcare anyway?

Prediction: belief in creationism is 90% amongst Americans who live more than 100 miles from both the Atlantic and the Pacific, earn under $60K and have no post-18 education. Everyone else who pretends to believe in it just wants their votes or their money.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

As to your question HOW, I don't think there is one way that suit's all, if you catch my drift. I for one did not set out to disprove Christianity, but others did. I actually met a guy, and spent time with him, who is a physicist. He could not reconcile the Biblical view of the world with what he knew about physics and scientific discovery.

So he went so far as to and learn what we call "skykerskrif", uh I forget the correct english word but the word literally means "Nail Language" to read the actual original dead sea scrolls and other artefacts found that our Bible is based on.

Only after having gone that far did he satisfy himself that there is indeed a God, that it is the Judeo Christian God, and that the Biblical account of the world as we know it is accurate.

And no, he does not adhere to Young Earth Creationism, if you were wondering...

From my point of view the best place to start is with the study of the life of Jesus. Forget the other crap even Christian churches cannot agree on. And please dear lord do not - repeat not - pay any attention to anything remotely resembling Kent Hovind...

You may be interested in some of the works of Josh Mcdowell. He went out to disprove the Christian religion as based on myth and that journey ended with him converting.

He asks a very good question.

Was Jesus a "Good Moral Teacher"
Was Jesus a "Lunatic"
Was Jesus "God"

Suffice it to say, without flooding you with stuff, that Jesus could not have been a good moral teacher if he were not God, because that would have made him a LIAR. He claimed on several occasions to be God, and a moral man of sound mind would not do that and knowingly mislead thousands.

So that leaves Lunatic or Lord.

You decide.

Re:evolution doesn't require abandoning belief in

[bechthros]

"The goal of rational thought is obviously to abandon irrational thought - duh!"

either stop telling me what my goals are, or else convince me that you're right about what my goals are. repeating yourself doesn't count as a valid argument anywhere outside of fox news. i don't tell you what your goals are.

"you don't understand that because you have embraced irrational superstitions as an explanation for experiences you don't understand - the classic "god of the gaps"."

i was unaware that you had proven the inexistence of God. remarkable indeed, that the first person ever to prove a universal negative spends a good deal of time posting on slashdot instead of reveling in their newfound celebrity.

any assertion that God definitively does not exist is just as much a statement of faith as any assertion that God definitively does. i'm not talking about religious faith, i am talking about any belief devoid of proof. now, personally, i have no problem making statements of faith. but you claim to operate strictly from reason. i therefore await your concession that the possibility exists that there is a God.

i do not envy you the ivory prison of your reason. reason has never written a poem or a song. reason has never fallen in love. please note that, once again, i am not denying the importance of reason, or of the many wonderful (and terrible) things reason has given us. i am simply observing that there are things which lie outside it.

i encourage you, in the spirit of both scientific inquiry and personal growth, to keep an open mind and open eyes. i continue to admit my fallibility as a human. i have yet to hear you do the same.

"Fortunately, such base and craven desires to bend the knee to bogymen is something that is dying out in the West as science gradually closes those gaps."

firstly, i hope you realize how pitiably immature, insecure and defensive your insults make you appear. as soon as you start throwing pistols it's pretty clear who's out of ammo.

secondly, if you think that science can, will, or should ever explain everything about the universe, humanity, and the soul then perhaps i was wrong... you appear to have a great deal of faith, indeed.

lastly, if you were as certain of the inexistence of God as you claim to be, you wouldn't still be reading this thread. you would simply shrug your shoulders, sigh with despair at the waste of time that is any confrontation with yet another zealot, and go about your day. i don't think you harbor any illusions of destroying my faith. and i think when you lash out at me, you're really lashing out at the part of you that secretly wonders if i'm right.

but then, like i said, i could always be wrong. could you?

Re:Evolution happens and God is real, Jesus is Lor

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. What form of evolution doesn't involve natural selection?

Well, as a simple example, computers have certainly evolved since the fifties without benefit of natural selection.

In a bizarrely on-topic twist, they also happen to be intelligently designed.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[SanityInAnarchy]

As to your question HOW, I don't think there is one way that suit's all, if you catch my drift.

Which tells me that whatever ways exist, they aren't logical. Were they logical, you could simply point me to a logical argument, and that would be the end of it.

Suffice it to say, without flooding you with stuff, that Jesus could not have been a good moral teacher if he were not God, because that would have made him a LIAR. He claimed on several occasions to be God, and a moral man of sound mind would not do that and knowingly mislead thousands.

People are not black and white, and lunatics are the least predictable.

Jesus taught people to love their neighbor, for one. Does that mean that if I believe in loving my neighbor, I must believe Jesus was God?

Let's not forget: Maybe it was a metaphor, and maybe Jesus even did his best to make it clear it was a metaphor. There's plenty of room for misinterpretation and downright revisionist history by the time the Gospels were actually written. Or maybe he was entirely sane, and made the claims he did because he was deliberately engineering a religion around himself -- not out of megalomania, but to make sure people didn't forget the lessons he taught.

But I suspect you know this, at least somewhat:

And no, he does not adhere to Young Earth Creationism, if you were wondering...

The Bible is either true, or it's not. You decide.

You see, it's possible for parts of it to be true, just as it's possible for parts of Jesus' life to be true, or even parts of Jesus' psyche to be sound.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

First off. Did you use BBcode option to reply? It is rather nicely formatted, much nicer than the normal Italics stuff...

Hokay, back on topic:

As to your question HOW, I don't think there is one way that suit's all, if you catch my drift.

Which tells me that whatever ways exist, they aren't logical. Were they logical, you could simply point me to a logical argument, and that would be the end of it.

(Boldyness indicates my OP to avoid confusion)

Your original statement is not logical from where I stand. Do you say that there is only one approach to coming to a logical conclusion? There are four personality types (depending on who you ask, but there we could go on forever on another topic altogether) and each one of them approaches a set problem in a certain manner that is logical to that personality type.

I am Sanguine, for instance, with a lot of Phlegmatic thrown in for good measure. I think in pictures, and loose ideas. I find it hard to debate a subject with a person who thinks more, erm, "mathematically" if you catch my drift. My wife is Choleric/Melancholic, you get how my day is. She asks when something will be done, I say soon, she wants a set time. Oh some days...

If you excuse me to be so bold, but read some work of Josh Mcdowell. He approaches the subject with a logical framework. I am guessing that his manner of logic (I hope you understand what I mean by this) might resonate with you. Accept Jesus or not, the idea is not that you read his book and convert, you asked for an example of a logical argument, that is the best one I can refer you to.

People are not black and white, and lunatics are the least predictable.

Jesus taught people to love their neighbor, for one. Does that mean that if I believe in loving my neighbor, I must believe Jesus was God?

You are correct, people are not black and white. I touched on this above.

Yes Jesus taught people to love their neighbor. He also taught that God is the highest authority on earth. He also taught that Christians would be persecuted for their faith. He told the apostles that they would die for their faith.

The result? Eleven of the twelve where killed. They literally followed His teachings unto death, and inspired others to do so as well. Not good moral teachings in my book if He were not God.

Let's not forget: Maybe it was a metaphor, and maybe Jesus even did his best to make it clear it was a metaphor. There's plenty of room for misinterpretation and downright revisionist history by the time the Gospels were actually written.

The Bible has a lot of metaphor in it doesn't it. There are ways of determining what was metaphor, and what was not. As to revisionist history, there was not that much room for revisionist history, besides there is a lot written (from both Atheist and Christian sources) on the subject. I ascribe to the Christian view, you would not, I can however say that if you are basing your argument here on say the Davinci Code you should really find a better source. I won't go too far into that here, if you are interested in that you should go to http://godgab.org/ and check in the Christianity section. There are several sections where Atheists asked the same questions you did. Believe me it takes up pages and pages of to-ing and fro-ing to get ANYWHERE significant.

And don't worry, godgab is not a Christian forum, it was started by an Atheist, there is a vibrant Atheist group that frequent it.

Or maybe he was entirely sane, and made the claims he did because he was deliberately engineering a religion around himself -- not out of megalomania, but to make sure people didn't forget the lessons he taught.

But I suspect you know this, at least somewhat:

I know this in the sense that I have heard the argument before. It is a bit flawed though, because He made some promises that he would then not be able to keep. And the point again, people died because they foll

Pragmatism

[ShakaUVM]

>>It does not necessarily have to be. It can be a form of pragmatism.

Once you dip into pragmatism, then belief in God is again a rational decision. As James pointed out, we should be free to rationally choose between two live options, when the issue is not closed. If the existence of God is a live issue for us, and the existence of God is not proven OR disproven, then we should not mock people for believing one way or the other.

Unfortunately, looking here at Slashdot, most people seem more than willing to claim that anyone that believes in religion must be a nut. Sorry, correct: a dangerous fundamentalist lunatic living in some backwater somewhere, burning biology textbooks on dates with a cousin on a Friday night.

>>Both the God theory and the non-God theory will fit the evidence. But that's not what we mean by plausible in ordinary language. I could construct a theory where a purple space goat is manipulating my brain in a way that no-one can detect

This is the sort of inflammatory statements that atheists make about religious people. One could counter that saying that when the option of believing in God is open, that choosing to believe an ultimately nihilistic and self-destructive philosophy (there's that Pragmatism again) is the height of lunacy. =)

Re:Two Baskets, was going to mod, posting instead

[Anonymous Coward]

The website is not mine to maintain. I meant no slur against Catholics. Actually, I thought the posts I was replying to were making, as I said, reckless generalizations. Then I spoke from personal experience and observation. No smug condescension intended.

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[kartune85]

Well, this point is sort of mitigated if science is taught in the respect of science and doesn't touch religion at all. I mean simple by compartmentalizing the information is simple enough to avoid conflicts. Simple saying this is how science sees things and it is how it has built it's basis in the last few years is enough to compartmentalize the issues away from ID, Religion, The CFSM or anything else. Sorry, your sentences are rather difficult to ascertain exactly what point you are putting forward.

Religion only enters into the science classroom when scientific "facts" are pushed through the textbooks that brainwash students into thinking the earth magically appeared out of nothing, and that ultimately, life formed from a rock(which coincedentally appeared out of absolute nothingness).
These so-called scientific "facts" are simply propaganda that give people a deceptive alternative to believing they were created. It gives them a crutch to reject the Bible. Everyone is free to choose to reject it or accept it, but when science classes fool people into thinking there is no God using false scientific claims, that's the point when religion is brought into the science classroom.
At least with ID in the science classroom, it gives the students an alternative to the falsities being plugged down their ear-holes, and allows them to decide on which way they want to go.

Re:The limits of science (mod parent up)

[sumdumass]

Religion only enters into the science classroom when scientific "facts" are pushed through the textbooks that brainwash students into thinking the earth magically appeared out of nothing, and that ultimately, life formed from a rock(which coincedentally appeared out of absolute nothingness).

The point is that science and religion can co exists withing their own respective fields. Science doesn't need to touch religion at all and when it is taught in the context of science, instead of world politics or whatever, it doesn't infringe or brainwash anything. the schools don't teach religion, at least not public schools, on a level that could lead to a proper understanding of the religion.

This idea isn't out of the ordinary. We often compartmentalize bits of knowledge in the pursuit of understanding different things.

These so-called scientific "facts" are simply propaganda that give people a deceptive alternative to believing they were created. It gives them a crutch to reject the Bible. Everyone is free to choose to reject it or accept it, but when science classes fool people into thinking there is no God using false scientific claims, that's the point when religion is brought into the science classroom.
At least with ID in the science classroom, it gives the students an alternative to the falsities being plugged down their ear-holes, and allows them to decide on which way they want to go.

Well, your making my point without wanting to I think. You see, If I was to tell you that all round object weighed 2 lbs and all square objects weighed 3.5 pounds You would probably look at me like I was crazy. You certainly have key rings and other objects I just described that weigh more or less then 2 or 2.5 pounds. SO when I say when working with this set of objects right here, all round object are 2 and all square objects are 2.5, then my meaning is better understood and you can use that to build off of in relation to that set of objects.

Well, it is the same in science. Especially when it is taught in schools. Science says X, you look around and don't automatically see X but it is what they are telling you. So when you know that X in the terms of science has a meaning specific to science, then you can build off of it within the respect of science. But when you have teachers saying that the bible is wrong, or any other explanation is wrong, this is the only true word-science, you end up with science attempting to tread onto religion and whatever else. So keeping things within the respect of their fields stops them from crossing into related fields and causing conflicts where there should be none.

I understand your sentiment that it all relates back to something magically happening. Either by intelligent design, God willing it to happen, or somehow matter appearing and an extraordinary set of circumstances following in a way that just happened to create life and the worlds as we know them. The problem is, there needs to be a way to build of all these scenarios to the extent that they will allow us progress. And when we use one of them, taking ideas or techniques from another doesn't always lead us to predictable results. You surely wouldn't take the procedures for making biscuits and implement the same procedures for making a gravy or sauce. It wouldn't produce what you wanted. So there is no reason why we cannot keep science, religion and anything else that attempts to explain the same areas separate and within their own context. Especially when in a scholarly environment and a good portion of the instructions will be based of the previous.

There is no reason at all that a public school system should be touching religion in any respect. This is a way of getting an education that allows the participation in sciences that do not deprive anyone from any other experience or religion. and when taught this way, it is no different then saying you spell something a certain way in this language and another way in that language.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[SanityInAnarchy]

First off. Did you use BBcode option to reply? It is rather nicely formatted, much nicer than the normal Italics stuff...

I used HTML. The style I use is <blockquote> for quoting and <p> tags for my own paragraphs.

Your original statement is not logical from where I stand. Do you say that there is only one approach to coming to a logical conclusion?

Depends what you mean by "approach". There are certainly often multiple, well-formed arguments which lead to the same conclusion. But a well-formed argument is not a logical one.

There are four personality types (depending on who you ask, but there we could go on forever on another topic altogether) and each one of them approaches a set problem in a certain manner that is logical to that personality type.

See, the thing about logic is that it's universal. There is no such thing as "is logical to that personality type" -- something is either logical or it isn't. It is the "mathematical" or "formal" approach, yes, but that is what "logical" is actually defined to mean.

Let me put it this way: Given the assumptions of basic algebra (and there are actually quite a lot of assumptions), 2+2=4. Given the assumptions of Euclidian geometry, the sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 degrees. These are theorums, which is to say that you cannot argue against them, because they are logical. Thus, the only way they are not true is if you change the assumptions -- in certain non-Euclidian geometry, for instance, the sum of the angles in a triangle can vary. (If that triangle is on the surface of a sphere, for instance.)

The reason I am interested in logical arguments is that I can actually make my own logical arguments against them, either by attacking their assumptions (implicit or not), or by showing a flaw in their reasoning. And furthermore, someone could actually convince me of God by making a logical argument, if they limit themselves to only assumptions I share.

She asks when something will be done, I say soon, she wants a set time. Oh some days...

See, I'm actually the same way, but that's more because I'm somewhat lazy, and I don't actually know how long things will take.

If you excuse me to be so bold, but read some work of Josh Mcdowell.

Any in particular you recommend? I'll try to find some...

Yes Jesus taught people to love their neighbor. He also taught that God is the highest authority on earth. He also taught that Christians would be persecuted for their faith. He told the apostles that they would die for their faith.

Even this could be disputed.

We know what he taught through people who wrote about it after his death, some hundreds of years after his death. That is what I mean by "revisionist history" -- even if you go back to the original Greek, there are some Gospels which are included, some which aren't; some don't agree with each other, even with the ones which were included; and as I said, some were written quite awhile after Christ's death.

The Bible has a lot of metaphor in it doesn't it. There are ways of determining what was metaphor, and what was not.

How so?

I ascribe to the Christian view, you would not, I can however say that if you are basing your argument here on say the Davinci Code you should really find a better source.

Nope. Haven't read it or seen the movie.

I'm actually basing this on somewhat vague memories of things like History Channel documentaries. I should check Wikipedia, but I'll let you do that if you want.

I won't go too far into that here, if you are interested in that you should go to http://godgab.org/ and check in the Christianity section.

Thanks. I've been

straw man, straw man!

[pikine]

Err, I'm not talking about specieation, you dumb ass. Don't change the topic. Science cannot answer the question where the original specie, the one without the ancestor, came from.

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[AndGodSed]

(I see you posted on my blog ;)) Sorry for taking a while to get back to ya, had a rough weekend...

And furthermore, someone could actually convince me of God by making a logical argument, if they limit themselves to only assumptions I share.

I have skipped to this point because I basically agree with you on most of your points on logic, except on the point that logic is necessarily universal. The universality of logic depends on the field of study, as in your example Mathematical logic is generally universal.

As to the above quote. Maybe it would help speed things along by listing your assumptions? Until then I will say this: Why should a person when using logic limit themselves to your assumptions only? Remember, that believing in God, or coming to that belief, opens up a whole can of new possible assumptions.

Then there is something else, and I have seen this happen, but I do not expect you to take only my word for it.

I have heard many times that the most logical arguments cannot convince someone of the existence of God, there I disagree slightly, but that the Holy Spirit convinces. Now as to why I disagree, I have seen and read about how logical arguments have convinced people of the existence of God. BUT I have also seen and read how a person through personal conviction have accepted the existence of God.

Now I assume from what you have written that you are more an Agnostic than an outright Atheist, or at least a soft Atheist, so you have not discounted the possibility of God existing.

Now a logical argument can convince you of the possibility of God existing, the apostle Paul did that many times as it is recorded in the Bible, but to accept Jesus as your Saviour takes the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and then a step of faith.

But let's backtrack a bit here.

I do not expect you to believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit, nor do I expect you to accept my arguments on how the step of faith things work, they were only thrown in for clarifying a few issues.

Now as to this point:

The reason I am interested in logical arguments is that I can actually make my own logical arguments against them, either by attacking their assumptions (implicit or not), or by showing a flaw in their reasoning.

Now that is an attractive position from any perspective. The attraction of logic is exactly as you say, logical arguments can be made for and against.

However, I posit (is that even the correct word?) that what is logical develops as we learn. Years ago is would seem illogical to say that a particle of matter could exist in two places at the same time, or that two particles of matter could occupy the same time and space simultaneously. Now through the wonderful science of physics it has been proven via experimentation to be a theoretical possibility.

Now one of the things that the Bible says is that God is/can be in more than one place at the same time. I think the term is omnipresent. Now that would seem an illogical thing to believe about God, it is simply not possible, is it? Well through scientific study it has been shown that it could be a theoretical possibility. So it is perfectly logical for me to say God is omnipresent. And you should add those assumptions then to your list, since it is a logical position to hold, science supports it.

Closing off on this point, what if someone knows what you don't, and makes a logical argument based on that knowledge? To you it would seem illogical, and flawed, and you would be perfectly justified in arguing from your base of knowledge, but the discussion would go nowhere if both parties are not at least willing to assume that there are limits to their own knowledge, and debate from that standpoint rather than from "If it is illogical to me therefore it must be flawed and therefore it must be false."

I am not alluding to so called "revealed knowledge", I find people who argue from that point and refu

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[SanityInAnarchy]

Maybe it would help speed things along by listing your assumptions?

To be fair, I'll limit myself to the useful assumptions. I don't even take these absolutely on faith, but if I only listed the assumptions which I absolutely have faith in, you would have no hope of convincing me of anything.

This is probably not a complete list, but I'll try.

• My own memory is generally trustworthy. I may not remember specific details -- names, dates, etc -- but if I remember having worked something out logically enough to believe it, I can continue to believe that without holding the entire proof in my head the whole time.
• The world which I perceive is generally consistent. I reserve the right to cheat here -- if, for instance, I saw a giant purple dragon coming out of my garage, I might wonder if I had been drugged, or was simply dreaming. But it's generally not useful to ask whether this world is real -- real or not, it simply is. Convince me that God exists in this world, and that's probably real enough.
• I, myself, am sane. This ties into "my own memory is trustworthy" -- my own logical processes are not wholly insane. I may make mistakes, but in general, if you say something that sounds insane, I might conclude that one of us must be insane. In such a case, I would also assume that it's you, by default. (No offense, but if I assume I'm not sane, I can't get anywhere.)
• Ethics are not universal, but they rhyme. Murder without cause is wrong. In fact, killing for just about any reason other than self-defense (or defense of one's family, country, etc) is wrong. And ethics should be simple -- any time I choose to judge whether something is ethical or not, I can reduce it to simple principles like that.

Why should a person when using logic limit themselves to your assumptions only?

They should not. They should only be aware of their own assumptions. In particular, weed out assumptions which are not useful, which don't ring true, which you cannot solely accept on faith. See what else falls apart if you don't assume that.

So, for example: It's possible for a person to logically believe in God. But there generally have to be different assumptions in place, and it's difficult to find a set of assumptions which prove God's existence which don't also include God's existence. (Maybe not impossible, I just don't think I've seen it done. Maybe Aquinas...)

Remember, that believing in God, or coming to that belief, opens up a whole can of new possible assumptions.

Well, or conclusions which you can use as assumptions.

Now I assume from what you have written that you are more an Agnostic than an outright Atheist, or at least a soft Atheist, so you have not discounted the possibility of God existing.

Partly. I have discounted a possibility of the Biblical God, as written, because the Bible is inconsistent. Also, there are things that the Biblical God does that have convinced me that, if such a deity did exist, I'd reject Him to His face, even side with Milton's Lucifer instead.

But, I have not discounted the possibility of any God existing, or of any God being good. Every argument I have heard and used against the existence of God is, naturally, against one definition of God, and there are many. One of them might be true, and it might even be one similar to one of those I've rejected.

However, I posit (is that even the correct word?) that what is logical develops as we learn. Years ago is would seem illogical to say that a particle of matter could exist in two places at the same time, or that two particles of matter could occupy the same time and space simultaneously. Now through the wonderful science of physics it has been proven via experimentation to be a theoretical possibility.

You see, it is not the logic itself which went away here. It is the assumptions t

Re:Education is the Solution, Religion is the Prob

[Scudsucker]

what we really would need is a peer reviewed scientific study on the subject, no?

Yup. And I doubt that the results would support your assertion that it happens often, and let me cut to the chase as to why:

In the Old Testament, people didn't believe in God just because they had been told what to believe, but because God's actions were like a tornado or an eclipse - a rare but indisputable event. People who were skeptical back then might see a flood or a plague or a miracle - things that don't happen today, or at least not a scale to where they can be verified or explained as natural events.

Agnostics or atheists don't believe in God because they either weren't raised Christians or made a decision not to believe because they haven't seen any evidence that God exists. And once they make that choice, I don't see why they would then become religious without significant evidence. I count myself as an agnostic, and until I see a burning bush, I don't see why God is any more real than Zeus or Osiris or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now some people think they've seen a burning bush, and maybe they have, but they weren't large or verifiable events. For example, there's a signer from my town named Johnny Lang. He said it was hard to describe, but he basically became a born again Christian when he felt God's presence on a breeze in an alley, IIRC.

Then there's my girlfriend: her family are immigrants from Rwanda, who fled to Kenya during the genocide in the 90's. Her mother spent many years going to the American embassy to try and get her family here. She was walking to the embassy one morning for an appointment at 10 o'clock, when she suddenly felt the desire to stop in a cathedral and pray, even though her appointment was very important and she would miss it. At about 10:45 that day, Al Queda bombed the embassy, killing over 200 people.

Now if this happened to me, I would find that pretty damned convincing. But it didn't. So until I see that burning bush, I'm going to remain a skeptic, and I imagine a lot of other atheists/agnostics are in the same boat.