Why You Might Have to Choose Between Science and Faith

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-irwin/why-you-might-have-to-cho_b_4775319.html

Ben Irwin

Posted: 02/12/2014 1:17 pm EST Updated: 02/12/2014 1:59 pm EST

In the wake of Ham v. Nye, the latest spectacle in the ongoing creation/evolution debate, cooler heads are calling for a rapprochement between science and faith.

Take, for example, Tim Stafford's impassioned plea on behalf of our children to stop treating the two pursuits as mutually exclusive:

Right now, the way we're carrying on battles over evolution, many of our children... will shy away from science because it demands that they abandon faith. They will avoid faith because it requires forsaking science. And they will have no idea -- in this realm, at least -- that it is possible to disagree with someone on the deepest level and yet treat them with respect.

Or take respected scientist (and Christian) Francis Collins, who, during a recent interview with the Huffington Post, argued that science and faith shouldn't be pitted against each other, because they ask fundamentally different questions. One is preoccupied with how things work, the other asks why.

The cooler heads are saying we can have both. We don't have to choose between science and faith.

more at link

[longship]

1. It's a difficult problem, probably without a resolution.

First, two points:

1. Yes, I can understand and sympathize with the argument in the article and even the rational behind the argument. The loony creationists have always argued that "Darwinism" (their scary word for biology) equals atheism. Pitting science versus religion definitely plays into that creationist narrative. I cannot support that it's a good idea to do that.

2. However, the creationists are definitely making a claim that religion is against science in everything they say and do. They are trying very, very hard to redefine science as supporting supernatural explanations, which goes against everything which makes science the most productive endeavor in history. As soon as one says, "God did it," that ends science.

I can appreciate the position of Richard Dawkins that the theory of evolution, and science in general, is a killer to religion. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says similar, as do many other scientists. This NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) thinking cannot be correct. Gould was clearly wrong about that because people like the creationists are overlapping all the time.

Do I think science and religion are at loggerheads? The actions of many of the most devoted believers says yes. There are many scientists who say no. The funny thing is the most outspoken of them happen to be believers, like Collins (cited in the article).

My point here is that, the extent to which the religious tread over the line and do what they are doing is the extent to which one can say that the magisteria are indeed overlapping and that science and religion cannot mix. This is in spite of the undoubtedly many counter examples like Francis Collins.

I tend to side with Dawkins on this, but I am not convinced that he's right. But religion's history on this supports Dawkins.

[cbayer]

2. Even Darwin, after much struggle, believed that science could be embraced

and did not necessarily threaten religion.

I think trying to present science in a way that does not threaten people's beliefs can and needs to be done.

And as was said in another article, it is probably best done by people who embrace both.

It's not about mixing or reconciling. It's about understanding that they are different and not at war with each other.

As long as there are those that believe that they cannot co-exist and one of them has to go, we will indeed be at loggerheads.

[longship]

5. I agree with your recommendation, but only in part.

I think one needs to present science as if it does not threaten people's beliefs. But unfortunately that does not always work. And in the USA it does not work very well at all because creationism has such a strong grip here. In spite of any desire to be non-confrontational, the confrontation is inevitable.

I whole-heartedly agree that theistic scientists can help smooth the way, but because of the huge amount of overt anti-science exhibited by religious people it cannot be the only tactic. Sometimes one has to take a hard stance and say, "enough of this shit."

Make no mistake, my friend, a sizable chunk of religion is at war with science in the USA. And they have significant political power. I cannot be nice about that no matter how many people think the magisteria are non-overlapping. Here in the USA they are overlapping an awful lot.

(Send up some warmth, please.)

[cbayer]

7. Agree that it doesn't always work, but what is being done isn't working

either, so there seems little harm in trying to find new ways of addressing this.

I think we have stopped cultivating a child's natural interest in science. Curricula have made it boring and focused on memorization. Blech.

OTOH, some religious groups have made religion fascinating. Kids apparently love Ham's museum. I adored the Museum of Science and Industry as a kid, but there are so few places like that.

Would love to send you some warmth as it would be great to bring the thermostat down a notch or two today. I can't even imagine what it is like in the summer here (and don't really intend to find out).

[longship]

10. Ham's museum is 100% lies.

How can that be good in any way? His position is indefensible.

[cbayer]

13. Right, but it's fun!

So kids like it and he's got his foot in the door in a way that science sometimes doesn't.

[longship]

22. But that museum is an exemplar of everything that is wrong about religion.

And it is also an exemplar of why religion is at war with science and why I will never, ever make peace with religion as long as it does this crap. And I don't care if it's fun. It's just plain evil to make a fun game out of abject lies.

Sorry, my friend. As you can tell, I feel quite strongly about this.

Regards.

[cbayer]

24. I am by no means defending the museum.

I think it's a disgrace. I am just pointing out that he found a way to preach his message in a way that appeals to children and that science often misses the opportunity to do that.

Those who want to challenge what he is doing can't just stamp their feet. They (we) need to find a way to counter it.

[longship]

25. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is doing just that.

As has Bill Nye. Both of them for years. Of course, there are others, too. Carl Sagan comes to mind.

The new Cosmos with Tyson hosting begins on March 9th. I can't think of a better way to make a positive response. The Fox entertainment channels are promoting the hell out it.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Space-Time_Odyssey

And the official trailer:

[cbayer]

26. Agree about NDT and glad to see that he will be starting a new series soon.

Kids (and adults) really need more and more of this.

Critical thinking - the biggest lacunae in the american educational system, imo.

With so much "information" available on the internet, the inability to assess the source, the methods and draw a conclusion as to whether it should even be taken seriously at all is a massive problem, imo.

If you can't do that, you are much likely to just swallow whatever anyone tells you.

[longship]

31. You got it, cbayer! Remember Mr. Wizard?

Don Herbert. I watched him on TV in the 1950's.

There's always been good science on the media, even before cable.

But I agree. There's too much crap today and critical thinking is the solution.

[cbayer]

34. Oh, man, I loved that show

I was in a store recently and saw some chemistry sets. I remembered my first one and how I felt it was the best present I had ever received. I wanted a Barbie, but I craved a chemistry set.

And now I do my science in the kitchen, which my husband calls my laboratory.

And I get to eat it!

[longship]

36. That's just beautiful.

I'll bet it's just plain yummy! Now you've made me hungry. Gotta make dinner.

To my kitchen where I mostly make messes.

[cbayer]

37. Enjoy. I've been cooking black beans all night and am

about to "refry" some of them

And I'm making some green rice.

Simple but oh so delicious.

Have a great evening, my friend.

[Deep13]

78. Darwin eventually discarded religion because it is incompatible with science. nt

[cbayer]

81. I think Darwin's beliefs and lack of beliefs are much more complex than that.

I've never felt it was simply about incompatibility.

And it's not clear where he really stood at the time of his death, at least not to me and many others.

Anyway, the "demons" he wrestled with after his discoveries are a fascinating look at the intersection of faith and science.

[Deep13]

85. His auto-biography makes it clear that he was a complete skeptic at the end of his life.

He wrote it for friends and not for publication.

[cbayer]

89. But there are reports that he took a different position as he was dying.

It doesn't really matter. He definitely struggled, as so many do, with his beliefs and lack of beliefs.

Only he really knew where he ended up and, in the end, what difference does it make?

The writings on his internal battles are fascinating though.

[gcomeau]

152. Those reports were bald faced lies...

...of an evangelizing charlatan 'lying for Jesus' that were directly refuted by Darwin's entire family.

[cbayer]

153. Well, that's one interpretation and since neither

of us were there, it's hard to say definitively what really went on.

I have read some places that his wife reported a great deal of ambivalence.

Anyway, what difference does it make? It's a deeply personal decision which has absolutely no bearing on his mark as a scientist.

I have been interested in his struggles around religion and the impact his findings had on both his personal religious views and religion as a whole, but it makes no difference to me where he ended up.

I think he most consistently defined himself as agnostic and took no position either way, which makes a great deal of sense to me.

[gcomeau]

154. His family was.

And they say the lying charlatan wasn't, never visited, and made the entire story up.

That is not "an interpretation".

And if you thought it made no difference *you* wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

[cbayer]

155. Hadn't read that. Do you have a link?

[gcomeau]

156. Here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion#Spurious_deathbed_conversions

From Darwin's son: "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply." [15]

From Darwin's daughter: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever."[16]

[cbayer]

157. Thanks. That's a story about his having expressed regret that

he had published his findings and said he had converted.

The family disputed that he did this, and I would tend to believe them.

But he most consistently identified himself as agnostic and I think he probably remained "not knowing" until his death.

[Warren Stupidity]

158. +1

Plate of stfu deftly served. But for some here utter bullshit and the eyewitness accounts of close relatives are all equally valid. Who are we to judge.

[Brainstormy]

180. There are ALWAYS such reports

when a famous atheist dies.

[cbayer]

181. He never identified as an atheist, but

his conflict and ambivalence about religion are well documented through all of his adult life.

[Brettongarcia]

199. Lots of pressure from family and Catholic Church, to "accept" God in the last breath; and be "saved"

At the last second.

Possibly (though not likely) some actually do acquiesce. Or utter an old-fashioned prayer in the end, out of habit.

Or often, priests and family may like to SAY that the dying expressed faith in the last minute.

But we should look at the bulk of a person's work; not any last-minute confessions or contrition or rumors.

[Fumesucker]

3. The human brain is a pattern recognition machine among a great many other things

It's such a good pattern recognition machine that we can see patterns that aren't even there, Mohammed in a burnt bagel or whatever.

Is the particular bent we have for making up stories to try and explain things to ourselves in the absence of actual knowledge an artifact of our pattern recognition abilities?

Do we respond to patterns in nature that make us perceive "god" when "god" isn't really there at all?

http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm#Notes

And that brings us to the final question, lurking way down in the anoxic zone: the question of what consciousness costs. Compared to nonconscious processing, self-awareness is slow and expensive112. (The premise of a separate, faster entity lurking at the base of our brains to take over in emergencies is based on studies by, among others, Joe LeDoux of New York University117­, 118). By way of comparison, consider the complex, lightning-fast calculations of savantes; those abilities are noncognitive119, and there is evidence that they owe their superfunctionality not to any overarching integration of mental processes but due to relative neurological fragmentation4. Even if sentient and nonsentient processes were equally efficient, the conscious awareness of visceral stimuli—by its very nature— distracts the individual from other threats and opportunities in its environment. (I was quite proud of myself for that insight. You'll understand how peeved I was to discover that Wegner had already made a similar point back in 1994120.) The cost of high intelligence has even been demonstrated by experiments in which smart fruit flies lose out to dumb ones when competing for food121, possibly because the metabolic demands of learning and memory leave less energy for foraging. No, I haven't forgotten that I've just spent a whole book arguing that intelligence and sentience are different things. But this is still a relevant experiment, because one thing both attributes do have in common is that they are metabolically expensive. (The difference is, in at least some cases intelligence is worth the price. What's the survival value of obsessing on a sunset?)

While a number of people have pointed out the various costs and drawbacks of sentience, few if any have taken the next step and wondered out loud if the whole damn thing isn't more trouble than it's worth. Of course it is, people assume; otherwise natural selection would have weeded it out long ago. And they're probably right. I hope they are. Blindsight is a thought experiment, a game of Just suppose and What if. Nothing more.

On the other hand, the dodos and the Steller sea cows could have used exactly the same argument to prove their own superiority, a thousand years ago: if we're so unfit, why haven't we gone extinct? Why? Because natural selection takes time, and luck plays a role. The biggest boys on the block at any given time aren't necessarily the fittest, or the most efficient, and the game isn't over. The game is never over; there's no finish line this side of heat death. And so, neither can there be any winners. There are only those who haven't yet lost.

[cbayer]

4. Wow, that is one dense article.

I'm glad someone understands it, but it sure isn't me.

[Fumesucker]

6. A lot of it is informed speculation, extrapolation and so on

Study of not-normal psyches, minds and altered states of consciousness has left us with a great deal of data that's often confusing and not always self consistent. Kind of like quantum phenomena where a photon acts like a wave and a particle depending on how you test it. The article was just riffing on some possible takes of some of the confusing and inconsistent parts, you'd have to read the book it is notes for in order to understand much of it and it's more than likely not your cup of Earl Grey.

We are very weird bags of watery biological sludge, our senses only report a tiny percentage of what's actually going on around us and that small percentage is subject to an entire encyclopedia's worth of errors in the perception.

[cbayer]

9. The brain/mind dichotomy really interests me.

At one time I believed that it all could be explained by brain, but I'm not totally convinced.

How can two people see exactly the same thing or have exactly the same experience, but walk away with markedly different perceptions? Can similar neuropathways really be that significantly different between individuals? Probably, but will we ever really understand it to that degree.

In some ways, I hope not. Certain things benefit from a degree of mystery and ambiguity.

The book is definitely not my cup of Earl Grey, though.

[Fumesucker]

16. We have no examples of mind without a brain that I'm aware of

We do however have some intriguing evidence that intelligence does not necessarily require consciousness, self-awareness in other words.

So to my mind the dichotomy is more between intelligence and consciousness.

Were our ancestors always conscious after they reached a certain level of intelligence or is consciousness itself perhaps a fairly recent development that's as much cultural as biological?

[cbayer]

19. There are still many things which we assume are brain functions but really are

clueless about what that function might actually be.

Complex emotional states being right up there.

[phil89]

82. Isn't it

an argument from ignorance to assume the functions are anything but brain functions? Sure there's a lot we don't know about the brain, but that's just it, we don't know. No need to insert extra variables with no evidence in my opinion.

[cbayer]

87. An argument from ignorance as in "We don't know the answer to that at this time"?

To rule out any potential variables is just bad science, imo.

[phil89]

90. No

It's "we don't know the answer, so instead of making something up, let's keep investigating".

[cbayer]

92. Oh, ok. I think many religious people do keep investigating.

And most will readily acknowledge that their beliefs are based on faith and not data.

It's not science, it's religion.

[phil89]

95. Ok

And what method do they use to investigate?

[cbayer]

98. Not sure what you are asking.

People that investigate in areas like religion and philosophy use their minds, they ask questions, they consider perspectives, they reflect on their personal experiences.

Again, it's not science, it's religion.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. so your claim is that there is serious investigation going with respect to theory of consciousness

by people with degrees in religion?

Who? Where?

There is lots of serious investigations going on at the nexus of philosophy and neurology regarding consciousness, I just haven't heard about anything going on from the doctor of divinity crowd. Please do elaborate.

[tblue37]

30. Check out Julian Jaynes's _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. nt

[spin]

8. I see no major problem in believing in a creator and also believing in evolution. ...

It is also possible that religion came about because of evolution. As mankind moved from hunter gatherers to farmers, they were able to form larger and larger communities. In order to be successful these early cities needed a system of laws and a method of enforcement. Religion helps to establish order in a society by teaching that acting responsibly will be rewarded by the gods and not believing will result in punishment for the entire community.

The next important step in our evolution is to find a way to curb our aggressive tendencies. It could be argued that the art of warfare has advanced our technology significantly over the centuries but now endangers the survival of our species. Perhaps the next big step in our evolutionary process is to set up colonies in our solar system and then to explore the near galaxy. We will probably have to learn how to live in peace with each other before we can pass this test and leave our solar system. If we fail, we may have to start all over again. Sadly, our different religions appear to cause much of the hatred in our world today.

If there is a creator, he is far beyond our understanding. My cat is laying on the couch beside me enjoying the heat from a portable heater. He might realize that I can turn this heater on and off but will never understand electricity. Viewing him as an angry old man sitting on a cloud is at the best extremely insulting.

[cbayer]

12. And you are not alone.

While I think people often reach very different conclusions, many can see that one does not obliterate the other.

I can certainly see the evolutionary advantage of religion, very similar to what you describe.

And I also don't think we are top of the universal food chain and that it is more likely than not that other "things" have evolved much further than we have. Whether that represents some kind of god or not, I have no idea.

If you like the futuristic ideas about this and how they intersect with religion, you might really enjoy "The Sparrow" by Mary Doria Russell.

[spin]

55. Thanks. I downloaded "The Sparrow" and look forward to reading it. ...

Currently I am reading "The Golem and the Jinni" by Helene Wecker. I'm about 1/3 through and so far I've found it to be a excellent read. Religion plays a role in this novel also.

[cbayer]

56. Will look into that.

The Sparrow has been one of the more important books in my life.

I can't really explain why, but it changed my views in some significant ways.

The sequel, "Children of God", is also good, but not as good, imo.

I am reading "Bel Canto" right now, after having given up novels for about a year. It's captivating and keeping me up far too late at night.

Let me know what you think of The Sparrow, spin.

[spin]

62. It may be a while until I get to it. ...

But I will let you know when I do.

[Brettongarcia]

136. In the meantime, thanks for your evolutionary idea: religion as materially functional(at times).

Probably major elements of anthropology would confirm your notion.

Though by the way, I'm not sure I would call it biological or evolution, as much as ... cultural. Human beings realized they needed this or that to survive and cohere as working tribes, nations. Then they generated the major principles, and deified them.

Woodbridge Goodman's specific theory of the origin of Judaism and Christianity, is that it is in effect a distillation of the old Lord/serf cultures. The "Lord" who owns the land, allows you to live (on it), and to protect your life, "save" you, with his armies or helpers and so forth; provided that you, as payment, "sacrifice" a portion of your crops or "fruits" to him at appropriate times.

[spin]

141. My son in law who is agnostic feels religion is the Santa Claus story for adults. ...

If you are good, you are rewarded but if you are bad you get a lump of coal.

The basic message of most religions is to treat your neighbor as you would have him treat you. If a majority of the people in a society follow this advice, it will help create a well organized and fairly crime free way of life.

My father was also agnostic but he had read and studied the Bible in his youth in a Catholic school. He had an in depth knowledge of the book and could point out the many discrepancies that show that the Bible is not the literal word of God. In his later years he advised me. "You can chose to believe in Christianity or not but if there is any truth to the religion, you will be ahead of the game if you believe."

Now that I have retired, I have time to study religion and mythology. I have read various versions of the Bible during my life and just finished reading a new version called The Voice Bible. I have started reading another version plus commentary the Quest Study Bible. I'm am also reading a translation of the Koran titled The Meaning of the Qur'an in Today's English and am about 1/3 of the way through. (It's been an interesting read so far.) I am also reading an excellent commentary on the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) titled Biblical Literacy" by Joseph Telushin.

Yet few Christians would call me one of the flock. I don't attend church as I sometimes wonder if God is actually there. I also fear that I would be a bad influence in any adult Sunday school class. The god I believe in is the local Christian God as I fear I lack the cultural background to truly understand Buddhism or Hinduism. I also accept the fact that the god I believe in is far beyond my limited comprehension and intelligence. To ask a human to understand God would be like asking an ant to understand a human.

I do pray and I feel what little faith I have has enabled me to better handle the death of my only child two years ago. I had an atheist friend who stated that religion is just a crutch. Still there are times that a crutch can be very handy.

I plan to read the The Sparrow after I finish The Golem and the Jenni. This has been such a good book that I am trying to make the experience of reading last as long as possible. I read perhaps one chapter a day.

[Fumesucker]

20. The most fervently religious nations are not the most peaceful or ordered ones

Not by a long shot.

Your theory above would not seem to account for this, the most religious nations following logically from your theory should be the most ordered, obedient and peaceful..

[spin]

51. Throughout our history, the United States has had a strong religious foundation. ...

Still it would be hard to view our nation as peaceful or for that matter well ordered or obedient to those in power. We were born in rebellion and survived a bloody civil war that threatened to divide our nation in two. We have fought many wars against other nations across the globe to spread our influence and power and to allow our corporations to profit from the blood that many brave Americans shed.

Our citizens have a strong distrust of our government and many cherish the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as it allows us to own firearms which they feel will eventually be necessary to overthrow an oppressive government in the future. (The chances of such a rebellion succeeding are questionable at best.)

At one time during the early days of the industrial revolution, robber barons exploited their workers to amass enormous fortunes. The workers formed labor unions to fight for better pay and working conditions and the government often sided with the rich industrialists. Our nation went through a period of violence that eventually broke the power of the rich and insured that we had a large middle class in our nation.

According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world, and there have been few industries which have been immune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence

Yet we rapidly became the most powerful country in the world largely because we were able to invent, develop and use technology to our advantage. We also timed our entry into WWI and WWII extremely well.

The Roman Empire was well ordered and fairly peaceful although it had the ability to squash any rebellion and did so for centuries. The Roman emperor Constantine the Great decided to make Christianity the official state religion possibly because he realized that it would become a unifying force that would strengthen his empire.

Religion has and is being used gain some control over societies and also often misused to launch wars such as the Crusades. In order for a nation to become a true world power it can't be well ordered, peaceful and obedient. There's a delicate balancing act involved between these three factors. However a powerful nation can be extremely religious.

In my opinion a truly peaceful world would advance far slower than a violent world such as we live in. Like it or not competition drives technology and the threat of war or actual combat is the ultimate competition. But as I pointed out, we now have achieved the ability to destroy our civilization. Our next step in our evolution had better be finding the ability for the nations of our world to get along with each other.

I hate to say it, but that might require a true world government with the might to squash any nation if necessary. That would also mean all nations would be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction and no longer have a strong standing military. I can't see this happening anytime in the near future unless we have a limited nuclear war. Such a war could be the wake up call our world needs.

[Deep13]

83. If evolution explains the development of life, what did the creator do?

The Old Testament describes God as an angry old man, but one too glorious to look at. Anyway, what theists believe in is not much more believable than the old man in the sky.

I suppose you could rely on God-of-the-gaps to say He created the parts of the universe that we do not yet understand, but those gaps have become rather small and are shrinking all the time. Nothing we do understand requires a divine creator as part of the explanation. And evolution positively rules out divine intervention in the development of life.

[spin]

109. There's much about the universe that we don't understand. ...

For example we don't understand gravity. We infer there is something called dark matter and dark energy because something has to account for the missing mass-energy of the universe. We have a fair grasp of classical mechanics or Newtonian mechanics but we find quantum mechanics much more difficult to comprehend.

The more we learn, the more questions we find to ask. One hundred years from now we may have answered many of the mysteries that baffle us today, but may have found even deeper mysteries that we need to explain.

In my own mind I am not absolutely certain that there is a creator but I am also not arrogant enough to declare that there can not be one. I can accept the fact that a creator could set up a system of laws for the development of a universe including evolution and if he chose, he might act to influence the results. When I cook chili I sometimes taste it and add salt, sugar or red pepper to make it taste better.

The Old Testament and especially its first book Genesis is a collection of myths told around campfires for centuries. Many of the stories are quite similar to the stories and myths of other older civilizations such as the one that existed in Sumer. The biblical patriarch Abram (a.k.a. Abraham) originally may have come from the Sumerian city Ur, which would help explain the similarities of the flood stories in both civilizations as well as several other myths.

[Deep13]

121. It's not arrogance, it's honesty.

Arrogance, if it means anything in this context, is assuming that someone purposeful, that is, someone like us, is behind it all. No evidence exists for divine presence. The ONLY reason this is even a discussion is because humans have always believed in God/gods because humans are evolved to see purpose in everything. But an examination of the evidence does not suggest the existence of anything supernatural, let alone divine. We think it is possible because we want it to be.

[spin]

122. Scientists have often been wrong. ...

For example:


Nuclear Power
There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
- Albert Einstein, 1932.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
British mathematician and physicist

...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer,
head of the U.S. Naval Observatory

Interestingly while Einstein was sometimes wrong, he had an opinion on religion which I find interesting and largely agree with.

Agnosticism, Deism and atheism

Einstein rejected the label atheist. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[19]

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things....emphasis added[div]

***snip***

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful.[22] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."[22][23] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[Act_of_Reparation]

131. Name one naturalistic theory that has been supplanted by a supernatural explanation...

...and then maybe we can discuss whether or not you raise a valid point.

[spin]

139. That's a fair challenge and impossible to do as a supernatural event can't be explained by

science as it lies outside the normal and can't be duplicated in experiments.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Currently classical physics does a good job of explaining our world at the macro level, however it breaks down at the sub atomic level where we find that two particles can exist in the same place at the same time or once entangled can instantly communicate with each other at a distance. Perhaps as our knowledge of quantum mechanics grows we will see science growing more accepting of theology. There are some indications that this is already beginning to happen.

Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?
By Stephen M. Barr
July 10, 2012

Not in any direct way. That is, it doesn’t provide an argument for the existence of God. But it does so indirectly, by providing an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or “physicalism”), which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today’s world.

Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it’s supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities --- if any there be. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena. No room for a spiritual soul or free will: for materialists we are just “machines made of meat.”

***snip***

The upshot is this: If the mathematics of quantum mechanics is right (as most fundamental physicists believe), and if materialism is right, one is forced to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. And that is awfully heavy baggage for materialism to carry.

If, on the other hand, we accept the more traditional understanding of quantum mechanics that goes back to von Neumann, one is led by its logic (as Wigner and Peierls were) to the conclusion that not everything is just matter in motion, and that in particular there is something about the human mind that transcends matter and its laws. It then becomes possible to take seriously certain questions that materialism had ruled out of court: If the human mind transcends matter to some extent, could there not exist minds that transcend the physical universe altogether? And might there not even exist an ultimate Mind?
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

Many people automatically assume that a scientist doesn't believe in a god but that is far from true.

What do scientists think about religion?

Members of the scientific community are often seen as doubting Thomases, but the reality is more complex. Even Charles Darwin may have made room for God.
November 24, 2009|By David Masci

Today, a century and a half after Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not....emphasis added

***snip***

But the Pew poll found that levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%). And younger scientists (ages 18 to 34) are more likely than older ones to believe in God or a higher power.

If a substantial portion of the scientific community is made up of believers, why do so many people think evolution and religion are incompatible? It may be because some of our most famous and prolific scientists, such as American evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and British physicist Stephen Hawking, were or are atheists and agnostics. But what about Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, who was recently appointed as director of the National Institutes of Health by President Obama? Collins is an evangelical Christian who speaks passionately about his faith -- and also thinks evolution is an established scientific fact.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

You will of course disagree but I feel that in the future perhaps 100 to 500 years from now scientists may largely accept the concept of a creator as the final explanation for the unexplainable. This doesn't necessarily mean that they will accept any of the popular religions many believe in today.

Time will tell.

[Deep13]

142. How did they find out they were wrong? nt

[spin]

144. Sometimes when something goes bang. ...

Chernobyl

April 26, 1986, was the day Soviet nuclear experts learned the true meaning of the word oops. During a test of one of Chernobyl's four reactors, they turned off the backup cooling system and used only eight boron-carbide rods to control the rate of fission instead of the 15 rods required as standard operating procedure. A runaway chain reaction blew the steel and concrete lid off the reactor and created a fireball, releasing 100 times more radiation than did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs combined. Some 4,300 people eventually died as a result, and more than 70,000 were permanently disabled.
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/#.Uv7xeH-9KSM

[Deep13]

145. So Chernobyl proves there is a god?

I think you are confusing science with applied technology.

They found out with more science. Obviously. Scientists have wrong ideas all the time. Eventually they find out about it and correct it. The scientific method of constant skepticism is always the way to find the answers.

[spin]

146. Of course not. Your question was how did scientists figure out that they were wrong? ...

My answer was somewhat sarcastic.

Currently science largely accepts the "Big Bang Theory" as the explanation of the origin of our universe approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Still there are problems with this theory that may be overcome in time or research may prove it false.

One of the major problems with the Big Bang Theory is that it eventually says something had to come from nothing. That opens up the possibility of a creator.

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[46] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[47] ...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Today we have many competing theories such as string theory and the multiverse theory that require many dimensions that we are unable to detect or parallel universes. Some theorize that our universe may just be one bubble universe in a multiverse with an infinite number of bubble universes.

In his 2003 NY Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :[29]

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions.Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith....emphasis added

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

It does seem that religion and science are growing closer and more accepting of each other. That's why I personally believe that in the future a higher percentage of scientist will accept the possibility of a creator. Of course there will always be scientists who are atheists and religious people who result to accept the theory of evolution and insist our world is only 6000 years old.

[Lordquinton]

147. "it eventually says something had to come from nothing"

So dos the creator theory. Where did the creator come from?

In the words of Carl "Why don't we save a step and say the universe has always existed?"

[spin]

171. The creator is eternal to us. ...

But he may simply be a computer programer in a different universe.

If so Shakespeare was right.

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.

William Shakespeare

We don't believe that the universe has always existed because it is expanding and that would suggest that at sometime in the past it was much smaller, perhaps infinitely small. We don't believe it will eventually collapse and then re expand because the rate of expansion is increasing.

Big Bang

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[7][8][9][10] At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms that were produced by the Big Bang are hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.[11] The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of light elements, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations. As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The consequence of this is that the characteristics of the universe can be calculated in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[12][13][14] while large particle accelerators replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model. On the other hand, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes, and astronomers are prevented from seeing the absolute earliest moments in the universe by various cosmological horizons. The earliest instant of the Big Bang expansion is still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

***snip***

While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories—the Big Bang and the Steady State theory,[16] observational confirmation of the Big Bang scenario came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and later when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body. Since then, astrophysicists have incorporated observational and theoretical additions into the Big Bang model, and its parametrization as the Lambda-CDM model serves as the framework for current investigations of theoretical cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Accelerating universe

The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[3][4] since around redshift of z~0.5.[5] The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z&quot supernovae.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Of course 50 years from now we probably will have an entirely different theory widely accepted by scientists. By that time we may have proved the existence of parallel universes and believe that our universe was created when two universes collided with each other.

[Lordquinton]

175. But, by your words, the creator needs a creator

even if it's in another universe, it all comes down to "God did it" and you're refusing to accept that, maybe, there isn't one, and the universe has always existed.

We might have another theory, but the "big bang" is the best supported so far. A new theory will probably be built on it, and expand uupon it and the masses will cry "it was wrong the whole time! Therefore God!" when it was mostly minor details that were hashed out. A creator? zero support. zip. nada.

[spin]

183. It largely comes down to if you are openminded or not. ...

There is no irrefutable evidence that a creator either exists or does not exist. A fairly high percentage of scientists are religious or believe in a higher power.

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public. Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view....emphasis added

I can accept the fact that organized religion has often been misused throughout our history and has resulted in numerous wars and bigotry. It is also true that it has been used to squash scientific thought and consequently the development of our civilization and our technology has been hampered.

Perhaps that is why I do not belong to any organized religion. Yet I am open minded enough to accept the possibility that our universe was created by a superior being. This entity is to me far beyond my understanding and is not a old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud.

I attempt to lead my life based on the principle common in most religions that you should treat others as you would have them treat you. If there is no god and consequently no afterlife it will be inconsequential to me as I will leave this life without a tremendous amount of guilt.

I have no problems if you reject the existence of a creator as long as you do not feel that this allows you to rape and pillage or abuse the rights of others. Such an attitude is detrimental to any good society. I have known several atheists who I felt lived a more moral life than many Christians that I have known.

You suggest that I should reject the possibly of the existence of a creator because there is no verifiable evidence to support my view. I suggest that totally rejecting the possibility of a creator without evidence is somewhat foolish.

[Lordquinton]

193. Really?

I have no problems if you reject the existence of a creator as long as you do not feel that this allows you to rape and pillage or abuse the rights of others.

You're gonna go with this argument?

[skepticscott]

149. So one wonders why you brought Chernobyl into it at all

other than as a lame diversion from the real issue. If anything, Chernobyl proves that scientists knew exactly what should be done, but that even the best science can't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.

As far as the problem of infinite regress, we don't have a completely satisfactory answer to it, but it is by no means a default that nothing is more stable than something. And certainly, religion doesn't solve the problem any better than science; it simply inserts an extra factor for the benefit of emotionally needy people.

[spin]

172. So one wonders why you asked the question ...

"how did scientist figure out that they were wrong?" The answer is obviously through analyzing results.

Some scientists felt that the first test of an atomic bomb would ignite the world's atmosphere but they looked like fools after the first test. Some scientists also felt that harnessing nuclear power to produce energy that would be so inexpensive that people would not even have to have power meters on their homes but merely pay a small monthly fee. Some scientists also worried that the Large Hadron Collider would create a small black hole which would fall to the center of our planet and grow in size until it consumed the entire planet. So far that hasn't happened.

[Deep13]

163. I think you misunderstand the big bang...

...and again, this is god of the gaps. The fact that there are things we don't know and presently do not understand is not evidence that god did it.

[cbayer]

164. There is not evidence.

And my bet would be that there won't be any, at least not in my lifetime.

But for every door science opens, there is just more to explore.

Shutting any door without evidence doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

166. There is "not evidence" of the big bang?

[spin]

174. There is evidence but there are scientists who dispute it. ...

Cosmology

Science Stifled by Dogma

Funding Denied for Plasma Cosmology Research

A group of cosmologists, other scientists and engineers have published an open letter in New Scientist May 22nd 2004. Their purpose is to draw attention to the current policy on research funding which seems to be governed by dogmatism and prejudice in favour of "establishment" science. The specific case refers to the denial of funding for research into Plasma Cosmology. The Big Bang theory has been the generally accepted explanation of the origins of the Universe since 1965, in spite of serious theoretical problems. New observational evidence is now accumulating against Big Bang. Lerner and his supporters contend that Plasma Cosmology provides a superior basis for understanding the Universe. They protest that decisions on research funding are taken in the interests of supporting the status quo rather than advancing scientific understanding.
In this article we give a background to the controversy, highlight some of the severe problems which have afflicted Big Bang in recent years, and give examples of recent observational evidence which, whilst readily explained in terms of Plasma Cosmology, appears to refute Big Bang entirely.

***snip***

Flaws in the Big Bang

The recent history of the Big Bang theory has been of mathematical struggle to find solutions to a sea of problems. We are now a very long way from Hawking’s ideal of a theory which “on the basis of a few simple postulates will make definite predictions which can be tested”. For example, when it became impossible to reconcile the standard cosmological model with the Universe as it appears, the concept of inflation involving a finite period of inflationary expansion was introduced. Since the proposal of what is now termed old inflation by Guth in 1981, we have experienced new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, stochastic inflation, modified gravity, and their sub-variants. At the end of which, we have no evidence that inflation ever happened. All the above theories and their numerous variants are effectively attempts to explain the “facts” as we know them by mathematical modelling. Depending on results from the Large Hadron Collider, due to be completed at Geneva in 2005, it may be possible to determine whether we are in living in a (mem)brane universe in 11 dimensions of space time.7

It may not be unfair to conclude that the modern Big Bang theory comes with more patches and fixes than a piece of Bill Gates’ software. ...emphasis added

***snip***

Science Obstructed by Dogma In spite of the accumulation of observational evidence against it, and the array of fudge factors necessary to its survival, Big Bang remains the primary model of cosmology. The time has now come for serious investigation into an alternative explanation. This is the message of Lerner’s Open Letter. His complaint is that because of the entrenchment of Big Bang in the scientific establishment, it has become virtually impossible to obtain funding for open-minded research. Worse than that, young scientists who make bold to doubt the establishment theory put their careers in jeopardy - as Stephen Hawking did in his time. "Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed." This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Cosmology/index.html

I have no idea if any of the arguments against the Big Bang theory are valid but I do feel that it is unwise for the science community to accept one theory as gospel and reject those who disagree with it as heretics.

Religion has a long history of dogmatism but science should always be ready to consider conflicting views.

The problem may not be with the scientists but with governments who fund research.

[Warren Stupidity]

186. ah you seem to think science is another religiuon that accepts things "as gospel".

indeed it might be difficult to get funding for something that is outside the mainstream, that is always true, but physics and other branches of science are not ossified belief systems, far from it. Theories are disputed all the time. New evidence contradicts old. The whole thing, the whole enterprise of scientific exploration of reality is one of constant change, thesis and antithesis, with inexorable progress. The problems with current cosmology theories are opportunities for new and deeper understanding.

But all of this is beside the point. Cbayer seems to think there is no evidence for the big bang. There is a lot of evidence for the big bang and has been since Hubble in the 20s. Scientists might argue about exactly what all the evidence means, but there is general consensus that it means there was an event commonly referred to as the big bang 13+B years ago. The claim that there is no such evidence is stunningly misinformed.

[spin]

188. I fear science may be becoming a form of a religion. ...

That may largely be the result of government grants to do research in the areas that a political party supports. Science will not longer be the unbiased but will bend to the will of those in power.

If you look at government sponsored research on the effects of marijuana that led to our War on Drugs you may see my point.

At one time there was a general consensus that supported the Steady State Universe. Currently some cosmologists, other scientists and engineers are upset because they are unable to get funding to prove or disprove their Plasma Cosmology Theory which they hope will replace the Big Bang Theory. http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Cosmology/index.html

I understand that the research is very expensive and it is hard for our government to determine if a theory has merit. Elected politicians have little understand of science and yet they hold the purse. In the long run this could hinder good science.

[Warren Stupidity]

189. your gish gallop here is commendable.

[spin]

191. Thanks. So is yours. (n/t)

[spin]

173. Nor is it evidence that there is no creator. ...

With the knowledge we have today we can only speculate.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
― Carl Sagan

[Warren Stupidity]

187. a claim nobody here has made.

The observation that a supreme deity is not required certainly does not prove that one does not exist, it merely points out that god is in the santa claus category of uninteresting beliefs.

[spin]

190. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. ...

There is merely not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a creator, therefore it is a individual choice. It is my choice to believe in the possibility that there is a creator. The fact that you do not, does not mean that you are right and I am wrong.

All the world religions may be simply myths and childish but that does not disprove the existence of a creator.

In passing there is some basis for the Santa Claus story we tell our children today.

Pre-modern representations of the gift-giver from church history and folklore, notably St Nicholas and Sinterklaas, merged with the English character Father Christmas to create the character known to Americans and the rest of the English-speaking world as Santa Claus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

[Lordquinton]

194. You quoted Carl

Here's another quote:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

The big bang has evidence for it, and we're working on it. The whole creator thing? Not so much. You're making the claim, and it is an extraordinary one, so you should start giving us some evidence for a creator, so bring at least one actual bit of something that points to the possibility that one exists, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

[spin]

196. In the post you're replying to (190) I said...

"There is merely not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a creator." That is not an extraordinary claim.

My Carl Sagan quote agrees.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
― Carl Sagan

I have a right to my opinion just as your have a right to yours. An opinion is not an extraordinary claim and my belief in a creator is merely my opinion. I may be right and I may be wrong. Problems occur when people try to force their opinions on others as if they are gospel.

Since I do believe in a creator and do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis it would be most logical for me to support the Big Bang Theory.

Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951, opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation.[26][27] Some Conservative Protestant Christian denominations have also welcomed the Big Bang theory as supporting a historical interpretation of the doctrine of creation;[28] however, some adherents to Young Earth Creationism, which advocate a very literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, reject the theory.

It was a priest who originally proposed the idea.

Georges Lemaître

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain.[1] He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[8]

The Big Bang Theory may or may not be correct. We will probably be able to better appraise it in the next twenty years as it we get more data from observations of the universe and results from the CERN Supercollider.

[SamKnause]

11. Not a problem.

I choose science !!!

[cbayer]

15. I don't think it's you he is saying needs to choose.

[SamKnause]

18. I am well aware.

I just felt like adding my 2 cents.

[MellowDem]

14. The "cooler heads"...

Aren't the ones saying we can have both. Those are the intellectually dishonest heads. Religion doesn't ask "why", it presupposes the truth, a position that will always be at odds with science.

I'm sure it makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too, but they can't.

In fact, it is exactly these "cooler heads" that this must most bother, because it exposes their hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, it breaks through their compartmentalizations and excuses. It makes them uncomfortable.

[cbayer]

17. Sorry, MD. Lots of people do have their cake and eat it too.

You may not be one of them, and that's cool, but many people are very comfortable with it.

[MellowDem]

21. I know many people are comfortable...

Believing whatever they want. I have no idea what your comment is getting at. Plenty of conservatives are very comfortable believing false things. Is this an argument?

The whole point of compartmentalizing is to make a person feel comfortable with cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, but it still remains cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

I never claimed lots of people don't "believe" they can have their cake and eat it too, just that they can't in reality. Facts are facts whether you "believe" them or not.

I think being comfortable with false ideas is a terrible way to think and causes a lot of problems in the world, so I have no problem challenging any way of thinking that allows it, religion and it's apologists being chief among them.

[cbayer]

23. Compartmentalization can be a very useful tool.

Surgeons, police officers and many others have to employ it in order to do what needs to be done.

It is not in and of itself a bad thing.

I think having rigid ideas in general is a terrible way to think and causes a lot of problems in the world. Not having the ability to recognize that people see and experience things very differently and that one's own way of being in the world is not the only way is the key to open many doors.

It is clear you have no problem challenging what you personally experience as unacceptable. But you sure are missing out on a lot when you close your mind to them.

And who would want a world where everyone is a Spock? Not me.

[MellowDem]

29. It's a bad thing...

It is people lying to themselves in order to survive in reality. It's a necessary thing if they wish to have their cake and eat it too, but in no way is it "good" IMHO. I can't think of where or how lying to yourself is ever good.

It is always a bad thing, because it makes it easier to avoid false beliefs. It is a response to the uncomfortable feeling that can be created when critical thinking says a belief you hold is wrong. If people didn't compartmentalize, they would have to confront their dissonance. That is a good thing.

Nothing I have said shows I have "rigid" ideas. I'm willing to change my mind if I see evidence to do so. Religion, by definition, is full of rigid ideas. Compartmentalization is a symptom of rigid ideas. I have the ability to recognize that people feel and see this way, and even why they do. I used to do it myself.

I haven't closed my mind to anything. I have opinions based on my current understanding of the world, but they are subject to change should the evidence present itself. I don't have to compartmentalize precisely because I don't have rigid beliefs.

As for Spock, I'd much rather have a world full of Spocks than Cpt. Kirks, but thankfully, it's quite possible to be an emotional being and logical at the same time. It just requires a self-awareness of emotions and how they impact us, and a willingness to be frank about what our feelings are. You know, a little honesty.

[cbayer]

33. Do you have any data to back up that it is a "bad thing" or is that just part

of your belief system? Because if you don't, then you are doing exactly what you accuse others of.

Defense mechanisms can serve many purposes and can often be useful or even allow someone to survive what might otherwise be a an unsurvivable situation.

OTOH, rigidity as is displayed in your post can lead to an inability to be flexible when the situation demands it.

That is the problem with dogma.

I promise you that you compartmentalize all the time, as well as experience cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. And I guarantee you that you experienced a great deal of childhood indoctrination.

But it's always easier to see it in others.

Your beliefs, at least when it comes to religion, are about the most rigid I have seen in these parts. Others tell you that as well, but your own defense mechanisms prevent you from seeing it. You could start by dropping the repetitive use of the same phrases over and over again and try to explain things from your own perspective.

I'd much, much rather live in a world of Kirks, and thankfully I do.

[MellowDem]

60. I have very good evidence...

that false beliefs are not nearly as useful as true beliefs. I think they're better because false beliefs have never been able to be used to predict or discover anything, while beliefs based on facts and evidence have. So based on that evidence, and my preference for useful ways of thinking, yes, it's my opinion it is better. What is your evidence that false beliefs are ever good?

Defense mechanisms that only protect your ego are not good. You won't die from admitting you're wrong.

You keep projecting it seems, you say my post is "rigid" but don't ever back it up. It is an opinion. It's not a presupposed truth, something which nearly all religions rely on, and which is about as rigid as it gets. If you want to persuade me that false beliefs are great for society, have at it, if it makes sense according to my preferences, I'll change my position, or convince me to change my preferences if need be. The constant strawmen and projection get tiring.

I keep using the same terms because they are accurate. Unfortunately, you can't just pretend that my points are rigid or that I am the flip side of the coin. You have to give some sort of reasoning, and you never do.

[cbayer]

69. So where is the evidence you speak of?

I doubt there is any, because the variables would be too great. I would suggest that false beliefs (lets call them hypotheses) have led to many an important scientific discovery. That's part of the scientific process.

And since there is no proof for your belief that there is no god, your beliefs may be the false ones. However, that works for you, so is that not a good thing?

Defense mechanisms can do much more than protect your ego, but that's a completely different subject.

Projection is a defense mechanism. When you use the word, are you using it in that fashion?

Since your use of the same three phrases over and over and over again is because you find them accurate, could you provide your definitions?

[MellowDem]

118. Let's not call false beliefs hypothesis...

Because that is not what they are in any way, shape, or form.

Testing and retesting is part of the scientific process. That's what makes it great and superior to religion for being useful in discovering things. Once science proves religion is wrong, all religion does is retreat to another god of the gaps. It is useless for discovering anything.

What three phrases are you referring to? I'll google their definitions and copy and paste them here if you tell me which you are referring to.

When I use the word projection, I mean to say that I criticize religion, giving reasons behind it, then you turn the same criticisms back on me as if I'm just as guilty, sans any reasoning. You are projecting the failures of religion on to me.

[cbayer]

123. Sorry, you can't call something false unless you have some evidence that it is

in fact false.

When it comes to creationism, I think you can say that is a false belief, as there is strong contradictory evidence.

When it comes to the existence of god, you can't call it false. Well, you can, but you would be exhibiting intellectual dishonesty and probably suffering some cognitive dissonance.

And science is certainly better than religion for making scientific discoveries, but it stinks when it comes to other things like philosophy, art and music, where religion has been far superior in being an inspiration.

That is not the definition of projection. As with other terms, I think you would benefit from clearly defining them if you are going to use them. Unless you have undergone some kind of childhood indoctrination that inhibits your ability to do that, as it seems you may have been raised to think that you are absolutely right.

[skepticscott]

129. Oh, so you must mean that people who consider the existence

of Thor, Apollo, Osiris, Shiva and a myriad of other gods "false" are "exhibiting intellectual dishonesty and probably suffering some cognitive dissonance."?

Congratulations, cbayer...you've just managed to insult and denigrate pretty much everyone in the world, including most religious believers. Because there's just as much contradictory evidence for your favored god as for any of those.

Must be nice up in that ivory tower, making your daily pronouncements with just the bayer family for company.

[MellowDem]

140. It depends on how god is defined...

Some gods can be shown to be false. Others, which are invisible supernatural beings, by definition cannot be tested, so they're presumptions, and are a terrible way to think about the world. Presuming the truth based on nothing is about as arrogant as it gets. There is never the case when it's not incredibly arrogant to presume something that cannot be tested. A hypothesis requires a proposition that can be tested.

I never said the belief in any and every "god" was false, just that religions encourage false beliefs of all types by endorsing a way of thinking that will lead to false beliefs.

Everything, good and bad, can inspire art, music, and philosophy, that doesn't make them inherently good in any way.

Aside from all the strawmen, since you never challenge my criticisms of religion, but try to imply that the valid criticisms of religion somehow apply to everyone and everything, I'm guessing you actually agree with them, but are just too frustrated to acknowledge it?

[Lordquinton]

148. You can't call something true without evidence either

So you aren't being truthful yourself in this matter. The whole god thing is un-falsifiable, and thus, safely discarded as a model.

As for music art, philosophy, I think you'll find science has a lot more to do with it than religion. You declare that science stinks at it, but with nothing to back it up. Where do you think all the instruments came from? Who found the pigments? Who created all that spare time for some guys to sit around and pontificate with? (for the slow kids in class, I'm personifying science and religion here)

Religion asks questions, Science seeks answers.

[cbayer]

151. I agree and I equally reject the positions of those who claim to "know"

either way.

Science has more to do with music, art and philosophy than religion? Hardly. Science involves developing and testing hypothesis. Building an instrument may involve some mechanics, but it depends much more on things like inspiration. Discovering pigments involve an eye for color. Writing music or building cathedrals or carving a pieta have much, much more to do with religion that science, imo.

And there is nothing wrong with either asking questions or seeking answers. The only thing wrong is thinking that one is better than the other.

[Warren Stupidity]

161. "building cathedrals" really - no science there, just a minor adjunct to cathedral building.

Interesting claim.

"Building an instrument may involve some mechanics, but it depends much more on things like inspiration."

No really inspiration by itself doesn't make a great instrument. Experimentation, rigorous process control, repeatability etc are what create great instruments. Stradivarius produced one excellent stringed instrument after another because they had discovered a repeatable process for building very high quality instruments. If each one were an act of inspiration, you might have a point. But there would be like one strad in the world instead of hundreds that still exist today. What religion has to do with instrument manufacturing escapes me. Perhaps you would elaborate on that point.

[Heddi]

162. A cursory search on PBS shows at least 2 NOVA's and such devoted to cathedral building

there was far more science and engineering and physics involved than "inspiration."

Inspiration doesn't make an arch work, or a concrete dome, or increasing weight of concrete upon concrete and the use of buttresses for walls of greater height.

That's science. That's engineering. That's physics.

Religion...not so much

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365175110/

Great Cathedral Mystery
ADD
Aired: 02/12/201452:37Rating: TV-G
Master craftsmen explore how Florence’s monumental dome was built nearly 600 years ago.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1619317222/
NOVA
Building the Great Cathedrals
ADD
Aired: 10/19/201053:07Rating: TV-G
How did medieval engineers construct magnificent skyscrapers of glass and stone?

http://video.pbs.org/video/1390312942/

Riddles of the Sphinx
ADD
Aired: 01/18/201053:07Expires: 09/01/2015 Rating: TV-G
A marvel of ancient engineering is vanishing. Can it be saved?

http://video.pbs.org/video/980040228/

Secrets of the Parthenon
ADD
Aired: 01/29/2008Rating: TV-PG
How did the ancient Athenians build this near-flawless icon of Greece's golden age? Secrets of the Parthenon received a 2009 Emmy nomination for Outstanding Science, Technology and Nature Programming.

----

All of these deal with the science, engineering, and physics behind building very great and large things. Not how religion and inspiration caused them to just be built out of thin air, but how knowledge, mathematics, and understanding the way the world works allowed them to be built, and to stand the test of time.

[Lordquinton]

169. So you're claiming Inspiration is purely religious?

That's a very bold claim. Inspiration is everywhere, and science requires a lot of it. Art and Music may be thematically religious at times, but that is only the end result, to get there a person needs time and patience, lots of practicing, lots of experimentation to get the right notes, the right blend of colors.

People use science all the time and don't even realize it. Every little "I wonder what would happen..." or "how can I do this" is a scientific thought. Inspiration requires us to go through trial and error to get the desired result.

Philosophy is not religion, I should amend that comment I made: Philosophy asks questions, Science seeks answers, Religion claims to already know.

[cbayer]

170. Not claiming that at all, just saying that it sometimes is.

You sure do read a lot more into what I say than I actually say.

Science can be very inspirational and has inspired me greatly.

But there are other things that have been religiously inspired that move me in a totally different way.

I am not of the belief that everything can currently be explained by "science" and lean towards thinking that some things will never be explained by "science".

At least I hope that's the case, as it is the mystery of life that sometimes makes it most interesting.

While for some, religion claims already to know, for others it asks questions and seeks answers. When you try to simplify it like that, the reduction ends up being way too pat.

[Lordquinton]

176. I'm following your lead here

If you find problems do some soul searching. You're very adamant that science is dull and emotionless and have been back peddling a whole lot. "some things will never be explained by "science"." That's an absolute statement right there. Why do you think that knowing what makes things tick is not interesting? To me it makes things far more interesting, I can look at the forrest and pick out the different trees, and know how old they are, and which ones belong and which ones invaded, wether it was a natural occurrence, or human design left feral. Religion looks at it and thinks "Wow, God is great, isn't he?" to me, that is boring, everything being God did this, god did that, god did some other blasted thing God god god all day, answer to everything is god.

Literally everything in religion comes down to "god did it" and people think that's not the most boring thing ever?

If you think reduction and simplification makes things "way too pat" then why do you do it so much?

[cbayer]

177. I'm adamant that science is dull and emotionless? Not in the least.

I love science. I have always loved science. Being extremely "left brained", I have found my deepest inspiration and passion in science. I love knowing what makes things tick. You, sir, have completely misread me. I wonder why.

I can look at a human body and have a similar experience that you have in the forest. But I also can have moments of awe without any need for scientific comprehension. It has nothing to do with "God is great".

My only point is that it's not the be all and end all and there are inspiring and passionate things that have other sources, including religion.

I do hope that there remain things that are not explained by science.

Religion is so much more complex and comprehensive than what you describe.

Why do I do what so much? Since you have so badly misread me in other areas, I suspect that whatever you are saying in this regard also misses the mark - or you have bought into some of the negative legend that has been built up around me by those who seem rather, well, obsessed.

[Lordquinton]

178. I'm reading you at face value here

If you mean something other than what you say, then you should word your statements better. I read you describing people as "Spocks" for not being religious, or explanations for things taking the wonder out of life.

"My only point is that it's not the be all and end all and there are inspiring and passionate things that have other sources, including religion. "

That's not where we started you initially claimed

"Science is certainly better than religion for making scientific discoveries, but it stinks when it comes to other things like philosophy, art and music, where religion has been far superior in being an inspiration. "

Which is patently, and demonstrably (in this thread even) false. If you realize you were flawed in your initial statement admit it, there's no harm in doing so, and we could avoid long sub threads where you back pedal and change your words while trying to make every one else look like they're just misreading you.

[cbayer]

179. I would suggest you are reading me through your own filters.

I describe people as spocks occasionally when it is suggested that one should only experience the world through "rational thought" and "logic", and dismiss that emotion or faith may be an equally valid way to experience the world.

Science does stink at some things. If art and music and dance and comedy and a myriad of other things were completely scientifically driven, I think they would be dull indeed.

Who is every one else? You are the only one I have said is misreading me.

And that is because you are. Who I really am apparently does not fit your narrative.

Finally, I have nothing to "admit". I am voicing my opinion and I do sometimes change my perspective when presented with new information or a differing point of view. Obviously this is viewed as a deeply flawed way of doing things by some who are determined to paint me with a negative brush no matter what I say.

If you are one of those people, then there is probably not much ground on which we can meet. And that is unfortuante.

[skepticscott]

39. Why should it be made easier and more comfortable

for people to compartmentalize false religious beliefs, and insulate them from reality? That's what you do for children, not grown-ups.

And for an otherwise intelligent guy like Collins to trot out the vapid (and false) meme of "science answers the how questions and religion answers the why questions" is a (sadly) perfect example of accommodationism in the scientific community. If you can't speak the truth, Francis, then please don't weary our ears. Don't misuse whatever credibility you have to make yourself seem warmer and fuzzier, at the expense of intellectual honesty.

[trotsky]

67. How closed is your mind to Republican ideas, cbayer?

Should we try making abortion illegal? How about we cut taxes for the rich and raise them on the poor, and eliminate all welfare - is your mind open to that?

One might say you're missing out if you close your mind to those ideas.

Unless you've figured out all the ideas worth considering, and it's OK to disregard everything else? Because you seem to have that attitude while you rip into people who suggest that maybe some ideas aren't as good as others. I dunno, seems a tad hypocritical.

[el_bryanto]

68. One can consider an idea without accepting it.

I've certainly considered all of those ideas; growing up with semi-conservative parents I didn't have much choice. And I wrote a blog for several years where I wrote on Conservative authors almost exclusively. I tried my best to understand where those ideas were coming from (in between making fun of them).

Bryant

[trotsky]

72. But that is not what cbayer is saying.

Please allow her to explain herself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Once Christians accept evolution, they have a big question: why did Jesus die and get resurrected?

When the Adam and Eve story is relegated to a metaphor (for something - the most obvious candidate is "do what you're told, and don't try to know too much&quot , the "Jesus had to die because of humanity's original sin" claims fall by the wayside. Humanity is just another animal, that reasons far better than any other on the planet. There is no 'original sin'. It makes the resurrection look more like a publicity stunt.

[hrmjustin]

28. I never believed in Adam abpnd Eve but have always believed in sin.

I still believe in the death and resurrection.

[Beachwood]

42. Belief in the death of a person we now call Jesus, a pretty certain bet.

As for anything else, like a resurrection, without proof, without any evidence other than from a very old book written before modern sceince; that's your choce to do, not something supported by any rules of how we now understand the laws affecting the physical world.

Resurrection is not a rational and reasonable belief, for a sincere science-educated person on this planet today. If this choice to believe makes one feel special, should make them priviledged, fine, but claiming such belief does not reward one with the title of being "educated" in science. Science requires one to dismiss such an unscientifc claim, as simply fanciful, unscientific, illogical, contrary to the laws of nature.

But choices are for every human being to make on their own, that's what both human freedom and science allows. Some choices have rewarding consequences; others, not so much.

[hrmjustin]

43. Well you can choose not to believe it.

I do.

[Beachwood]

44. So just where and when and how were the laws of nature suspended ?

Only on this one occassion? Never before or after?

Did not a few billions of people and other humanoid forms simply die and decay, but this one fine but simple man who may have influenced a few thousands of people about 2000 years ago, this one man's human body defied the laws of nature?

And, given the history of this planet for human beings since the days of his death and resurrection, the literal millions of human beings slaughtered in the name of one religion or another, many of those religions proclaiming to be "Christian", may I ask:

For what purpose did this one man die on a cross and become resurrected 2 or 3 days later? Seems sort of purposeless, given the actual recorded history of the last century, or last 20 centuries of actual recorded human history.

What was the purpose of the suspension of the laws of nature for this one person, and what did it accomplish?

[hrmjustin]

45. I believe he is the son of God.

The laws of nature were suspended for him so that he can do miracles and be ressurected IMO.

As I said you don't have to believe it but I do.

[Beachwood]

47. Science be damned, you have your beliefs to protect

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Now, tell me, what areas of science you condemn just to maintain your beliefs?

Organic Chemistry: damn that

Inorganic Chemistry: same fate

Microbiology, Entomology, Anatomy, Physiology

What parts of science do you claim to still support if your belief in your version in a God must be preserved above all these sciences?

Going further into this, about 800,000 years of history of the Homo sapiens is well documented by science, about 100 billion "goldilocks" planets in our known Universe where human forms could develop, but this one planet among billions, your God chose this one planet only about 2000 years ago to suspend the laws of nature once and only once? So damn be to Astronomy, Geology, and Cosmology, and basic Physics too!

I bet you don't like to examine questions like this, and I don't blame you. since you have already made your choices to suspend science so many times just for your own choice of beliefs.

[hrmjustin]

49. Oh Lord!

I see we are not going to get anywhere this time.

[rug]

64. Lol, you have encountered a true beliver.

[cbayer]

74. Where did he go off to? We were just starting to have fun!

[hrmjustin]

96. I think I scared him.

[cbayer]

52. Entemology? Had to look that one up (and couldn't find it).

Perhaps it is you that has already made the decision to condemn religion just for your own choice of beliefs? Have you considered that?

Because your position appears rather, er, strident.

[rug]

65. He meant entomology. Clearly the study of insects flows naturally from a discussion of theology.

[cbayer]

70. Maybe he meant oenology. That would make more sense with the

whole water into wine thing, right?

[rug]

73. I think he already saturated himself in oenology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. entOmology - the study of insects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomology

though it's a strange science to put in that list.

[cbayer]

76. I figured that is what he meant. I was just poking him.

And I agree it's a strange one to put on the list.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. ah - I missed that they had edited (nt)

[rug]

66. What is your view of orthography?

[Brettongarcia]

133. Beachwood has a good point that everyone is avoiding: what about all the science religion negates?

[cbayer]

135. Besides literal interpretation like creationism, what science doe religion negate?

Of course, you have to take in the context of the time. If there were religious explanations offered up for things that were later explained by science, that's not a negation. It's just time.

[Beachwood]

185. Two words to start the list of " what science doe religion negate?"

"Transubstantiation" and "resurrection".

Speak to me about thouse foundational words of Christianity you choose to ignore.

Then we can get to Biblical accounts of walking on water, feeding the masses, etc.

[cbayer]

200. That doesn't negate science.

Those are stories that some religious people adopt to some degree to another. At one extreme, they are metaphor or allegory. Even at the other extreme, they are seen as "exceptional" - that is , they are events that occurred outside of what we scientifically understand, but they don't "negate" anything, as the scientific rules still exist.

Negation would imply nullification. Nothing you list has done that.

[hrmjustin]

201. Transubstantiation is not a foundational word of Christianity.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

211. Yes. Transubstantiation is an explanation,

Based in Aristotle's Physics, about how Christ becomes present in the Eucharist. It is the official dogma of the Catholic Church on how the Real Presence of Christ is confected into the bread and wine.

Even though I'm a Catholic, I'm not wild about it. The problem is that it forces dogma into the procrustean bed of Aristotelian physics. It's an ingenious explanation, but one that only works if one accepts Aristotle.

[Brettongarcia]

197. Most physical "miracles" conflict with science. Liberals therefore often read them as metaphors.

Liberal Christians now read the physical miracles as metaphors for mental or "spiritual" things. Though if we want to be compatible with science, we should read them as metaphors for, or garbled descriptions of, things in nature and technology.

So if Moses threw down his staff in the sea, and found a dry passage for his people to cross? Maybe he was gauging water depth, and finding a shallow place to ford.

[cbayer]

50. You are unable to hold both concepts in your brain and don't believe in a god or

gods.

That's cool.

Other can hold them both quite comfortably and feel no need to dismiss one or the other.

How does science allow human beings to make their own choices? I would attribute that more to culture, ethics, politics and even religion, but not science.

[skepticscott]

54. Yes, some people can hold

A and not A in their heads at the same time and be very comfortable with it. They're deluded and should not be congratulated or admired for it, no matter how much "their choice" it is.

[trotsky]

71. Why do you perpetuate and reinforce such tired stereotypes, cbayer?

This does nothing but divide Democrats and demonize others and their opinions.

There is nothing about a scientific or naturalistic viewpoint that prevents people from making choices, or at least what we perceive to be choices. Why do you push such a dim and restricted view of science? Why do you insist on painting the picture that people with a naturalistic viewpoint are cold, emotionless automatons?

[okasha]

195. Non sequitur.

Even if one discounts the doctrine of original sin, each person still retains the burden of his or her personal wrongdoing. Neither original sin nor the notion that human beings are innately depraved is necessary to Christian soteriology.

[Beachwood]

32. The problem, as I see it, is that we teach our children faith before we teach them science

Why is that?

If it were the other way around, teach science first, faith second. If faith is so important to be taught, wait until a well-educated mind can approach it with a reverence for learning more.

For people who value both religious and science education for children, why do they always start cerimoniously teaching religion first? Why does the teaching about the amazing nature of science always have to come after they learn about the stories about Jesus or Moses or Mohammed or Buddha? Doesn't science have a message equally or even more important?

Can someone answer this question which I have often wondered about?

[cbayer]

35. Because kids often start going to church before they start going to school.

If both are to be taught, teaching them simultaneously would be the key, imo. That way kids can learn that they are different, not in competition and can both be embraced (or rejected).

I started learning about science in kindergarten, but I had been in Sunday school for years before that.

[Beachwood]

38. So you think it's okay to delay science until after learning about faith?

Got it.

What would be the result if we had "science school" before "Sunday school"?

Teaching both at the same time implies they are equally valid, like learning two languages from an early age.

Teaching one before another implies to a child that one is more important, doesn't it?

Did you ever ask questions like this, and simply accept "because that's the way things are" as the answer?

[cbayer]

46. I didn't say that or anything remotely like that.

I merely said that is what generally happens.

If you reread my post, I said that I thought they should happen simultaneously, if both are to be taught to a child.

Valid is a loaded word. I think they can be equally valuable.

Teaching one thing before another may confer some advantages, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that one is more important.

Kids are often taught to swim before they walk, but I don't think anyone would argue that walking is probably going to be more important.

I answer questions like this all the time. Why do you ask?

[Prophet 451]

59. Most likely because that's how they were taught it

I know that I was taught religion from a very early age but science had to wait until I started school. I think also that many people either lack or think they lack the expertise to teach science to their own kids.

Personally, I always said that if I had kids, I wasn't going to deliberately teach them any religion and when they got to an age where they asked about religious matters (such as why I prayed), I would present them with copies of Bullfinch's "Mythology" and the Oxford encyclopaedia of religions and say "These are all the religions we know about. You can pick one of those or make up a new one or pick none at all. Almost all of them are just as good as each other. Any further questions, ask your mother, she's omnipotent".

[Leontius]

182. NO.

[Beachwood]

184. No, you don't agree? Why not?

Or no, you agree. Your answer is so without reason.

Please explain your one word answer. Or don't and I will just ignore you from now on.

[rug]

192. Too timid an approach. Start them on astrophysics.

When they sing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, they should not wonder what they are.

[notemason]

40. It seems to me

that science and religion have separate purposes, the one for increased knowledge of our environment and the other for defining behavior in that environment. If one insists that every word in the Bible must be correct they run up against science in certain aspects but much of the Bible presents events that science has just not been able to verify (so far). I consider the Tower of Babel to be not a story about God's anger at trying to build a tower to heaven but his warning not to build big cities. Multiple languages had been around forever but if they had a “Rosetta Stone” to interpret each others individual tongues at the building site, that stone could have been destroyed leaving them no way to communicate. But that's my own reconciliation of the science and the religion. And I will consider it for I don't accept what man has edited thru the ages to be sacrosanct. Science may well one day be able to show proof that a worldwide flood did occur whether the Ark is found or not.

[Beachwood]

41. How does "the other" (religion) actually have a "purpose" of

"defining behavior in that environment"?

Defining? or Resricting?

Doesn't that "defining" require a limitation upon the use of critical thinking? (Contrary to what science teaches.)

And, as for your seemingly intellectual question about "Science may well one day be able to show proof that a worldwide flood did occur": a simple knowledge of the capacity of the planet and the amount of H2O on the planet and atmosphere, science already has a precise answer to that question, from geoscience, organic and inorganic chemistry, meteorology, or simple geography; please investigate on your own time, if you wish to know those answers. The Bible has no such answer, but a good story to tell.

[cbayer]

53. Why investigate on his own time when you are here to school him?

So much knowledge, so little time.

[cbayer]

48. I think that is not an unusual position in general and it makes good sense.

It is literalists that have the most problem getting this to make sense.

[Prophet 451]

57. I don't think one has to choose

I'm a man of faith (an unconventional faith but still faith) and studying a science (psychology) and I don't see any conflict between the two. I can accept that god created the first life on this planet while still accepting that evolution explains what that life gave rise to. I can accept that the Big Bang Theory is (quibbling about details aside) correct and still believe it was god who created the singularity that caused the first Big Bang (I'm also a believer in the cyclical universe model) and created the universe as we know it.

[cbayer]

58. That's his point. You don't have to choose.

He's directing it to a different crowd.

[MellowDem]

61. You are presupposing a truth...

Which is not science, it goes against science. Of course it's possible and convenient to apply science to the every day useful things and your job and then ignore science for questions that are likely unanswerable, but it's still not reconcilable. All presupposed truths are undermined by science.

[Prophet 451]

63. When something is unanswerable...

...one is, necessarily, forced to rely on pre-supposed truths. And we all do that to some extent. We have to simply to function.

Also, you're neglecting the difference between revelatory faiths (where spiritual truth is obtained from some outside source, usually a holy book) and experiential faiths (where spiritual truths are discovered by direct gnosis with the deity).

[MellowDem]

119. We aren't forced to make something up...

when we can't test something. We can just say, truthfully, that we don't know.

"Spiritual truths" that cannot be tested are not truths. They're opinions, often based on no or bad evidence. Some spiritual truths with claims that can be tested have been tested and been found to be completely false.

[phil89]

79. Religion

doesn't just "ask why". It actively oppresses people. It also tries to co-opt and contradict science and dispute it directly with creationism, absurd claims in the bible too numerous to name that completely contradict reality, etc. Religion doesn't ask, it tells. It starts with a conclusion.

[cbayer]

84. Some religion oppresses. Some religion liberates.

Some religion co-opts and contradicts science. Some religion supports and embraces science.

The religion you are familiar with may only start with a conclusion, but some religion encourages questions.

The problem is when one takes a narrow and indiscriminatory view towards "religion" and brushes all with the same brush.

That's a lot what like strict religions do, too.

[phil89]

88. So religions

can't seem to agree on much of anything. Interesting. Could it be because it's just people making things up with absolutely no rational thought or objective evidence? That's how it seems to me.

[cbayer]

91. Different religions have very different takes on things.

They use different books and follow different leaders. Certainly you are aware of that.

That doesn't mean they made things up, it just means they are separate groups under one broad heading.

Again, the approach of making them all the same and insisting that they "should" agree on things is the problem, not that they exist.

[phil89]

94. That's my point

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong (credit to whoever made that up, but I agree). And of course it means they are making things up. I don't think they should agree, because there is no evidence to support any of them.

[cbayer]

100. Why can't they all be right?

Since we just don't know, perhaps there are many paths and many answers.

Only fundamentalists believe there is only one way.

You don't believe, so you see it as making things up. That's good - it works for you.

But that's just you. You do not represent the perspectives or experiences of others.

In short, you are just as likely to be wrong as you feel they are.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. because claims that are mutually contradictory cannot both be true.

unless of course you just think reality is a personal opinion and your claim of A and mine of not-A do not conflict.

[Deep13]

80. Already did. Evidence won. Tradition lost.

Science is simply moving too quickly and comprehensively to be compatible with religious theology/myth as anything more than an effort to make sense out of the world when we did not have the foggiest idea of what was going on.

[cbayer]

86. He's not directing it to you.

His conclusion is that you really don't have to choose unless you are a rigid believer that one has to overrule the other.

Well, maybe he is directing it towards you in that case.

[Deep13]

120. I do believe in the unitary solution.

That is to say that I believe that contradictory conditions cannot both be true at the same time. Something cannot weigh 100 lbs. at the same moment it only weighs 50 lbs. This idea is a result of the scientific revolution of the Renaissance era. During the Middle Ages, for some things, people accepted that contradictory conditions could be true. Love and honor were virtues and mutually exclusive. In those days we knew so little about the world that people felt that both scientific conclusions and Christianity were both true. Disease was the result of divine intervention and bad air. It could be cured by doctors, and if successful, it was also because of divine intervention. I know it has to be one or the other. Either God created life or else it was natural selection. Can't be both.

[cbayer]

124. I think that when one speaks of something as concrete and definitive as weight,

you are quite correct.

But when discussing something so vast, possibly infinite and amorphous as a potential god, those kinds of rules no longer make sense.

It is absolutely possible for both science and religion to be right and until there is evidence that that is not the case, it would be foolhardy to shut the door, imo.

It could absolutely be both.

[Warren Stupidity]

132. Religion and science can only both be right if

religion makes no claims about the nature of reality that conflict with science. The problem is that religion does frequently do just that. The sets overlap and the claims contradict. Only by reducing "religion" to the subset of religion that doesn't conflict can the kumbayah claim make sense, but then all you've done is manipulate the meaning of words, something far less than what is commonly understood to be "religion" can coexist with science. So what? It is an uninteresting and frequently dishonest claim at that point.

[Brettongarcia]

134. Warren is correct

[Deep13]

143. There is such evidence.

Random (undirected) mutations. Mass rejection by natural selection, with a tiny few that survive. If God selects the mutations, they are no longer random. And we know they are random, because scientists have tested it. If they are divinely selected for survival, we would see maladaptive species, and we don't. The few examples that happen die off.

The facts of evolution exclude any purposeful involvement. Besides, why would a divine creator choose such a wasteful, massively inefficient system?

[cbayer]

150. But your entire argument is based on there being some kind of interventional

god that would select the mutations. I would only make the point that the possibilities are so vast as to be infinite. If you start narrowing it down to very specific scenario, you are right - it is hard to make a case for a deity.

Are you saying that evolution is a wasteful, inefficient system? I could not disagree more. It is elegant and extremely efficient, imo.

[Deep13]

165. Well, that and selection by the environment.

Mutation and selection is pretty much the entire explanation. There really is no other possibility.

It's wasteful because it takes thousands of failures that die off for every mutation that actually aids survival. We look around and see the success stories. We do not see the mountains of failures. Also, evolution has no way to correct mistakes. For example, our eyes are built backwards. Nerves and blood vessels on the retina between it and the lens means we should see them as blank spots and lines everytime we look at anything. A purposeful designer would simply redo the design to put that stuff behind the retina. But, that takes planning with a specific goal in mind, something natural selection cannot do. So we evolved a huge visual cortex to extrapolate the missing data from the image on the unobstructed parts of the retina and fill in the blanks. So a small amount of what we see at any given moment is literally hallucination. And that just one example from one organ of one animal.

[cbayer]

167. Yes, that is correct. Those are the basic tenets of evolution.

But I don't find it wasteful at all. It's all about adaptation.

If things are working right, then random mutations may not result in any change at all or may cause the mutated organism to fail to thrive.

But if the environment changes, then the random mutation may lead to the adaptation that allows the organism to evolve.

In those cases, the status quo may be the failure.

It's an elegant and efficient system, imo.

If you define a god or gods as being a purposeful designer, you are indeed going to run into conflicts when it comes to evolution. But that is not the POV that those that embrace both religion and evolution have.

[mike_c]

93. because no question of any sort is adequately answered by "have faith...."

eom

[cbayer]

97. Oh, malarkey.

Are GLBT people in this country going to achieve full civil rights?

I have faith that they will.


Is Obama going to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran tomorrow?

I have faith that he will not.

Insistence that something is true or not true without hard evidence is not faith, it is dogma.

[phil89]

99. That's not based on faith

there are reasons to believe it will eventually happen based on movements and attitudes in society right now. There is no reason to think Obama will drop a bomb on Iran, based on what we know about the world in which we live, the office of the Presidency, foreign policy, etc. Faith is belief with no reason.

It's like when people say atheists have faith because (for example) when they order food at a restaurant, they have faith it will come to the table. No, that is not faith. That is based on an objective understanding of how the world works.

[cbayer]

101. And religious believers feel they have reason to believe based

on historical information and their own experiences.

Their take is not less valid than your own.

Faith is belief without evidence, but that doesn't mean it has no reason.

I agree that the restaurant analogy is a very bad example.

I would bet the farm that there are things you have faith in. They are just not religious.

[phil89]

102. Actually, I don't

believe in things without evidence. I think faith is a bad, harmful thing. I do suppose I could say I have faith that The Odyssey was literally true because it was in a book, and use that as reasoning. Still, irrational and makes no sense. Just my opinion.

[cbayer]

103. You may have indications that things are true.

You may have historical evidence that leads you to believe that they may continue to be true.

For you faith may have led to some harmful experiences. For others, it can lead them to freedom.

I recently relocated to Mexico. I had no evidence that it would suit me and that it would work out, other than my knowledge about myself and my previous experiences.

And it was going to be very hard to reverse if I was wrong.

But I had faith that it was the right decision and probably wouldn't have proceeded without that faith.

FWIW, I think pretty much everyone that gets married has faith.

But then, there are the Spocks of the world. I'm thankful for the variety myself.

[trotsky]

104. There you go again.

Reducing people to caricatures ("Spocks&quot so you can dismiss their opinions and demonize them. That's really sad, cbayer Maybe that is part of why you struggle to be taken seriously.

[Heddi]

137. it's the second time she's done it in this thread

"spocks," this time, "teams," "points" other times.

For someone who is so very concerned, so very very deeply concerned about bringing people together, she certainly likes to separate people into different "groups" (spocks vs. non spocks, us vs them, teams, points, etc). That's not a very good way to bring people together. And using the terms "teams" and "scoring points"...it's an odd compulsion to claim others are guilty of the things that she seems to be the only one talking about

[phil89]

107. I don't get the black and white thinking.

Seems reductive to try to put people in either one category or the other. I'm not human, I'm just a "Spock"? I guess that you're a "Mad Hatter"? Very, very simplistic. And I never said people don't have faith, only that I do not use it and I think it is harmful.

Would it be fair to classify you as completely without irrational thought, working solely on emotion and feeling, delusional, and denying reality because it makes you feel better? Probably not.

[cbayer]

108. Wait, it seems that your reasoning is the black or white, reductive thinking here.

You indicate that there is believing it all or believing none of it.

You indicate that faith is never a good thing and that you never use it?

You indicate that people that have beliefs and rely on faith are not rational.

I'm not calling you spock. I am merely noting that I would prefer to live in a world where people relied on logic, reasoning, emotion, intuition and faith, instead of one where they only relied on the first two.

I have lots of irrational thoughts and occasionally work primarily on emotion and feeling, though most of my decision involve some assortment of both "left brained" and "right brained" processes.

I hope, however, that I do not deny reality. I might miss it, but I try not to deny it.

[phil89]

110. There either is or is not a supernatural

world, element, or whatever. That is black or white. I don't utilize faith in my decision making, I see no benefit to it. If someone demonstrated a benefit I would certainly consider it. I can be convinced with evidence. Faith by definition is irrational, that's the faith part. People with faith are irrational in that part of their lives. Just my thoughts.

[cbayer]

111. And do you know whether there is or is not?

Or are you just putting your bets on there not being one?

If you say you don't utilize faith in decision making, I guess I can take your word for it.

Faith is not irrational by definition. Rationality has nothing to do with the definition. It's about trust, confidence, being able to believe in something without hard evidence. Rational decisions often do and should take faith into account.

Have you ever been married? Have you made the decision to have children?

If you were able to do either of those things without anything resembling faith, you are most unusual indeed.

I realize they are just your thoughts, but I think they are unique to you and (unfortunately) used to judge others.

[trotsky]

112. Again, your entire argument hinges upon your equivocation of the word "faith."

It is sad you are unable to see this.

[Act_of_Reparation]

113. Regarding the love argument...

Have you ever been married? Have you made the decision to have children?

This is a pretty popular argument to make, but it is awfully problematic. Even if we assume that the comparison is valid (and I'll get to that in a second), it is still a tu quoque, and doesn't in any way contradict the claim that faith is something for which we ought to strive.

But we can't make that assumption, because it sounds like we're talking about two different kinds of faith here: religious faith (belief without evidence) and the more colloquial faith (a strong conviction). If you mean to say that I have religious faith that my wife loves me, I'm going to have to disagree. Love is, to a degree, measurable, and my wife has given me plenty of evidence to support her professions of love.

If you're talking about the more colloquial faith, then you're making an equivocation, and, again, the comparison is invalid.

[cbayer]

114. I do not argue that we should strive to have faith, only that it

exists in most people and not necessarily relegated only to religion.

There may be two different kinds of faith. So what? He wasn't confining his argument to only one kind.

And making the argument that there are two different kinds is generally done to say: Religious faith = bad, other kinds of faith = ok.

Religious faith can also be a strong conviction.


Many religious will tell you that they have faith that their god loves them and they have plenty of personal evidence to support that.

I would dispute that love is measurable. And I would also dispute that the comparison is invalid. It is only claimed to be invalid in order to call religious faith something different when, in fact, it's not.

And what difference does it make if someone has religious faith? That doesn't make them weaker, less rational or stupider than someone that doesn't.

Frankly, I think falling in love is less rational.

[Act_of_Reparation]

125. This is so pointless...

There may be two different kinds of faith. So what? He wasn't confining his argument to only one kind.

We're talking about religion. Context is important.

And making the argument that there are two different kinds is generally done to say: Religious faith = bad, other kinds of faith = ok.

Not really, no. There are different kinds of "faith" because the word is used to describe different things, contextually. There's difference between "having a strong conviction" and "asserting as fact that which is not evidently true". There's no more nefarious a purpose in making this distinction than there is in differentiating between the colloquial and scientific applications of the word "theory". They don't mean the same thing.

Many religious will tell you that they have faith that their god loves them and they have plenty of personal evidence to support that.

Then they are welcome publish this conclusion and their evidence for it. Such a remarkable discovery would no doubt earn them a Nobel Prize or two.

I would dispute that love is measurable.

You would dispute that emotional states are measurable?

It is only claimed to be invalid in order to call religious faith something different when, in fact, it's not.

Yes, that's right. Once again you've seen through my facade of logic and reason and definitions I've pulled straight from the fucking dictionary, and uncovered my villainous stratagem to unilaterally invent contextual distinctions where none existed previously. You really sussed me out, you wily devil, you.



If condescension and dismissive hand waving are all you have left in your retinue, then I think we're done here.

[cbayer]

126. You are right, it is pointless.

Particularly now that you have chosen to turn it into a personal attack.

Seeya.

[Act_of_Reparation]

127. Spare me your self-pitious sanctimony

I was nothing but cordial, yet you opted to opted to address precisely zero of the points raised, replying instead with snide condescension, baseless assaults on my character, and dubious inference as to my motivations... an odd tactic for someone so ostensibly concerned about "tone".

If you don't like me, fine. Then put me on ignore. I've already done my time in Catholic school, and I've no patience for this passive-aggressive Miss Jean Brodie shit.

[trotsky]

128. Bravo!

[Heddi]

138. I think I'm in love

[phil89]

115. I don't know whether there is or not

I reject any claim that there is a supernatural world/being because there has never been sufficient evidence to show there is one. There may be, in the same way there may be unicorns. If someone can prove it, I'll believe. I won't, however entertain nonsense without evidence. Rejecting a claim is not the same thing as saying I don't believe something.
No, never been married. I see no need to be a part of that institution but even if I did, faith would not factor into it. No kids here, either, and ditto on the faith issue. Believing something without evidence is what faith is, and it is irrational. As someone pointed out in another post, you define faith to encompass just about anything you want it to mean so I don't know what else to say.

Yes I would be able to get married or have kids without faith. Where does faith factor into anything? In a country where so many people believe the bible was a literal account of events,who believe in a world wide flood, etc., or that the troops are in Iraq "fighting for our freedom", I'd say I am unusual. I question everything. They may be unique to me because I don't follow the crowd or jump on bandwagons.

[cbayer]

117. And you are well within your rights to reject that claim personally, but

I'm not sure why you might feel that you are in a superior position to those that do not reject it. You don't have sufficient evidence or any faith. Others do.

Comparison to unicorns, tooth fairies, nonsense, etc are weak attempts to belittle and ridicule believers. They don't make nonbelievers look any wiser, only shallow.

If you have never found any need for faith, and even actually reject it, then it would make sense that you have not married or had children. One generally has to have faith that they will be a committed lifetime partner, a good parent and faith that their partner will do the same.

You are definitely unique, just as we all are. And we each choose our bandwagons.

Even the James Dean's among us.

[skepticscott]

130. You've brought up

what cbayer loves to call a "gotcha" question, which is what she likes to call any question that exposes a glaring flaw in her thinking (and there are many). She thinks that just by calling it that, she can dismiss it as not legitimate, and dishonestly pretend that it's no different than asking "have you stopped beating your wife?" (An analogy that no one not named bayer reads without laughing).

Her current favorite is to dismiss the question of how people can be sure that things like leprechauns and unicorns don't exist, but can never, ever be sure that the things she believes in don't exist.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

210. Faith comes into marriage because you are getting married with the belief that it will work.

The definition of faith given in the Epistle to the Hebrews applies: "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." You hope that you and your spouse will be happy together for the rest of your lives, without any evidence that it will. You are making what Kierkegaard called a leap of faith.

Similarly, you hope that your children will grow up to be healthy, strong, good and all that, and that you will raise them well. Another leap of faith.

[trotsky]

214. Nonsense.

At least when it comes to the modern, Western notion of marriage.

You generally date someone before you marry them. Sometimes you even live together. You get to know each other, share your goals and aspirations with each other. Most people getting married in such circumstances have plenty of evidence that the person they are marrying is someone they are at least reasonably compatible with.

Of course there are no guarantees, but you're hardly going into it with nothing but faith, certainly not in the religious sense.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

228. The only way my comment is "nonsense" is if you were to get married

Thinking "this is not going to last".

Of course you know the person you are going to marry, but I can guarantee you that you do not know that person as well as you thought you did before you were married. What's more, the person you married is going to change, as are you. Just yesterday, my wife and I were talking about how we have each changed over our 40 years of marriage, and how our relationship has changed. I know that neither one of us saw what was coming in our relationship and in each other.

I notice that you pass over my saying that having children is an act of faith. I suppose it's because you would have to admit that I am completely correct, and that would shoot your argument in the foot. You certainly do not know any of your children before they were born.

The faith that I was speaking of was not the same as religious faith. Gosh, there can be more than one kind of faith. I am reminded that the Greeks had three different words, each of which can be translated "love", and each of which means something different.

[trotsky]

230. It's nonsense and you just proved my point.

Of course you know the person you are going to marry

Bingo. So it's not the same as religious faith. Thanks for admitting that.

And your children comment was nonsense for the same reason, but I didn't think I needed to repeat myself. There are some reasonable expectations you can have about your family genetic history, your upbringing, your spouse's upbringing, etc. There will always be unknowns, but that's not the same as religious faith, as you have admitted.

phil89 was clearly talking about religious faith, and you tried to equivocate with the "faith" involved in marriage and having children. I called shenanigans, and you just confirmed that I was right to do so.

Take care, FA, and better luck next time.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

232. You take one part of one sentence of what I wrote to respond to

Let's start by looking at the entire paragraph:

Of course you know the person you are going to marry, but I can guarantee you that you do not know that person as well as you thought you did before you were married. What's more, the person you married is going to change, as are you. Just yesterday, my wife and I were talking about how we have each changed over our 40 years of marriage, and how our relationship has changed. I know that neither one of us saw what was coming in our relationship and in each other.

Thus, the only way you can pretend that I agree with you is by selectively editing what I wrote. That, sir, is dishonest.

phil89 was clearly talking about religious faith. That's YOUR interpretation and is clearly wrong. He does not say "religious faith", nor is it implied in what he said.

[trotsky]

235. They may change a lot, they may change a bit, they might not change much at all.

If you go into a marriage with the faith that your partner won't change, you're a fool.

But it's still not the same as religious faith. And don't you even PRETEND to lecture anyone else on honesty, FA.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

236. "If you go into a marriage with the faith that your partner won't change, you're a fool."

Which is what I said:

What's more, the person you married is going to change, as are you. Just yesterday, my wife and I were talking about how we have each changed over our 40 years of marriage, and how our relationship has changed. I know that neither one of us saw what was coming in our relationship and in each other.

But it's still not the same as religious faith.

Which is also what I said:

The faith that I was speaking of was not the same as religious faith. Gosh, there can be more than one kind of faith.

And don't you even PRETEND to lecture anyone else on honesty, FA.

I am hALWAYS honest, unlike some other people. Yes, SkepticScott claimed that I lied about a couple of things Richard Dawkins said, I proved, by direct quote from Richard Dawkins, that I had not, SkepticScott just laughed it off.

But you selective quote from my previous post, and you pretend that I had said things that I had not. The one who should not whinge about lecturing others on dishonesty is not me.

[trotsky]

238. So then, turns out you had nothing to say after all.

And no, you are not always honest, as those threads PROVED beyond a doubt. You used Dawkins "quotes" that weren't even quotes at all - they were YOUR attempts at paraphrasing.

Dishonesty heaped upon dishonesty.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

239. "So then, turns out you had nothing to say after all."

I did. I said, several times, that it takes faith to enter into marriage or to have children. You seem

And no, you are not always honest, as those threads PROVED beyond a doubt. You used Dawkins "quotes" that weren't even quotes at all - they were YOUR attempts at paraphrasing.

No, I had ACTUAL QUOTATIONS from Dawkins. You claimed that I first did not give actual quotes from Dawkins. Well, later, I did. In http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118-religion-39-s-real-child-abuse Dawkins is saying that raising children to be Christians is, in some ways, different from certain types of sexual abuse. This is an article by Dawkins himself. When I cited this, Skepticalscott literally laughed it off, obviously unprepared to admit that he had slandered me by calling me a liar -- incidentally, it is clearly obvious that falsely calling me a liar is OK, but correctly calling him a bigot is not. But then, it is also clear that bigotry against believers is perfectly acceptable in DU.

Dishonesty heaped upon dishonesty.

Yep, that's what you have consistently displayed in our latest conversation, dishonesty. But it's what I expect from you.

[trotsky]

240. Keep digging that hole.

"Dawkins is saying that raising children to be Christians is, in some ways, different from certain types of sexual abuse."

#1) That's not what you claimed he said.
#2) What you put in quotes was not what he said. It was your interpretation.

Dishonesty upon dishonesty. Just be a good Christian and admit it. Other individuals in here, those who admire you and despise me such as okasha and Starboard Tack, agreed with me that what Dawkins actually said (raising children to fear eternal punishment and torture is child abuse) is correct.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

243. It is essentially what I claimed he said

Oh, it differs slightly from my original claim, but not in any substantiative way. You claimed he said nothing of the kind. But when I demonstrate, from actual quotation, that he did say what I claimed he said, you seize upon a quibble in order to avoid doing the gracious (and proper thing) and admit that you slandered me by calling me a liar.

But dishonesty is what I expect from you. After all, you are the person who, in this very thread, quoted PART of a sentence of mine and pretended it was all I had said. That is dishonest, and your refusal to admit YOUR dishonesty compounds it.

I think we are done here. "Dishonesty upon dishonesty" aptly describes YOUR behavior, not mine. You refuse to admit the facts, not me.

[trotsky]

244. And there's the proof that I'm right and you're wrong.

"It is essentially what I claimed he said"

But not what he actually said.

Thank you for proving I'm right, and that you were dishonest.

You're absolutely right, we ARE done here.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

247. It is interesting that you keep bleating that I misquoted him

In a thread in which YOU misquoted me. The name for the particular piece of dishonesty you are trying to foist here is "special pleading", which can be defined as "it's bad when you do it, it's OK when I do it".

[Brettongarcia]

116. Many have thought Science and Religion are incompatible, but both useful. So: compartmentalize

Many say Science should deal with the physical world, and religion with the separable "spiritual" world.

However, I believe that this results in a split mind; trying to live with two contradictory ideas.


So I went to the Bible, to find a real reconciliation between religion and science. Which I did find. In particularly, Woodbridge Goodman's online drafts, on the Science of God.

[Gothmog]

159. There is no need to make this a contest

You can believe in science and still be a person of faith

[cbayer]

160. That is the point the author is making actually.

[cbayer]

204. That is exactly the author's point.

[Warren Stupidity]

168. The misuse of the word "metaphor".

Last edited Sat Feb 15, 2014, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)

To us, it seems obvious that Joshua's depiction of the sun standing still and the chronicler's reference to an immovable earth should be viewed as metaphor, not literal (much less scientific) assertion. But it wasn't so obvious to everyone in the 16th century. Just like it still isn't obvious to everyone today that Genesis 1 may not be a literal description of how the universe came into existence.

No really it isn't a metaphor. The story is instead a fiction that was once plausible."Our tribal god is so great he made the sun stop at this place at this time" is an assertion of fact, a claim about an historical event that was made to prove that Yahweh was mightier than all the other gods. It is not a metaphor. It is obviously, on the other hand, total bullshit, and in the post enlightenment world bullshit like this in the bible has to be either clung to as literally true, or re-framed as something else, or admitted for what it is: nonsense.

[Brettongarcia]

198. Did people misunderstand the Bible - and the natural science buried beneath "solstice"?

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Personally I think most of what people call Christianity is false; though the Bible itself however, is somewhat truer than most think. Or rather, SOME kind of natural facts can be found under all the misunderstandings.

For example? The notion that Joshua made the sun stand still, might be a simple misunderstanding of the "Solstice." Which means literally, "sun standing still."

The Solstice is the moment twice a year, when the sun appears to stop getting lower or higher in the sky. (Due to the tilting axis of the earth; and the orbit of the earth around the sun). At this moment the lowering of the sun in the sky, stops. And the sun is said to stop or stand at one point; before reversing direction.

To be sure, many people got the facts WRONG. To be sure.

So is Christianity right? Much of it appears wrong. Is the Bible itself right? Parts of it seem to have some truth underneath them somewhere. But as NT Wright told us: if the Bible is true, then "the Bible is true ... in ways that people don't understand."

Under all the BS is sometimes, SOME kind of garbled version of natural reality. But it takes a lot of shoveling to get to it. And it is a very, very different reality from what Christians imagine.

One so different, that I really wouldn't blame anyone for calling Christianity and the Bible, BS.

[Humanist_Activist]

202. Religion is the pretension of knowledge, not the pursuit of it, it provides easy answers, but not...

true ones. Its a security blanket, but even Linus had to grow up eventually.

[cbayer]

203. If that was your experience, so be it.

But you should recognize that for others religion provides the paths by which they pursue knowledge.

Religion for some is all about asking questions and proceeding through life without a security blanket.

The same can be true for those who embrace their lack of belief. For some it is the result of asking hard questions, but for others it is just the result of not caring enough to be bothered.

[trotsky]

205. How do you define knowledge, cbayer?

Fred Phelps no doubt thinks he has knowledge about which sexual orientations are forbidden by god. Does he?

[Humanist_Activist]

206. What religion only asks questions, and doesn't provide answers? I can think of none that don't...

make untestable claims that cannot be called knowledge, but pretend to be knowledge. Its imagination run wild, to pursue fantasy, not reality.

Pursuing fantasy is just fine, just don't confuse it with reality.

[cbayer]

207. I've searched my post and can't find the word "only" anywhere in it.

The claims of religion are untestable by their very nature, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't provide insights and knowledge for some.

If you are someone for which that hasn't been true, that's ok. I know people that have been through psychotherapy and psychoanalysis who left with benefit and others who got nothing.

That's not fantasy. That's just a tool that some use and others don't.

There are also scientists who have pursued answers their entire lives and were left empty handed. Does that make their pursuit fantasy?

The use of the distinction between reality and fantasy is only an attempt to elevate one thing while denigrating another.

[Humanist_Activist]

208. "The claims of religion are untestable by their very nature..." This, right here, is my point...

no knowledge can be derived from such things, for they are NOT methods of inquiry. Unless you want to debase and twist the meaning of the word knowledge as to be unrecognizable. I also note that you didn't list ONE example of a religion that doesn't make false and incorrect claims about, well, the nature of anything and/or everything.

Your question about the scientist is just nonsensical and illustrates that you do NOT know how the scientific method works, nor how it is practiced. Allow me to illustrate, the scientist isn't PRETENDING to know something that they don't have a means to know, when he doesn't find the answer he was looking for, or at all, he doesn't pretend it was the right answer all along, he changes his hypothesis to fit the facts, or lacking those, it remains untested, an unknown.

Fuck yes I denigrate it, people are PRETENDING to know about stuff they have no means to know. Basically we are giving lies a pass because its that person's religion.

[cbayer]

209. Let's be accurate. You can derive no answers from such things.

That doesn't mean that others can not. They are not methods of inquiry for you, but they are for others. Your definition of the word "knowledge" is so narrow and simplistic. But that is your world view and explains why you have such difficulty seeing and accepting that others have a different one.

I don't know how the scientific method works? Ok, that's pretty hilarious, but I will leave you with your belief and "knowledge" in regards to that. That you so much for trying to 'splain things to me. If you only knew.

Talk about pretending to know stuff they have no means to know - you really take the cake on that one.

[Humanist_Activist]

221. Why do you want to change the meaning of words to become meaningless?

In addition, can you give ONE example of knowledge that humans, IN GENERAL, have attained from religion that wasn't obtained from some other source?

Can you provide me with any questions religion has answered, that rises to the level of knowledge and NOT subjective belief?

You seem to be a post-modernist "reality is subjective so it doesn't matter" type, so I feel like I'm wasting my time.

[cbayer]

222. What word have I changed to meaningless?

There has been art and music and philosophical ideas and stories and communities and movements and more all stemming from religion. If you want to define knowledge as excluding all of those things, then I guess you could be right, but your definition would become so narrow that it would only include things discoverable by science.

You are quite possibly wasting your time, but it's not because I am some kind of convenient stereotype that you have invented.

[Humanist_Activist]

223. Uhm, those aren't knowledge, you may have knowledge of them, they exist, but they aren't...

knowledge itself. Do you even know what we are talking about?

You like changing the definitions of things, the word god, knowledge, science, etc. To you all of those are mutable, and hence meaningless, I find this to be infuriating to even attempt to have a conversation with you. The ground rules of reality don't seem to apply to you.

[cbayer]

224. No, I have no idea what "we" are talking about.

Perhaps I need more "knowledge" so that I can begin to discuss things with someone as erudite as yourself?

I don't change definitions, I just have broader definitions than you do. As I previously showed you, there are much broader accepted definitions than the ones you hold.

Being mutable may mean being receptive, open to other ideas, flexible, able to adapt. OTOH, if you are immutable you are doomed to extinction. Is that the road you want to take?

The ground rules of your very specific reality don't apply to me or to anyone else, even though you seem to want that very badly.

Sorry professor, but I am not here to be schooled by you.

[Humanist_Activist]

225. Your definitions of God are all over the place, some of them make me a theist, which is just silly.

You seem to think that belief equals knowledge, which is just as silly.

The issue is this, its fine to be flexible, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE, but don't arbitrarily change the definitions of words to fit your preconceived notions, that's just dogmatic. Its like I'm talking to a creationist over the word "theory" and their misuse of it, honestly, this is the exact same type of argument.

[cbayer]

226. They should be all over the place, that's the point.

When you try to pigeonhole a concept that is believed by most to really be indescribable, you are making a fatal error.

I never said that belief equals knowledge. I said that knowledge can be obtained by some using religion as their route.

Clearly that is not the case for you. No problem.

The issue is this - when you define something so narrowly in order to reject it in a way that makes sense to you, you miss all the permutations that really exist within the context. That's dogmatic.

If you feel like you are talking to a creationist, then you really have missed my point. But it is not surprising in light of the very rigid and narrow definitions that you insist must be used for concepts and ideas that are as varied as are it's adherents.

[Act_of_Reparation]

231. A definition of knowledge which flies in the face of centuries of epistemological research?

Quickly, run that over to The Journal of Philosophy before you get scooped!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

229. You say

"The issue is this, its fine to be flexible, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE, but don't arbitrarily change the definitions of words to fit your preconceived notions, that's just dogmatic."

But that is exactly what you are doing. You have a narrow definition of "knowledge", and you insist that this particular definition must apply to everyone.

You remind me of a man I came across on a now-defunct talkboard, who rejected the common idea of "patriotism" -- love of country -- and said that he would rather mean "a father's love for his children". The problem was that he insisted that this change of definition should apply universally. He also insisted that "property" meant "something I am responsible for", thus, his children were his property. Again, he said this should be a universal definition.

Ever come across Humpty Dumpty's conversation with Alice about the meaning of words in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass?

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[Humanist_Activist]

233. Is reality subjective in your world? I ask because you are basically arguing that words...

can mean whatever the fuck you want them to mean, which makes conversations with ANYONE else useless.

Really, what is the point of using language if there's no commonality? Does belief equal knowledge in your world?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

237. YOU are the one who has an overly narrow definition of knowledge

Not me and not cbayer. Clearly, you are of the Humpty Dumpty school of word definition.

[Humanist_Activist]

241. Bullshit, straight up, unadulterated bullshit. You and him make belief equal knowledge...

which renders the word knowledge meaningless, because you can believe all you want that the world is flat, it doesn't make it so, and you sure as hell don't KNOW it to be so.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

242. Translation: Humanist-Activist disagrees with me, but doesn't have a meaningful argument

So gives an answer that is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Apparently, he or she cannot or will not understand that "knowledge" can have more than one meaning. I know, that words can have multiple meanings is a difficult concept for some people,

[Humanist_Activist]

245. Actually I have been asking for an example of knowledge gleaned from belief or faith...

so far, no one has been able to produce it.

[Brettongarcia]

212. The claims of Religious "knowledge" DO seem FAR less certain than Science

So uncertain that to call them "knowledge" does seem like a stretch.

For example? Many of the claims of religion are testable: if we are told that believers will be immune to snakebites, that is easy to discover by empirical observation. Though the results of such examination are not positive.

For these reasons it is a bit of a stretch to call Religion "knowledge."

[cbayer]

213. The claims of religion are less certain by there very nature, but

that doesn't mean that they do not represent some kinds of knowledge.

My statement is that some individuals discover knowledge using a religious or spiritual path. If you want to limit the definition of "knowledge" to that which is testable, verifiable and repeatable, then you are going to have a very limited use of that word.

One that would not, in fact, be consistent with standard and accepted definitions of the word.

knowl·edge

noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery

2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation;

[Brettongarcia]

215. Generally "facts" are said to be objectively verifiable things.

"Their."

[cbayer]

216. OMG!! I made a typo, lol!!!!!

Facts are, but they are not the only things that constitute knowledge (see previously posted definition).

[okasha]

217. At least you haven't claimed to be

a philosopher, a theologian, an athropologist, a friend of the Kennedys, and a few other things that are not evident in your posts. Things like, er, facts.

[Brettongarcia]

219. Okasha: Time after time you've asked for facts. And I've furnished them - while you have not

For example, you recently claimed that Moses never handles snakes. Then I cited Ex. 4.4, where he does. Earlier you insisted that conservative never cite liberal theologians; then I gave you an academic citation where they do.

Again and again, you yourself spread false statements, false facts. Over and over, I have corrected you. Often from scholarly sources (suggesting familiarity with academics?).

HELLO? Please investigate the psychological phenomenon of "projection." That is where someone accuses everyone else, of their own worst flaw.

[okasha]

227. Let's talk a minute about Exodus 4:4.

In this passage, Yahweh tells Moses to throw his staff down onto the ground. Moses obeys. The staff turns into a snake, and Moses, sensible fellow, runs away from it. Yahweh tells Moses to grab it by the tail, which he does. The snake immediately turns back into a staff. Is it your argument that this constitutes "handling" a snake comparable to the practices of Mr. Coots' church? Because I don't think any of those rattlers started out as or turned back into sticks. Nor do I think merely placing a hand on a potentially dangerous animal constitutes "handling" it. If you're confused about that, I suggest you try "handling" a pissed-off Beefmaster bull or a wild-caught mustang stallion. Good luck, Mr. Garcia.

Sorry, you haven't "corrected" me about anything. Nor have you adequately furnished sources for your own statements. When I asked for cites of fundamentalists supporting liberal theologians you gave me neither quotes nor links. You gave me page numbers in publications which are not readily available. I did manage to run down one of your "liberal theologians" on Amazon, though the reviewers all seem to regard him as a Calvinist. Odd, that.

[Brettongarcia]

234. Learn to see generic similarities and larger patterns: Moses touches/grabs a snake is not related?

Logic again. Formal logical fallacy: "Distinction Without a Difference." Etc.

I'm presenting ten time more info that you. Digging up more than that is too much. Do your own research.

Sorry its not convenient? It's inconvenient for me to provide ten times more info than you ... and still get criticized for lack of information, "facts." And then to listen to countless demands for even more?

Liberal Calvinist, I'd say.

[okasha]

246. The only problem with your "facts"

is that so many of them seem to be wrong.

Patterns that fit everything between sizes 0 and 3X are unlikely to be meaningful when applied to specific situations.

"Liberal Calvinist?" Gee, isn't that kinda like "dry water?"

[Brettongarcia]

248. When studying culture, Social Scientists look for larger patterns; major phenomena

Why don't you do that?

Religious believers often can't seem to do that.

Yes as a matter of fact, many people in religion are living contradictions.

When all you see are individual things, and cannot make connections to see the larger patterns - what kind of life is that? Everything appears disconnected to everything else; and individual things appear as if out of nothing. By "miracle."

[cbayer]

220. What I am is someone who types very quickly and recklessly, but I am none of things

our esteemed colleague claims to be.

I did see Pink having a great time in a small Mexican bar on the beach a couple of weeks ago. I didn't actually know she was Pink, but my daughter did.

[Brettongarcia]

218. "Facts" explicitly and by name, figure in both definitions of knowledge listed above.