Scence VS. Religion: Who wins in the end? Inspired by the KO Question.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

If you vote, you post and explain.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Both

as science itself is an embodiment of man's evolution to understanding that which is created by God.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

4. Fire was once a "god?"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Yes

Only one slight correction: fire is today God too.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. Cool.

Nicely done.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. LOL

I agree. God is light.

[KittyWampus]

28. IMO, "God" is Limitless Light... or in Human terms, Consciousness

[TechBear_Seattle]

224. Fire is still a god: Agni in Hinduism

One of the main jobs of Agni is to accept sacrifices and carry them off to the appropriate deity.

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

[anarch]

9. Objective science and religion may be seen as the same thing

Depending on one's point of view, I suppose.

[immoderate]

108. Like black and white.

:)

--IMM

[tocqueville]

2. science in the long, long run yes

specially when people will see civilisations collapse again because of religion

[Faygo Kid]

3. Yes, both. They are two different things.

Or should be. Don't buy into the Creationist "hooey" that one excludes the other.

[pnwmom]

24. Or the atheist hooey that says exactly the same thing.

Some atheists seem to believe that science disproves religion.

[Faygo Kid]

27. I don't. Religion is not "provable."

Glad we agree that one does not negate the other. Religion is faith. Faith is not something to be "proved." The Bible is not a science textbook. Christ's message is universally true and compelling. But unlike this unholy administration that wants to force its beliefs down people's throats at gunpoint, I would rather bear witness, and speak out for my beliefs - secular or religious, depending on the circumstances. That's how I see it.

[pnwmom]

29. We are on the same page then. n/t

[Faygo Kid]

32. I hope so. I am unclear on your stance.

I am sick and tired of the "Religious Right," which I have to continually break away from because they are not where I am coming from. I am the biggest skeptic on everything else you ever saw. Not the Beatitudes, though.

[KittyWampus]

30. Neither is the prevailing Materialistic philosophy of Science provable

Actually, Materialism fails to answer many questions while Idealism takes us much further.

[pnwmom]

38. I frequently have argued, to atheists on these threads, that the

Bible is not a science text. There are different kinds of truths, and different kinds of languages attempting to describe truths -- religious language, scientific language, artistic language, etc.

I get angry when all Christians get lumped in together with fundamentalists. It's bad enough having to fight with fundamentalists who claim I'm not Christian; it's even worse then when atheists try to lump people like me in with the fundies.

[Faygo Kid]

44. Thanks. We are on the same page, indeed.

Never sure how to deal with threads even touching on religion, because I know what's coming. I will never proselytize here. I like your "different truths" analysis. I get angry, too. One to check out, or not. But, just FYI. http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/

[pnwmom]

52. Thanks for the info! I'll definitely check it out. n/t

[Proud_Democratt]

57. Atheism

Atheists don't believe....we think.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

63. Proud_Democratt

To DU!

[Proud_Democratt]

66. Thanks....

I thought I'd drop by here and get away from my usual site...which is a bit too "newsy" at times.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

131. I think

but I also feel, and I honor and respect those feelings. Not everything is sequential, ordinal, measureable. Some things are intuitive.

Mostly I hang out outside the logic box. It's fun out here. You ought to try it!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

61. Negates it?

[Tesha]

100. No, science just makes mythology unnecesary. (NT)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

278. I don't know about that

I'm talking myth now that seems to pervade our species. Yes, we use myth to explain why the sky is blue or where the rainbow comes from. But even in our sleep we encounter the archetypes of myth. It seems to be bigger than science, in its logic, could ever stamp out.

I think that the subconscious mind is the last great frontier.

[htuttle]

5. Science can always adapt to new information

If Jeebus himself appeared in a cloud in the sky one night and descended to Earth, it wouldn't kill science (though it might create a whole new branch of science).

Religions can rarely adapt as well as that. The I'd suggest that the more the religion 'promises' as a result of following it, the more likely that it will fall by the wayside.

[pnwmom]

20. Why do you have to be insulting?

[htuttle]

53. Can't help it

It's my job. The Devil sent me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

132. See, I thought so.

Thanks for explaining.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Funny, I call that honesty. nt

[WritingIsMyReligion]

127. Insulting?

That was mild. Things get far worse than the usage of "Jeebus."

[pnwmom]

162. I know they do, because I've seen much worse on other threads. But

I wish they'd stop.

How often do we see DU'ers making fun of atheists for their beliefs? But it is open season here on people with a spiritual bent. Do we really want to drive liberal Christians away from the party?

[Proud_Democratt]

180. Atheists have

NO religious beliefs. There are no hypocrites in our disbelief. So therefore, we have one less handicap....one less excuse to murder others. We rarely wage war. You'll find also that most Atheists are humantarians.

[Goblinmonger]

214. How often?

Quite often. Hell, you are basically doing it now. You have a low post count, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here's the explanation. A LARGE number of atheists feel that your statement of "atheists for their beliefs" is insulting. We do not have beliefs in the manner that theists have beliefs. Please stop trying to classify us by your world view.

I don't want to drive liberal Christians away. Though a fair number of liberal Christians wish we would just shut up and go away. Your post kind of sounds like one of those. But again, low post count, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I do not feel it is "open season" to comment on religion/theology in a religion/theology forum. I do not feel it is "open season" to challenge someone of the stuff that they post in an open forum. Sorry that you do. You may want to try one of the GROUPS where things are moderated more heavy-handedly.

[trotsky]

270. But using the term "atheist hooey" isn't?

LOL

[pnwmom]

6. Your "religion" is a straw man.

But all too typical view around here.

[Inland]

10. Well...nobody ever lost betting on "not understanding," as shown by

a poll that confuses science and logic, and confuses religion with "not understanding".

I'll even give odds.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

12. Ahhh. So there is an understanding of "God?" Maybe a factual,

replicable sort of understanding out there?

Why do tornados take out so many churches?

Never mind.

[Inland]

16. Heck, I'll be thrilled when science and religion are understood.

That seems to ambitious enough.

[okasha]

129. Not hard.

Same reason tornados take out trailers--they didn't get out of the way.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

133. Around here tornados

hit mobile homes. Republicans, every one of them. NOW do you believe in God?

[charlie]

147. Now, you're tempting me

Get thee behind me TG!

[Igel]

11. I can't vote. There is no winning in the end. There's only tie.

I'm actually reading an older book on the decline of scholasticism in the 1600s and the rise of the science/scientific reasoning.

The author makes the philosophical case that 'explanation' depends on what you think is important and what the 'primitives' of your thinking are; in other words, your goals and what you want out of it.

Scholasticism offered one kind of truth; of a religious, "why are we here?" sort of nature. The author, writing in the 1930s, points out that many are asking the same question in his day; and while there's no returning to scholasticism, science was not providing--and could not provide--the answers to all the questions being asked.

Science offers a different kind of truth, excepting from the range of questions and topics that can be investigated. It cannot answer a set of questions, and makes no claims to doing so. On the other hand, over the centuries the range of questions it's able to address has increased, so some thing originally beyond its scope now can fall within its scope. It may yet again increase.

From time to time philosophy and religion try to regain some ground; this is vehemently rejected. But there is common ground that they both can profitably address, in that they ask different questions about the same outcomes.

[CornField]

13. Why must there only be one?

Isn't it the divine which prompts the scientist to explore? Isn't it in the exploring that divinity is known?

So many people falsely believe they have to believe one or the other. Science and religion not only coexist, but seem to better thrive when they are in close proximity.

[pnwmom]

19. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein.

[Proud_Democratt]

37. Albert

It would be my guess that Einstein was an Atheist.

[pnwmom]

41. Welcome to the list!

That isn't my understanding, though, based on quotations of his like these:

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."


I never heard of him belonging to an organized religion, but I understand he was a spiritual person.

[Proud_Democratt]

55. You'd be surprised

You'd be surprised to find out how many great humans of vision were/are Atheists/Agnostics.
Einstein, Lincoln, Freud, Roddenbury, and many others, unfortunately there are the bad guys also....Stalin, Marx, Lenin.

[pnwmom]

77. I think agnostics are closer to people of faith

and atheists, in their need for certainty, are often closer to fundamentalists.

[Proud_Democratt]

86. except

there is nothing extreme about Atheism....it lacks religious faith, that's all.
Trying to convince a real Atheist there is a higher power is redundant.
We don't try to recruit!!!!......religions do.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

137. Hmmm

I have known some evangelistic atheists who spend their free time recuiting. At least in the beginning. They appear to mellow with age. Like a good wine, you know?

[Proud_Democratt]

158. I've never

seen Atheists passing out brochures or fliers in public places. I've never had an Atheist try to make me feel bad unless I confess.
How many Atheists ask for money???

[pnwmom]

163. Some of the atheists who post here are very certain of themselves

and very scornful of people who do not accept their beliefs.

And in that respect they remind me of fundies.

[Proud_Democratt]

179. Maybe

you feel we are scornful because at last, we are a growing organization due to religious hypocrasy. We have the right to speak ALSO. Scientology is growing also. There are people out here who desire a more "humanist" type of society. Most major religions can't and don't cater to humanitarianism as their faith requires. They've become greedy, "Bad Samaritans".

[pnwmom]

184. No, honest arguments are fine with me. I'm talking about the people

who post vampire-Jesus cartoons, that sort of thing. Or who act like ALL people of faith are brainless idiots.

You and I probably agree with more things than you think. We both want to crush the * administration, right? Well I think there is a fairly large group of thoughtful moderate Republicans who are twisting in the wind now, deciding whether it is time for them to cut life-long ties to that party. One of their issues is religion -- not the fundamentalist kind, but the more liberal kind.

Now do we want those people to see that our values and goals are more similar to theirs than they realized (feed the poor, care for the sick, turn the other cheek, etc.) OR do we want to scare them off with scornful attacks on people of faith?

[beam me up scottie]

252. So in your mind, posting religious cartoons makes people fundamentalists?

Sorry, black humor is very common on DU, and elsewhere, and if anything truly offensive is posted, the mods delete it.

This is a political forum, there's all kinds of things one can be offended by.

You can always avoid the thread if the subject is too upsetting.

People who want to censor anything they find offensive remind me of fundamentalists.

[Proud_Democratt]

288. Very fundamentalistic!!!

No matter what one might say or do...someone is always offended.
If you say what everyone says, your comments are redundant....shock value is good!

[Goblinmonger]

274. Oh, I get it

Let's censor ideas so as not to offend anyone in the hopes of getting people into the party that won't know what they are up for. Great idea.

Sounds a lot like the right wing.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

281. Are you equating

Scientology with atheists? Because by my understanding, I'd say they are the polar opposite.

[beam me up scottie]

285. LOL!!!

Now THAT would be a first, even in this forum!!!

I think I'd be too shocked to be insulted.

[Goblinmonger]

215. See now

that's twice in one thread. You are starting to look less like someone who made a "slip of the tounge" and someone who has some bigotry toward atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

243. I think you're right.

Funny how some christians get angry when others define christianity and yet they have no problem trying to redefine atheism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. There's no 'need for certainty' in atheism

While there may be a few who feel a 'need', most atheists I know have just concluded they do not believe in any gods, due to the evidence (or lack) that they see in the world. It's like deciding, in your opinion, there are no such things as guardian angels, or evil demons - or that there is no religious book that is divinely inspired.

Are you separating fundamentalists from "people of faith"? Surely fundamentalists have more faith than anyone - absolute faith in the correctness of their books or religious hierarchy, whatever the reality of the present world?

[pnwmom]

114. Yes, I am distinguishing many fundamentalists from "people of faith."

Because to say "I believe" is implicitly to say, "I could be wrong." And many fundamentalists are never wrong. While they might profess allegiance to a certain religion, I'm not sure they're really people of faith.

Faith, to me, is inseparable from doubt -- or it isn't faith.

Also, I do feel that those who are CERTAIN either that "God exists" or "God does not exist" have something in common . . . that ability, need, or whatever to be certain.

While those who are willing to tolerate ambiguity, whether agnostics or people of faith, also have something in common. . . the ability to doubt their own beliefs; the willingness to live on the unsettled, shaky edge of things. The willingness to leave many questions in flux and open to change.

[Goblinmonger]

216. Why is it certainty

in a fundamentalist sense to not believe someone's fairy tale. Are you an anti-Tinkerbell fundamentalist? Are you an anti-dragon fundamentalist? Are you an anti-Santa Clause fundamentalist.

I leave open (and acknowledge) that I do not know everything. I just don't need to create a god to fill that gap. I can leave those things unknown and wait for science to get around to it.

[EOTE]

284. Why I'm not certain a god exists....

Why is a belief in god different from fairies or dragons? Well, unlike fairies and dragons, the perception of god varies greatly from person to person. I'm an agnostic. I can't say for certain whether god exists or doesn't exist, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss god as a fairy tale. It's not because I have a belief in the supernatural, it's because I believe strongly in science, but I know that as of now, science doesn't have all the answers. I believe in the big bang, but what happened before the big bang? Was it another big bang/big crunch cycle? How many of these cycles occured before our current cycle? My mind can't wrap itself around concepts like time not existing before the big bang. Where did this singularity come from? Science certainly hasn't procluded the existence of god, so I certainly can't proclude his existence. I know that things such as evolution are facts, not theories as many would have us believe, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking that some wise watch maker created the single celled organisms (or their ancestors) that became humans through millions of years of evolution.

[beam me up scottie]

286. If you think that "some wise watch maker created

the single celled organisms...", I'd have to wonder why you consider yourself agnostic.

I'm an agnostic atheist, btw.

[Goblinmonger]

293. I don't know why any of this points to uncertainty about god

Your main argument seems to be this:

Well, unlike fairies and dragons, the perception of god varies greatly from person to person.

Different cultures have different depictions of the attributes and personalities of dragons. Some authors of the myths make dragons nice and helpful. Some make them evil incarnate. Fairies. Yeah, every culture and author is consistant about what fairies are. Just because the perception of god differs from person to person DOESN'T seem to be an argument in god's favor.

Here's another one that slays me:

My mind can't wrap itself around concepts like time not existing before the big bang.

So your answer is to allow for some supernatural being that created everything? Nice. Makes us feel better to think that we didn't come from nothingness, but doesn't really mean jack in the way of what happened.

And by the way, you may want to avoid using the watchmaker analogy in the same paragraph that you talk about your agnoticism. Kinda makes you look like an ID idiot.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

136. Wow. Excellent point

I never thought of it that way.

Certainty is an illusion.

[Proud_Democratt]

154. Certainty... an illusion?

Would you care to explain???
When I see my car in the driveway and can touch it...that is REALITY, not an illusion!
When I'm told that some guy died for my sins...and I can't see him or touch him, I would call this an ILLUSION.
When adults told me that Santa was coming to give gifts...that was LYING.

[pnwmom]

164. Study molecular physics. The hardness of the car in your driveway

is an illusion. So is the disconnectedness of things.

[Proud_Democratt]

169. What?????????/

It's amazing how desperate some folks are... reaching HARD to justify "fairy tales".
Discounting real physical objects/evidence as an illusion in the midst of desperation, makes one joyous to be an Atheist.

[pnwmom]

170. I'm serious. I come from a family of engineers and physicists, so these

are dinner table conversations. In college, years ago, I studied philosophy of science and learned that most laymen have a lot of misconceptions about how science actually works.

[Proud_Democratt]

171. This

is real life...NOT Platos cave.

[pnwmom]

172. I'm talking real life 21st century science, not Plato's cave.

Although I read about that, too.

[Proud_Democratt]

176. Plato was not a scientist and

this thread is about Science and Religion....not philosophy.

[pnwmom]

177. You were the one who brought up Plato, when I mentioned concepts in

molecular physics. I wasn't sure what you were trying to get at, though.

Of course, philosophy of science is relevant to a discussion about how science works. But I was thinking about modern philosophers, not Plato.

[Proud_Democratt]

178. You obviously are well versed

in Philosophy. So...what happens to common sense? Is common sense and logic discarded because of supposed philisophical science(would-be's and could be's)???

[pnwmom]

182. No, but I think if many of those who place faith in science were able to

follow scientific thinking -- especially physics -- at its highest levels (I'm not saying AT ALL that I can, though I listen to it often enough), we might be surprisingly uncomfortable with where it leads us.

For example, scientific logic has led to the idea that it is an illusion that a car is hard, and separate and distinct from the hand that is touching it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

187. Hardness is not an illusion

There is resistance to the hand, due to electromagnetic forces between atoms. If you really want to say "all existence is one", then you'll put those engineer relatives of yours out of business, because they won't be able to do any meaningful calculations on objects. For that matter, it also means you and I are all one entity too, so we must be mad, talking to ourselves. And, maybe importantly for you, if Jesus existed, he was really you, as was Judas.

[pnwmom]

191. You're right, engineers and theoretical physicists do have a different

point of view on this.

And I'd rather fly in an airplane designed by an engineer.

And we are all mad. And wonderful. Aren't we?

[Goblinmonger]

217. Let me get this straight

You are using molecular physics when YOU are arguing for "leaving the door open" for the possiblity of god? Sheesh.

[Proud_Democratt]

245. Isn't that ridiculous?

Some people will stoop to any measure to disqualify fact.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

200. Sure

I'll explain what I mean. There are other avenues to ... well.... "enlightenment?" maybe? than total in-front-of-your-face reality. There is intuition, randomness, holism rather than rationality, sysnthesis rather than analysis, subjectivity over objectivity, and looking at the whole rather than segments. All functions of the right brain. And valuable. Should they replace the left brain activities? Heck no. Half of us would be dead without our dear left brained brethren who analyze and theorize. But creativity, another right brained trait, is often at the forefront of even scientific invention....the aha! moment. It appears that women access these skills more often than men, hence the term "women's intuition." As an artist, a writer and a teacher, I call on them a lot.

I think that we should always be aware that what we are certain of could, at any moment, turn into an illusion. Obviously you can go too far with this It's usually safe to get on the elevator, start the car, know that the sun stays in the sky. But science is full of examples of certainties that were disproven (the world being flat is one example). And social science is even more full of examples. (slavery used to be considered "kind.")

However, when I said "certainty is an illusion" what I actually had in mind was the concept that being certain of things that are unproven and unprovable is an illusion. I cannot say I am certain there is a God. I haven't seen Him. I haven't touched him. I haven't heard him. And the same goes for folks who are CERTAIN there is no God. They haven't seen, touched, heard..him...yet. It is good to keep a certain amount of flexibility about those things we simply cannot know yet.

I lived for ten years with a father who had lost my reality, but he had his own: bears in the elevator, angels everywhere, etc. I guess it broadened my mind. The floor on his nursing home was a wild and crazy place. A little slow moving, but a real mind expander.

I'm enjoying our discussion.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

280. I know I'm dragging out this poor old thread

but I just have to jump in here.

You said "when I'm told some guy died for my sins..and I can't see him or touch him, I would call this an illusion."

See, I don't see it that way because I don't just use my five senses to estabish my reality. And I am beginning to think that this is the thing that separates many atheists from believers. It is the way they use or don't use discernment other than the senses.

I tend to search for commonality and I think I am onto something here. But I've buried it so deeply in this thread nobody will ever read it, and after a glass of wine in about an hour I'll forget it.

Sigh....

[beam me up scottie]

287. Don't give up, T-Granny.

Your efforts and your unfailing sense of humor are much needed in this forum, and much appreciated by DU atheists.

Even if we forget to tell you so.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

289. Well I had the glass of wine

and six pot stickers and am happy as a dead pig in the sunshine. Nothing like a never-ending religion thread to complete the day!

[beam me up scottie]

291. ROFLMAO!!!

Hey, what's a little snarking between masochists? :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

271. I have no need for certainty.

But it seems certain people have a need to brand atheists in a type of thinking.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

290. Let me ask you this, Trotsky...

you don't need certainty, you believe. Do you think there might be a part of you that doesn't want to close the door? I mean, I know you are a firm, solid atheist, but I'm curious what that is like. Locked door? Open a crack? No door?



DON'T THROW ANYTHING AT ME!

Just wondering. Because I'm kind of that way when it comes to angels. I really don't believe in them...but....well..... if you could SHOW me I might?

[trotsky]

312. Close the door on what?

I mean, on some things one can have 100% certainty. I am certain there is not a pool of beer on the surface of the moon, for instance. Am I certain how the universe came into existence? Nope. But I don't need to know that in order to go about my business. That's what I mean by I don't need certainty. I don't have to declare "There are no gods" (or angels, or whatnot).

[TallahasseeGrannie]

323. Okay, we're pretty much on the same page there.

[immoderate]

47. You are right. Einstein never practiced any religion.

His life's work was to find the scientific principle that explained everything, the grand unified field theory. He used religious imagery to express his notion that there was order to the universe.

He was a humanist, and favored the altruistic promoted of humanity which can well be explained by evolutionary processes.

Religion will be around, alas, for as long as there are things we don't know, and people want magic explanations.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

54. "He used religious imagery." Isn't that what people of faith do?

[immoderate]

58. Allegory is not reality.

Religious images are part of our culture, and sometimes conducive to communication. I could describe something as "Micky Mouse" but that does not make him real.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

78. Reality is not limited to what science can describe.

And Einstein was a spiritual person, a person of faith, as evidenced by his use of religious imagery. You don't have to belong to an organized religion to be a spiritual person. For the people who use it, religious language is what best describes a certain kind of apprehension of the world.

[immoderate]

90. If I attend a dionysian orgy, that makes me a person of faith?

Images are "imaginary." God is imaginary. I don't think that is what you mean to convey, But I think we can agree here.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

115. You can't prove God is imaginary any more than I can prove God is not.

[immoderate]

121. Right. Proof is reserved for math and whiskey.

However I can be logical about it. An informal deduction guides my thinking. Yahweh, Jesus, Vishnu, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zoroaster, and many others, are all entities which vie for the title of "supreme being." By definition, there can only be one. Where did the rest of them come from? I suggest somebody made them up.

Now which one is real? There's no way to tell. Since it's easy to see that some are made up, it's not a great stretch to think that all of them are made up. Add to that human studies that show a propensity to fashioning god type entities that is built into us, and it's a reasonable conclusion.

I think I've proved that at least most gods are imaginary. Which is more likely to be true, that all gods are imaginary, or that all gods but the one you believe in are imaginary? I'll add that if god exists as a reality, he spares nothing pretending he doesn't exist. That is, I see no difference in behavior of a god that currently does exist, and one that doesn't.

Is that proof? No. But it makes sense. OTOH, I've not had anybody tell me about god that does make sense. Feel free to try though.

Now I coexist happily with people who do believe in lots of things. I recognize that every individual has his or her own beliefs. They can't all be true. Do you think everything you believe is true? You might be the one.

--IMM

[TallahasseeGrannie]

138. Maybe everything

we all believe or don't believe is true. Maybe we create our own truth.

Logic is so limiting.

[immoderate]

153. So is solipsism.

Ya know, I feel quite the opposite. I think lack of logic is what is limiting. Logic allows us to take what is known, and derive all sorts of new knowledge. It's actually unlimited in that sense. It does not limit the sense of wonder and awe that I have at experiencing the universe. Indeed it may even amplify it.

With all due respect, and not just because you're one of my favorite DUers, it really begs the definition of truth to say that each of us can determine our own truth. How would you feel about a president that can define his own truth? (OK, snarky question.)

I'll allow that it is possible that we all live in our own dream, and everything else is a figment of each imagination. But where do you go after that? It's hardly respectful of you to think that I'm the only one that's real and you are imaginary.

I see it this way. All that we know is what we take in through our senses and contributes to building the mental model that each of has of the world. Things are true if they correlate to events in the outside world. Because of our individual natures, that allows for a great degree of diversity, but at some point we have to establish veracity of things beyond our individual filters. How can you do that without some structure, such as science and logic?

Of my experience with those who profess a belief in god, no two do it in exactly the same way. There seem to be as many gods as there are people. That's a lot like what you said in your post. I'd say we each create our own view, but truth, as I define it, lies outside of ourselves. So which one is the real god? Mine is one that acts like he has no connection to the universe I live in. That is, he's not there.

For everyone that I've discussed this with that is a believer, they always say, "I believe in god, but..." and then they go on to create their god right before my eyes. What better indication can you have that each person's god is their own creation? I'll cap it by reiterating my definition of god as "a projection of an idealized self."

(P.S. BTW, a couple of weeks ago, I thought I would be doing a job in Tallahassee. One of my first thoughts was to contact you and see if you wanted to get together for a beer, cup of coffee, whatever. Unfortunately, the assignment fell through. If it comes around again, I plan on letting you know.)

--IMM

Edit for literacy.

[pnwmom]

165. God has more to do with paradox and poetry than with logic and

proof.

[immoderate]

211. And imagination and wishful thinking and emotion too.

Somebody has to make this stuff up.

--IMM

[Goblinmonger]

276. This attitude bothers me

It seems to be saying that only people of faith can be creative. Give me a break.

[Goblinmonger]

275. Do you really want to go down that path?

That there is no god is the null hypothesis. YOU are the one trying to prove something. Do you not see how ridiculous it is to say "There is X" and then charge someone else with the task "Prove there is no X" and then claim that because someone else can't prove X doesn't exist that it does exist? It is a logical fallacy. Look it up (proving a negative).

You still don't see the point?

I have a dragon in my garage. He is invisible. He has many other supernatural abilities as well. Prove that I don't.

See, I go with the proof that we DO HAVE. There is no proof of god. Zero. There are anecdotal stories, but nothing verifiable. I choose to go with the proof. You tend to create a system of faith. I'm fine with that. Just don't expect that, when in a PUBLIC FORUM, you won't be challenged when you state those faith-based beliefs. And more importantly, when that faith-based belief system creeps into legislation and/or the political realm.

[Goblinmonger]

218. So see what you think of this list of

fine Christians, since the benchmark is clearly "religious imagery":

Ernest Hemingway
James Joyce
T.S. Eliot
Ezra Pound

I could go on for ever with people that are not religious using religious imagery. It means nothing other than a common set of symbols used to create literary meaning. And notice how I didn't use Hitler in that list (doh! I just did).

[catbert836]

247. Just to set the record straight

Don't know about the others, but T.S. Eliot certainly was a Christian. He called himself "monarchist in politics, and Anglo-Catholic in religion".

[Goblinmonger]

269. I will agree

that Eliot proclaimed his Christianity at the end of his life. This certainly came AFTER his major poems (after The Waste Land). His major works were clearly written before the "conversion." MANY doubt his conversion, though I will take him at his word. If you are interested, this is an article I read when prepping to teach Prufrock again this year that caused me to include him in the list. You were the only one to pick up on the reference.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9508/bottum.html

In short, you are right that he was a Christian, but I don't feel this was during his major creative period. Let me know what you think of the article.

[catbert836]

282. Interesting.

I would agree that Eliot's conversion came after his most important works. It seems as if "deathbed conversions" were very much in style for writers of that period, but whatever.
Thanks for the article. It was very intresting. I haven't read all that much on the subject.

[pnwmom]

175. You might be interested in Einstein's article on religion below (post 173)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

134. I thought he was

a practicing Jew.

It doesn't sound like the quote of an atheist. You know, I actually met him once when I was a little girl. He lived in Princeton near me.

[immoderate]

149. I'm envious.

Having read several biographies, I'll warrant that Einstein never practiced any religion. He used religious imagery for his sense of order to the universe. Remember his life's work was to find the equation that explained everything in the universe. That's not standard for theists. You might say he was like the Deists, who theorized some unknown creator that ultimately let the universe run on it's own and did not intercede. This was popular among rationalists, including the founding fathers until evolution, and then the big bang were established.

Einstein was also a great humanitarian and pacifist which put him in league with many religious humanitarians. As is typical, religion opposed his discoveries. The church generally opposed the establishment of the United States, as it went against the monarchy, which was divinely established.

Princeton is beautiful country.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

167. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. MANY people who

describe themselves as spiritual, or as people of faith, have the same approach to religion that Einstein had.

And yet so many people on these boards want to sqeeze us all into a box with the fundies.

"That's not standard for theists." Who decides what the standard is? You? The fundies? (Of course, Einstein was a one-of-a-kind.)

[immoderate]

201. Einstein was an atheist who used spiritual imagery.

He believed that the universe came about by natural laws that were consistent and understandable. He did not believe that any super entity intercedes in daily activities or that participating in religious ritual effects the outcome of events. He didn't believe there were "different kinds of truths" in matters of cosmology. His work was to discover the one truth, the theory that governed all of existence. In matters of art or governance a different model applies because we are dealing with people and they have different emotional makeup.

So-called "people of faith" believe whatever they want, and as such, even if they are not biblical literalists, give credence to, and enable the fundamentalists because they tolerate supernatural and irrational thinking. Is there truly a difference between those who believe god created the universe 6000 years ago and god created the universe 5 billion years ago? They are both expressing their emotions as reality.

Einstein knew his audience, and spoke in a vocabulary that people understand when he was championing humanitarian causes. Use of allegory does not make it real, even if Einstein does it.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

204. So what gives you such insight into Einstein's state of mind? Are you a

mind reader?

All we both have are his writings. And they say one thing to me, and a different thing to you.

And I think you enable the fundamentalists, because you allow them to define the meaning of religion for the rest of us.

From an article Einstein wrote for the NY Times in 1930:
"But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

SNIP

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."


http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[immoderate]

207. I agree with that.

The "cosmic religious feeling" mentioned here is something I can buy into and is easily explained by evolutionary psychology. It is a feeling, call it spirituality if you will, that I associate with the wonders of scientific discovery, and the majesty of art, and the glories of nature. It's wired into us by evolution to appreciate and promote our existence. The species would be less likely to endure without it. It requires no god or organized religions but surely makes us vulnerable to such concepts.

If you want to define a religion with no prayer, no gods, no supernatural, no animal or human sacrifices, no proscribed rituals and arbitrary rules, and no immaterial existence, such as Einstein describes here, I'm all for it.

Can you see that he is describing innate human behavior, not external magical forces?

If you look far enough there is ample writing by Einstein to support his atheism. Here's some examples:

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... 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 being.

Or:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Or:

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.

Or:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

Einstein made many statements for public consumption. He is an easy target, being dead and all. It is quite clear from his biographical notes that he was an atheist as we know the term.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

219. I think the first paragraph that you quote is key.

Especially, the first seven words of the first sentence.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... 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 being. "

He also says this:

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another."

Just because you -- or a Jesuit priest -- would regard Einstein as an atheist (or a heretic), doesn't mean he would regard himself as one. I think Einstein here is arguing for a more expansive view of what spirituality means. "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. . . "

And I think he would object to your idea that people who talk about religious feeling are enabling the fundies.

[immoderate]

223. It's funny that you ignore everything he says.

Those first words are there because he was responding to a Jesuit priest. He says his atheism is not a reaction to "the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth," therefore he is not crusading. He clearly states multiple times that he is an atheist. He doesn't believe in god.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. . . " That means what it says. He is not a "crusading ...professional atheist." He is an amateur atheist, but nonetheless, an atheist.

As for arguing for a more expansive view of what spirituality means, I'm fine with that. It's the spirituality that atheists have.

"And I think he would object to your idea that people who talk about religious feeling are enabling the fundies.

So now who's reading minds? The fact that you can read something that is quite clear and spin it to mean the opposite makes my point.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

226. I'm not reading your mind. I'm repeating something you said to me

in an earlier post -- that people who talk about religious feelings are enabling fundamentalists.

He wasn't responding to a Jesuit priest. He was saying that a Jesuit priest might listen to him and call him an atheist. Which is what you do.

And that's something you have in common with the fundies. You basically have accepted that the only correct definition of religion belongs to the fundies. And if someone doesn't conform to it -- as Einstein didn't -- you insist that person is an atheist.

He doesn't actually call himself an atheist. He doesn't accept the idea of a personal God, however, and so therefore he recognizes that's how some people (like you, and the Jesuit priest) would view him.

By the way, I grew up near the Institute of Advanced Study, and several of my parents' friends at the University knew him well. I grew up hearing stories about him, and talking to people who knew him as a person. It was fascinating.

[immoderate]

230. I meant you were reading his mind.

Here's a more contextual citation:

From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "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 religious indoctrination received in youth."

Freethought Today, November 2004

"He doesn't accept the idea of a personal God,"

That's a good definition of atheist. So I, and the Jesuit priest, and anyone who knows what an atheist is would call him that.

What definition would you give of religion that involves no god, no rituals, no sacred writings, and no object of worship?:shrug:

You were lucky to grow up in that rich environment, sounds great. I'm a great fan of Albert.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

233. What definition would I give?

Einstein asked and answered this.

"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

[pnwmom]

235. And so it all comes back to art -- including poetry-- and science.

[pnwmom]

234. yes, it was a rich environment. The best part, I think, was that the

adults didn't patronize the children. I remember faculty members questioning me about my favorite books, or arguing about politics, etc., when I was a child. (I'll always remember how horrified Hemingway's biographer was to hear that I loved Jane Austen.)

So, I grew up with certain, shall we say, "liberal" ideas. Then I moved out of a university town to a regular suburb on the left coast where suddenly -- in the eyes of the people across the street -- I am not a Christian, even though I always thought I was.

And now the atheists are telling me I can't really be a Christian.

This is all too much!

(P.S. I'll have to reread Lewis Carroll. Looks like fun!)

[immoderate]

236. Try to find "The Annotated Alice" by Martin Gardner

I was able to fit a Lewis Carrol quote into most of my college papers. I carried it to every class, for more than a year.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

237. I'll look for it, thanks.

[pnwmom]

238. Speaking of fiction, you might enjoy "His Dark Materials," the

Pullman trilogy.

Very fun to read, too. (I promise, you won't think I'm trying to convert you.)

[immoderate]

239. I'll keep an eye out.

Warning though. I read very little fiction these days.

I'm not worried about conversion. And I don't think we really disagree on much, except maybe what words mean.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

241. Save it for your next long airplane trip then.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

268. Absolutely wonderful trilogy. I second the nomination.

Pullman's vitriol for organized religion is fascinating--I'm amazed deranged fundies haven't condemned it more vocally than they have.

[Goblinmonger]

277. A third vote for Pullman

I, like WIMR, cannot believe the right-wing hasn't had their collective heads explode from this series. I remember when I was reading it to my kids, and I got halfway through the first book and saw where Pullman was going (I was right, btw--curse of the English teacher) and could not believe I had not heard protests from the fundies.

Probably too hard for them to read :rofl:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

294. Oh, I know that feeling

I call it the "uh-oh" feeling, when you show a video you stupidly didn't preview or start reading a book and you get to something you really don't want to have to defend.

Yep, the uh-oh feeling. Like when you showing a powerpoint of the Sistine Chapel and you zoom out of your working view to the area you didn't cut out...the part with the snake biting the guy's penis.

uh-oh.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

305. I bet!

Seriously, though, I ADORE Pullman. He's a fucking genius.

:loveya:

:D

[TallahasseeGrannie]

292. I LIKE THAT

Cosmic religious feeling.

Now, you mention that he is describing innate behavior and not external forces. And bingo! That's the way I feel. It comes from inside and not outside. It is totally within me. I don't pray out, I pray in.

I also want to mention that ritual of any sort is very useful to help bring these feelings (which are pleasant for me) to the fore.

[immoderate]

210. Furthermore...

I looked up the quote, and read it in context. You should too.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

221. I'm not sure which quote you're referring to, but the four essays/speeches

of his that I read are here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[immoderate]

225. But did you really read them?

He is explaining why people make up religions. This is part of the first paragraph of your citation.

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend.

My emphasis. I think you should read what he says, and not what you would like it to mean. These articles are about how man made up god.

--IMM

[pnwmom]

227. Yes, I read them. What I don't accept is your narrow definition

of what religious thought is. In the paragraph you site he is talking about the origins of religious thought among primitive man, not religious thought at higher levels. And not religious thought at his level.

Fundies say people like me are not religious because we don't accept their narrow view of who God is. You also say that views like mine are not religious because, at heart, you accept the definitions of the fundies.

[immoderate]

231. Einstein is clearly of the opinion that religion is the product of men.

And this is consistent throughout his essay. Unless he has a revelation, his thoughts about god come from his own imagination, as I say they all do.

My definition of religion is the one you would commonly find in any dictionary or encyclopedia. Yours seems to mean that you love poetry.

Perhaps this will explain my feelings:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather 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.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'

(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can't tell you.)

So are you taking me through the looking glass?

--IMM

[pnwmom]

232. I am trying to show that everything isn't black and white.

Some people might need to go through the looking glass before they can see that.

Einstein certainly thinks that organized religion is the product of men. And I agree with you on that. But believing in an organized religion isn't a requirement for being religious.

[pnwmom]

166. Hey, Grannie. I lived near there, too. But after his time.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

279. My father-in-law used to repair his watches!

I remember seeing him on Nassau Street. I was probably in kindergarten or first grade. He was very distinctive looking..just like the photos.

[tocqueville]

14. religion is only interesting as a philosophical speculation

in the end it will probably be restricted to the private sphere and academic discussion.

[pnwmom]

22. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm

not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

And I will add to that a third thing, "human arrogance."
(And GWB isn't the only example, unfortunately.)

[KittyWampus]

15. They are no more antithetical than Male and Female.

[MissMarple]

17. Both...mythos and logos. I think, for humans, they are joined at the hip.

:shrug:

How we connect with the Divine and give meaning and purpose to our lives is the mythos part. Logos is more the nuts and bolts techy part. Can't live with them...can't live without them. ;)

[MrMonk]

21. Religion, because you can't enforce science at the point of a gun.

The choices are poorly worded. I can't select either.

[ClintonTyree]

23. Since christian dogma is pretty much cast in stone...

(so to speak) there isn't anywhere for it to go. There's the bible and that's it. End of story. Believe it or not.

Science, on the other hand, progresses daily. New discoveries abound but it seems the more we know the more we don't know. It's like the layers of an infinite onion.

My money is on Science. Oh, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well! ;)

[pnwmom]

25. You are mouthing the views of fundamentalist Christians who take

the Bible literally.

Many Christians (Catholics, for example) believe that God also reveals Himself or Herself over time.

[Inland]

92. There's two types that assert the bible MUST be read literally.

Fundamentalists and people trying to score points against religion. That's about it.

[pnwmom]

111. YES!!!

[kwassa]

123. Correct.

[Evoman]

188. Oh? And what have we learned about god?

I'm not trying to be difficult or snarky...if your going to say something like this, you need to elaborate. Despite all the hemming and hawing about the "advances" of religion....what do you know today about the christian god, or anything else, that wasn't known 2000 years ago.

And no, I'm not saying that all christians are fundamentalists or must restrict themselves to the bible. But people who always talk about spirituality and god always seem to make vague statements about what they learn and what they know...and all I'm asking for is elaboration.

In my estimation, religion is useless. Other people may find it useful or "enriching", but to me, personally, it has no purpose. When I read the bible or the qu'ran, I learn nothing new. About 90 percent of the bible is either useless descriptions (i.e Jesus' Ancestors) and scientifically rejected nonsense (People made out of clay, demons cause disease, people resurrected from dead). The 10 percent that is worth reading is the stuff I learned in kindergarten about how to treat people.

I'm also not afraid of not knowing stuff. I don't need a god or jesus to help me explain the how or why of the universe. Because I don't have this insane need to justify my presence in the universe. Maybe there is no how or why. Or maybe there is. I don't know. Hell, even if there is a god, don't you think HE would wonder why he existed lol. If god doesn't know, chances are I'm not going to. The fact of the matter is, the only reason someone like me would adopt religion would be to fill the gaps of things I don't know...and like I said, I'm not afraid of the gaps. Maybe we will fill them in, maybe we won't...but I'm not going to tell myself stories in order to feel better.

Science, on the other hand...man, thats something else. Pick up a Discover magazine, or a new Nature journal...there is so much being learned, so much being discovered. Frankly, I don't see why you would even waste your time going to the church on sunday and reading the bible. What we should do is start a new "church" on Sundays, where everyone comes with a new journal article and we discuss science. Seems like a better use of time to me.

[pnwmom]

194. You may not read much poetry either. That doesn't make

it worthless. Different things carry meaning for different people. Science does it for you. That's great.

Music moves my husband.

But poetry, philosophy, and religious language carry special significance for me.

As to your other question, just one example. A long time ago, Christians thought that slavery was compatible with Jesus's teaching. Over time, Christians came to a different understanding about what God would want. The metaphor we use to explain this is that the "Holy Spirit" helped guide us in the direction God wanted us to go.

This is the kind of thing Christians mean when they say that God is revealed over time. It's more the idea that His will can become clearer to us over time.

[Evoman]

213. Fair enough

I love both poetry and philosophy too. Religion I can do without!

It seems to me, however, that god seems to "reveal" himself to people who don't really believe in the bible or people who are not even christian. The civil war for example...most of the christians accepted slavery...it was the, for a large part, the deists who didn't. Wasn't Abe a deist? (I thought he was..though I am Canadian, so I know only so much about American history).

Why do you, pnwmom, think God didn't reveal some of this stuff (i.e Slavery is wrong) before the last century? See, in my opinion, its secularization of society that affects what christians believe...so is that, then, what god wants? Does god see secularization of society as a good thing? The majority of secular countries, where religion is considerably less important, people are happier and more productive.

So maybe, in fact, even god does not like religion. Maybe god gave us science and rational thinking as gifts to get us away from that primitive thinking of our ancestors. If this is the case, holding on to the bible, holding on to those concept of "Jesus saving us" and "The bible is the word of god" is the opposite of god wants.

Or maybe god just doesn't exist. Who knows.

[pnwmom]

240. I wouldn't say that most of the Christians during the civil war

accepted slavery -- it was more of a northern vs. southern split. Also, Christians in Catholic countries turned against slavery before the protestant-dominated U.S.

In the faith tradition I grew up in, I guess the answer to your question would be that people have free will, and they are sinners, and so they were blind to the immorality of slavery.

"Holding onto to the bible," etc. in the way you describe is a fundamentalist habit. Not all Christians take the Bible literally. Probably most do not.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

296. Wow!

"The majority of secular countries, where religion is considerably less important, people are happier and more productive."

I have to ask you more about this. Cites? Links? Examples?

[immoderate]

220. Sounds like people mold religion to fit their thoughts.

People who don't take the bible literally can make it mean whatever they want. They can reject or accept the passages they want.

You like poetry, therefore god exists?:shrug: That's it?

And after we decided that slavery was wrong, we realized that's what Jesus was talking about?

"This is the kind of thing Christians mean when they say that God is revealed over time."

Who do you think you're fooling?

--IMM

[Proud_Democratt]

45. To the point opinion!

I agree with your no BS statement.

[Inland]

91. Christianity isn't the only religion, you know.

Even assuming "there's the bible and that's it", there's plenty of other religions. There can even be new religions. Anyone that thinks religion is cast in stone should check out Scientology and Mormonism.

In fact, all christianity has to do is decide that the bible ISN'T it and reject a literal interpretation (which is something you might want to look up before you start talking about christian dogma). So there's plenty of places to go, even within current religions.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

139. Tell that to the Mormons

[Skip Intro]

26. Knowledge is a threat to religion.

Science is about fact, finding out the unknown. Religion is about belief, belief in that unknown. The more successful science is, the smaller the realm of religion becomes. And vice versa.

[pnwmom]

31. The more we know, the more we don't know.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Albert Einstein

[trotsky]

272. And then there's...

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Albert Einstein

[TallahasseeGrannie]

140. I couldn't disagree more

Science has provided us with the theory of evolution, which has enlarged the realm of religion for me, personally, enormously because it is way, way more expansive and miraculous than the dumb old Adam and Eve myth. Science is also finding a lot of interesting stuff on the nano level that leads to religious questions. The more science progresses, the more questions it raises. And faith is about questions and answers.

[starroute]

33. Dumb question

There isn't really a dichotomy between science and religion. It's simply a matter of whose science are you buying.

Most contemporary religions are based on the very best scientific knowledge of the Bronze Age. Creation, the Flood, all that stuff was good science back in the day when the Earth was flat and the heavens were stretched over it like a tent.

It's only when their science goes out of date -- and they're afraid of having to change and throwing a bunch of priests out of a job in the process -- that religions start muttering about divine ineffability.

So no, science doesn't triumph over all. The only thing that does triumph over all is the willingness to move along when the science you've got is no longer good enough.

And that attachment to the next thing -- instead of the the current thing -- is what I'd call real religion.

[Lolivia]

72. Creation and the flood were never science

Only things learned through the scientific method are science.

"Knowledge" of creation and a flood was not gained through the scientific method = not science.

Science as a process does not go out of date, although specific items of knowledge - whether gained through the scientific method or not - may indeed be proven wrong or inadequate.

[ismnotwasm]

34. Science

The study of a single cell, or the study of evolution has gotten me closer to the sense of the holy than all the religious readings I've ever done.

Looking at the cosmos, at physics, at the wonderful possibilities, Science may never replace religion for that sense of the holy, but it opens possibilities that religion doesn't speak of--yet. Except possibly in allegory in different scriptures.

The study of religion and culture is an interesting one, and one I wish I had more time to pursue. I've heard it said that it started out with the fear of pain or death, and being imaginative creatures, our way of explaining things like weather and our surroundings. It seems an incomplete explanation.
I am a solid agnostic. I envy atheists their certainty and the religious their certainly in faith.
Stuck in the middle.
So my personal sense of the holy, of spirituality comes from science. I don't believe science and faith are mutually exclusive, especially when science and religion stay on side by side paths, and don't try to interfere with one another.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Very well said.

I'm also an agnostic of long duration who has given up the certainties of both religion and science. I'm not a scientist or theologian, but such things as have been brought forward by the theories of quantum physics have reinforced my belief that we pipsqueeks of the universe are facing mysteries far beyond our understanding.

Not that I would ascribe those mysteries to something as comfortable as some sort of all-knowing super-daddy, but merely to the awe of the universe(s?) of which we are such an insignificant part.

[Proud_Democratt]

42. And science...

And science will bring us forward into the future. Religion, has held back progress. They once believed the world was flat....scientific exploration proved otherwise.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

141. I think that merchants proved the world was round

science didn't have the cajones to get on the ships.

[muriel_volestrangler]

156. Eratosthenes gave a good estimate of the earth's size in 200 BC

using mathematics and surveying - effectively 'science' (though there wasn't an exact Greek word for it then).

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/eratosthenes.htm

The last writers to claim the earth was flat lived around 600 AD. http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch2.html After that, all writers assumed their readers knew it was round. Merchants had nothing to do with it (though Columbus did use a really bad guess of how big the earth is to convince his backers he could get to Asia without his supplies running out).

[pnwmom]

168. Merchant ships had a great deal to do with proving that the Earth

revolves around the Sun, rather than the other way around. Practical needs are often what drive change, and science follows behind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. Really? How did they do that?

Copernicus (a priest) came up with his theory of the planets in circular orbits at a constant speed around the Sun to get rid of the ugly epicycles of Ptolemaic theory, but in fact this didn't quite match the observations. Brahe set up an observatory to take accurate measurements, and Kepler used them to try to prove his theory of celestial spheres involved with platonic solids. But Kepler realised the facts didn't fit his preconceived ideas, so he worked out the actual situation (give or take the effects of general relativity) - that planets, including the earth, orbit in ellipses with the Sun at one focus, that they orbit at varying velocities (sweeping out equal areas in equal times), and the connection between orbit size and period. Finally, Newton showed (with his new calculus) that an inverse square law of a central force, with no tangential forces, would produce these laws. This had to be gravity, also keeping the Moon in its elliptical orbit around the earth and making things fall here.

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/tycho.htm

No merchants involved. The measurements needed to show what was going on are quite detailed, and didn't have an application for terrestrial navigation. Maybe they got interested in this kind of thing later, when some thought the measurements of longitude could be done by astronomical observation (though navies were driving that more), but by then, the science had been settled. And this was science - basic observation, theorising, more detailed observation to check the hypothesis, modification of the hypothesis, checking against related phenomena, and finally prediction (by Halley, that one comet in a very elliptical orbit had been observed at regular intervals, and when it would return next).

[TallahasseeGrannie]

199. Thanks for the history lesson

I figured some of the smart old boys had been on the job way back when.

But they still didn't have the courage to get on the ships and PROVE IT! That took adventurism, greed, and a chance to get away from a shrewish wife for a bit.

[pnwmom]

203. Merchants were involved only indirectly, of course. But their need for

correct navigation helped to set the stage for the final acceptance of the new science. Have you read Kuhn's "Theory of Scientific Revolutions"? It isn't that easy for scientists to give up old constructs and take up new ones -- when an old theory is finally discarded, it is often because of the combination of new science AND the practical need for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. And how does the correct explanation for the movement of the planets

help navigation? I'm not disputing Kuhn's theories - just how the heliocentric system was hypothesised and accepted. Who were the merchants involved? I've only ever seen scientists talked about.

[pnwmom]

206. Because captains of ships relied on calculations using stars in order to

navigate. In the open sea, the only way to place themselves was in relation to the sky overhead. Using the astronomical calculations based on the old theory (Earth as center of the universe), may have been good enough for short distances. But when ships tried to sail long distances using those calculations, they tended to get lost.


You are right that the science was developed over a period of hundreds of years. But there was resistance from people who were comfortable with the old theories (such as the Catholic Church), that was finally overcome with the help of ordinary people, like ship captains who needed the new model in order to navigate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

209. But there doesn't seem to be any record of merchants being involved

The histories just talk about the spread of the heliocentirc theory among astronomers. It's true that the elliptical motion of the Earth has an effect on the Equation of Time - but that's an effect for the whole earth, and could be measured at one place and applied everywhere as a tabled-based correction. But the only effect of the earth's orbit on the position of the stars is parallax, which is extremly small (too small to be relevant to navigation), and only detectable with close stars.

[pnwmom]

212. If you haven't read the Kuhn book, that's a place you could start.

I read it so long ago my memory on this is foggy, but I believe he includes a long account of this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

228. Well, I'll keep an eye out for that book

but it's worth pointing out that in this long essay on Kuhn's "Copernican Revolution", there's no mention of merchants, commerce, or ships, and the only mention of navigation is this quote from Kuhn's book:

Without the aid of telescopes or of elaborate mathematical arguments
that have no apparent relation to astronomy, no effective evidence for
a moving planetary earth can be produced. The observations available
to the naked eye fit the two-sphere universe very well (remember the
universe of the practical navigator and the surveyor), and there is no
more natural explanation of them. It is not hard to realize why the
ancients believed in the two-sphere universe. The problem is to discover
why the conception was given up.

http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1481/480106.pdf

but there are long discussions of philosophy, science, religion and astronomy.

[pnwmom]

229. If I run into my book, I'll let you know . . . but I'm not exactly using

the Dewey Decimal system around here!

In the meantime, here's something interesting about telescopes, and about how it was craftsman, not scientists, who gave the intitial boost to astronomy.

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/instruments/telescope.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. The certainties of science?

It was science that produced those quantum physics theories. Science isn't certain; it's methods for better understanding and predicting the world, and the collected results so far of using those methods.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. Which is just what I was attempting to say.

Actually, I meant to say the "certainties of religion or atheism".

But, I find it not a little ironic that quantum theory seems to lead to mysteries that require a leap to philosophy rather than "pure" science to tackle. i.e. Like quantum theorists, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, believe that "time", "life", "distance", etc are all illusions.

Also, if quantum theory is right, there are an infinite number of universes where everything happens that could happen. That being the case, there are universes without religion or science.

I find it all a bit awe-inspiring and highly humorous that we specks of engergy and matter (if such things actually exist) should debate and wrestle with such ideas as if they actually meant anything in the grand scheme of the cosmos.

On the other hand, as the Zennists say, we must "chop wood and carry water" because that's about the only things we can do.

[pnwmom]

46. Madeline L'Engle, the Christian author of "A Wrinkle in Time" once said

(I'll have to paraphrase, since I'm only relying on my memory here) that a person of faith is often teetering on the brink of agnosticism.

Faith is never about certainty, is it?

[immoderate]

56. About that certainty...

Atheists around here don't express a certainty that there is no god. (Well, there are a couple of exceptions.) It's more like they are certain that the universe we observe is not explainable in terms of any god that has been hypothesized. Any proposed notion of god goes against things that we are otherwise aware of.

The way you describe yourself is what is sometimes called "soft" atheist, and is the same as most of those who post in A&A. Agnostic means without absolute knowledge, such as divine revelation. Hardly any atheists claim such knowledge. Everybody is an agnostic. They may believe but they do not know.

--IMM

[Proud_Democratt]

67. This Atheist is certain...

I cannot believe in a higher power, in the God sense. I never believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, nor the boogieman. This is RIGHT for me....it may not be right for all!

[immoderate]

70. Well I'm sure we agree.

It just goes to a notion of philosophical absoluteness. That smacks of pretentions to omniscience.

--IMM

[Ron Green]

80. It is right for you at this point in time . . .

but it may not be right for you at another point in time. I could have written the exact words of your post many years ago, but now I understand things differently than I did then.

[Proud_Democratt]

85. Right for me

I'm 45.....it's been that way for me since 16.

[Ron Green]

117. It was when I was 45 that I shared the view you now have.

That was a long time ago. You never know how your mind may change.

:D

[Proud_Democratt]

35. Science and Religion

It's like oil and water.....they just don't mix.
Science is proven. If we left everything to religion, then there would no internet, no space exploration, etc.

[pnwmom]

49. Of course, science changes too, does it not? Have you read

Thomas Kuhn's "A Theory of Scientific Revolution" ?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

142. You sure about that?

Obviously the churches did not explore space, but I would guess most of the explorers were persons of faith.

[Writer]

36. My question: MUST there be a winner?

This is a black and white question a la Crossfire.

[Proud_Democratt]

39. Winner?

IN science.....people win through progression.
IN religion....nobody wins.

[Writer]

43. A Christian would argue that one can win through faith and...

the Christian treatment of others.

Must this be so black and white an issue?

[pnwmom]

50. I think the people who try to make it black and white are trying to

squeeze all people of faith into one fundamentalist box. But we don't fit.

[Proud_Democratt]

51. Black and White?

There probably is some GREY area involved...if one were to STUDY the Bible and dismiss the ideologies learned at standard churches. Ezekiel mentions things that could and probably ARE UFOs. But you'll never hear Falwell or Robertson mention these things in sermons.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

68. Just a right or wrong issue.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

143. Now you are showing your

biases. Many of us have lived happy lives with our faith, and I call that "winning."

Don't be a "bigot"!

Also, science is not always progression. There are a lot of backwards steps and false starts and bum steers that come from science. Remember global cooling we were worried about a while back? Science is as fallible as the humans that bring it to us.

[Proud_Democratt]

150. Even though

science has to step backwards sometimes....it is because of science that we can comment here.
If religion had full control...we'd still be living in a world believing it to be flat!
I'm not a bigot......did I call YOU names??? Logic-maniac would be a nice title.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

155. I put "bigot"

in quotes to mitigate it. Sorry you didn't understand that. Picture me doing hand quotes when I say it!

But you did paint with a broad brush.

I don't have a problem with science. I'd be dead ten times over without it and wouldn't have any children alive, either. But it is fallible. No way would I want to live in a world where religion controlled all. I read about the Taliban. Not good times.

Did I welcome you to DU? Hope so. If I didn't, WELCOME.

And a question. Do you spell Democratt with two t's as a pun for something? I'm a little slow in that regard. Explain?

Logic-maniac is a nice little tag. I've been manic quite a few times in my life. But not logically.

[Proud_Democratt]

157. Thanks for the Welcome!!!

Maybe we should start over. I spell it(Democratt) that way because Proud_Democrat is my username on other sites, but Proud_Democrat (with 1 T)was already taken.

[rpgamerd00d]

48. Science = How. Religion = Why. Have a nice day.

[Evoman]

189. Religion=why?

See...your begging the question. What if there is no why?

[Bill McBlueState]

59. religion will never disappear

But the claims of religion will keep changing as science advances. Used to be, everyone believed god(s) created the universe with the earth right smack in the middle of it less than a hundred generations ago. But geology, biology, and astronomy have made that belief untenable, so now the religious say deep time, evolution, and the big bang are real, but god(s) made them happen.

Given that science keeps advancing and religion keeps adapting to science, I'd call that a "win" for science.

[anarch]

60. Science does not remove the Terror of the Gods

[ContraBass Black]

62. I wasn't aware they were in absolute competition toward some victory.

False dichotomy.

[Proud_Democratt]

64. Competition...

There is competition in the US, regarding religion and non-belief. Atheists are disregarded in many ways. Free Thinkers are constantly challenged and ridiculed by the majority(Christians)for their lack of religious faith. We are often told that we're going to Hell,etc. We are sick of this "better than thou" attitude!

[pnwmom]

161. But you are complaining here to people who are anything but

fundamentalists. Who among us are telling you that you are going to hell?

What drives me crazy is being lumped in with fundies by people who should know better.

[Evoman]

190. Ah..well, not really

Um....i really like you and Tenessegrannie...but your wrong. There are some on here who think (and in some cases admitted as much) that we are going to hell. You may think that the Repugs have a monopoly on fundamentalists, but thats just not the case. There are many people right here on DU who are fundamentalists.

The only difference?

Repugs: "You atheist are going to burn in hell and I'll laugh"

DU fundies: "Don't you see, you don't have to burn in hell if you accept Jesus. God is giving you a choice but you reject him"

[pnwmom]

193. Wow. There are really people here who say those things?

Yuk. What can I say?

Just don't lump us all in together, okay? I come here to get away from people like that!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

297. Good Lord

We must read two entirely different boards. I have yet to encounter a fundamentalist on DU!

I've never even read anyone say they believe in hell.

I know I don't.

And I happily go through life believing whatever the hell I want and so far nobody has called me on it. And I live in the Bible Belt!

[beam me up scottie]

299. Oh, stick around, TG, you'll meet them soon enough.

Trust me, I was going when I first found them on DU, too.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

300. Well that's just plain scary.

What the hell are they doing HERE? MISSION WORK???

[beam me up scottie]

301. They won't say.

Quite perplexing, isn't it?

We'll have to get Evoman to do a play about it, but my take on it goes something like this:

"I like you and everything but it's my duty as a liberal progressive to inform you that you're going to burn in hell for eternity because you don't believe what I do."

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

65. Not a competition... Er... Evolution vs. "creationism."

Some people made it that way and I don't believe it was the science community.

Actually, I think it's more of a quest for truth.

[Proud_Democratt]

69. Truth..

Americans in general don't want truth....we raise our kids in a bed of lies....Santa Claus, Easter Bunny,etc.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

71. Truth is conception unfortunately.

12th Century truth was quite different from today's truth.

[Proud_Democratt]

88. Truth...

is what tickles on's ears.

[RagAss]

73. Religions are man-made movements.....God is Science !!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

74. Okay!!!!! (Which one?)

[FlaGranny]

75. I voted for logic, but

my answer as to who wins: If science wins, we all win. If religion (fundamentalism) wins, we all lose.

[pnwmom]

79. Science invented the nuclear bomb. Science isn't enough by itself.

[Finder]

104. No--Human Scientists invented it.

You seem to be leading to the "religion equals morality" area.

[greyl]

197. And even more accurately, our particular culture invented it. nt

[FlaGranny]

106. Yes, science is neither

good nor evil, but without it where would we be? Science isn't a thing. Science is merely the ideas we use to discover how things work. When humans figured out how to tame fire they were being "scientists." Every item we make or use is a result of science. If you are a believer in God, I have to ask you why you think God gave man the "power" of scientific thought?

My family has NO religious roots. They are all intelligent, successful people, none of whom have ever intentially harmed another, and have all made contributions to our society. Fundamentalism would not have allowed them to exist as they are now. Science has no desire to control, but fundamentalism sure does. If fundamentalism had been in complete control up to the present time, where do you think we'd be right now? Would we still believe the earth was the center of the universe; would we fly? Fundamentalism has always done its best to repress thought and innovation.

[pnwmom]

116. Where are you getting the idea I'm defending fundamentalism?

[RagAss]

174. Good point....Science seeks to explain the eternal cycle...

religions, on the other hand, are man made doctrines devoted to subjugation of the "believers" in the interest of service to the rich.....that is all they ever can be.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

126. Religious fundamentalism causes intolerance. Faith by itself isn't enough.

We can make blanket statements all day long, if you want to. Neither spirituality/morality/faith nor science/logic/reason can survive exclusively.

[DanCa]

76. I am in a loose loose personally

I want science to cure my Parkinsons. I need "faith" to give me strength to legislate against the fundies and to keep my mind off my bodies pain.

[Proud_Democratt]

87. Inner strength

Faith from within isn't neccessarily religious. However I do sincerely wish/hope the best for you.:)

[DanCa]

109. Thank you

And welcome to the boards. I am always happy to meet a new friend. :hi:

[TheBaldyMan]

81. I don't know what the KO question was but the poll choice is meaningless

Science is science, it has a very specific range that it can claim as its own. It is not imcompatible with religion or belief.

Similarly religion is religion, its nature is unscientific so can't be examined scientifically but that doesn't make it incompatible with science or scientific thinking.

Neither can be proved or disproved by the other, I didn't vote in the poll.


on edit for clarification:
Science isn't a game that you can win, it is a method not absolute knowledge.

We don't need to accept all those things we don't understand as divine. From a religious point of view everything is ultimately of divine origin, including the god-given reason that allows us to perform scientific enquiry, it includes everything we do understand as well as all those things we don't.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

82. I don't know.

I think that in any empirical test....

[pnwmom]

83. well said. n/t

[DemExpat]

84. I also didn't vote for reasons you stated well.

DemEx

[Inland]

89. The poll is meaningful. Just not the results.

The drafting of the poll tells you lots about the attitudes of the person who drafted it. Nothing about the people responding. Most push polls are like that.

I voted, and I suspect that everyone who voted for the second choice voted, solely to resist a poll set up to achieve a specific result.

[TheBaldyMan]

102. There are quite a lot of posters that didn't vote in the poll,

I can only speak for myself, I didn't vote because it isn't an exclusive choice. Rather than choose one or the other I recognise that both science and religion can co-exist quite happily. There is no contradiction in having confidence in the scientific method and having religious faith simultaneously.

Science is a process that allows a continual improvement of our understanding of the world around us. Atomic theory is no threat to faith. The theory of evolution is not a threat to faith either, although it is a threat to a fundamental belief in the literal truth of scripture. I think that lies at the root of the anti-scientific efforts by the right wing.

[FlaGranny]

107. How do you prove or disprove science?

Science isn't a theory OR a fact. It is merely the way we investigate how things work. When we decide there is enough evidence of how a thing works, we then call that a theory or fact - until then, it is just speculation.

[TheBaldyMan]

146. I stand corrected FG, you are quite right.

I find it easier to do science rather than explain the scientific method. I made some attempts in my other posts.

[warrior1]

93. God and religion was created by man

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995)

[BiggJawn]

94. Religion will win, through sheer force of numbers....

Even though it is written "If 10,000,000 believe a foolish thing, it's *STILL* a foolish thing."...

Why do I think Reason will lose? In times of strife, which book do most people clutch to their chests? "The Demon-Haunted World", or the Bible?

How popular are cheesy pastel pictures of Fermi, Einstein, Hawkins, MIT, et al.?

How popular are cheesy pastel pictures of "Angels", little cottages, churches?

How many people have cutesy little teddy bears dressed like Physicists or Engineers on top their Teee-Veees?

How many people have cutesy little teddy bears dressed in clothes that say "FDNY" on top their glass tits?

We're hard-wired for superstition. Rational thinking is a learned response, and in our country's push to crank-out Wal-Mart greeters instead of thinkers, today's kids never get even a TASTE of critical thinking. Watch Channel One, listen to the BFEE propaganda, and pay CLOSE attention to the Nike and Pepsi ads, because that's what pays for the satellite dish...

[spanone]

95. Science trumps science fiction. Scientists never had a Crusade.

Religion = War.

[pnwmom]

119. If religion equals war, how do you explain "blessed are the peacemakers"?

And "turn the other cheek."

Your blanket statements are meaningless.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

125. Those are very good principles.

Too often the people attempting to carry them out are shitty, though. Religion is a tool for many people attempting to gain power.

[pnwmom]

128. Yes, many people use (mis)use religion as a tool for power.

[okasha]

135. And so, unfortunately, is science on occasion.

Atom bomb.

Chemical/biological warfare.

Eugenics.

TV.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

160. Fuck, yes.

Human ingenuity knows no (moral) bounds, sometimes.

:scared:

[H2O Man]

96. The limited choices

that are given would not rate as either good scientific or religious thought. Thus, I shall vote "other." Science and religion are the same thing, much in the same way that the womb and the ancestor are the same thing. Science and religion both have the exact same positive and negative potentials.

[Finder]

99. I voted for logic.

I find it scary that some consider being logical as a negative.

[lonestarnot]

101. hmmmf... I say we can still have two winners.

[Odin2005]

103. Some of my fellow atheists need to realize...

...there will always be religion, most people don't have the willpower, especially during hard times, to be atheists. Most people need knoledge that there is an afterlife and that thier imagniary sky spirit will protect them. In the commong years Christianity will continue to loose it's grip on the West, but that doesn't mean religion will.

[Finder]

105. A sense of spirituality perhaps...

but that does not require religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. What is 'spirituality' to you?

It seems to mean different things to people - can you say what your understanding of it is?

[Finder]

118. My understanding is that it is an inner sense...

of how one connects with other humans and nature(the world).

Some religions offer doctrine to explain this connection which often fails to answer simple questions in a logical way and often without introspection and contradicts observation.

I will cite Maslow, Jung, Plato, and numerous Hindu and Buddhist writings that have explained it much better than I ever could.

Maslow's Hiearchy helps to explain why the poor and uneducated tend to look to religion rather than within.

[pnwmom]

120. And some atheists need their certainty that logic explains everything (or

ultimately could describe everything.)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

145. That has been my observation as well.

We are all seeking answers and some of us think we have them.

[Proud_Democratt]

152. Logic does

explain almost everything...We humans just fall for fairy tales instead of weighing facts. What we don't understand now, will be explained down the road of time.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

144. So you are saying

that people of faith lack willpower?

How very dismissive.

[giant_robot]

113. Science will always triumph over dogma and rigid thinking...

...but "religion" is too broad a term. One must define religion for one's self. As a scientist, science *is* my religion, in a sense.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

124. Science does not concern itself with religion.

It seeks to explain how. Religion seeks to explain why. Religion means nothing to science whatsoever--science does not seek to either prove OR disprove religion/philosophy/spirituality. Science observes. Religion attempts to use these observations to prove something more. The two do not need to be at loggerheads with one another.

I can't vote, because I wasn't aware that there was a contest going on that needed to be "won."

:eyes:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

130. Apples and oranges

Science is limited and so is religion. Faith fills in the holes for some. To rely completely on science would be limiting for me, personally. I know some are fine with it. I think science has solved about one-tenth of one percent of the mysteries out there. Perhaps someday all the "miracles" of faith will be proven to have scientific bases. After all, a few centuries ago we would have scoffed at radio waves.

[Crunchy Frog]

148. I don't acknowledge that dichotomy.

I consider science and religion to occupy separate spheres, except when some people attempt to demand that religious beliefs be treated as science.

[Odin2005]

151. I consider religion and science to be totally seperate areas.

They do not have to oppose each other, the "religion is anti-science" is a result of the backlash against dogmatic Christianity. The non-Abrahamic faiths don't seem to conflict with science nearly as much. Science deals with reason, logic, and what is provable; religion deals with unproveable faith. Although I am an atheist, unlike many atheists I don't consider religion bad. The problem is when religion tries to to go out of bounds and treads on the territory of science.

[JerseygirlCT]

159. Neither -- they are not in conflict. nt

[pnwmom]

173. NY Times article by Albert Einstein, 1930

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm


"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

[Proud_Democratt]

181. More Einstein Quotes

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

[pnwmom]

183. Many of the quotes are taken from the article I posted. I think it's

helpful to see them in context, too.


I think what many atheists don't seem to get is that many people who consider themselves to be spiritual , or to have faith in God, have the same thoughts about organized religion that Einstein did.

[beam me up scottie]

186. "I do not believe in a personal God"

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

~Albert Einstein, 1954

[pnwmom]

192. "But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all

of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

SNIP

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."


http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[beam me up scottie]

244. See IMModerate's posts 149, 201, 207, 223, 225, 230, and 231

I'm tired of arguing with people who ignore or manipulate evidence that doesn't support their beliefs.

[pnwmom]

222. A personal God is not the only way to understand God.

[beam me up scottie]

242. He was an atheist.

IMModerate covered this already in posts #149, 201, 207, 223, 225, 230 and 231.

You chose to ignore his references and I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who uses selective thinking.

[pnwmom]

249. That's funny that you should mention IMModerate . . .

I doubt that he felt that I was ignoring his posts.

Read my post 173 for four long articles that Einstein wrote about religion and science.

What I was trying to say was that some atheists rely on a conception of religious thought that excludes people like Einstein -- who wrote about cosmic religious feeling and said how difficult it was to describe it to other people without being able to define it as a personal God. Even though Einstein didn't believe in a personal God, he didn't say that he thought of himself as an atheist -- but that OTHER people (like you -- and the Jesuit) would call him one.

In end, I think IMModerate and I realized that we weren't really arguing about the specificity of Einstein's thought, but about whether the totality of that thought should be labeled as atheistic or spiritual.

[beam me up scottie]

250. I said you ignored his references, not him.

You also tried to shoehorn the quotes you took out of context while ignoring whatever didn't support your belief system.

FYI, I have read "your" articles as well as many others about Einstein, and he was clearly an atheist.

Just like IMModerate, just like me and just like many other DU atheists.

While your fundamentalist thinking and bias towards atheists are no doubt due to your ignorance of the subject, I find the fact that you ignored IMModerate's (and Einstein's) definition of atheism indicative of intolerance.

I have yet to see you ask one of us how we define atheism.

When you're ready to acknowledge that your beliefs about us might be wrong, let me know.

In the meantime, please stop referring to your personal definition of atheism as if it were accurate.

Being told what we do or don't believe by others is arrogant, insulting and offensive to many atheists.

[pnwmom]

251. Where did I define atheism?

I was trying to talk about the varieties of religious thought, not atheism.

And for you to call me a fundamentalist means you are completely not reading anything I've written.

[beam me up scottie]

253. Here:

pnwmom (374 posts) Sat Apr-08-06 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #55
77. I think agnostics are closer to people of faith

and atheists, in their need for certainty, are often closer to fundamentalists.

As Muriel already told you, atheists have no need for certainty.





here:

pnwmom (374 posts) Sat Apr-08-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #97
114. Yes, I am distinguishing many fundamentalists from "people of faith."

Because to say "I believe" is implicitly to say, "I could be wrong." And many fundamentalists are never wrong. While they might profess allegiance to a certain religion, I'm not sure they're really people of faith.

Faith, to me, is inseparable from doubt -- or it isn't faith.

Also, I do feel that those who are CERTAIN either that "God exists" or "God does not exist" have something in common . . . that ability, need, or whatever to be certain.

While those who are willing to tolerate ambiguity, whether agnostics or people of faith, also have something in common. . . the ability to doubt their own beliefs; the willingness to live on the unsettled, shaky edge of things. The willingness to leave many questions in flux and open to change.

Most atheists do not claim to have the answers.




here:

pnwmom (374 posts) Sat Apr-08-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #103
120. And some atheists need their certainty that logic explains everything (or

ultimately could describe everything.)

Atheists are not certain that logic explains everything.





and here:

pnwmom (374 posts) Sat Apr-08-06 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #127
162. I know they do, because I've seen much worse on other threads. But

I wish they'd stop.

How often do we see DU'ers making fun of atheists for their beliefs? But it is open season here on people with a spiritual bent. Do we really want to drive liberal Christians away from the party?

Atheists do not have beliefs.
Goblinmonger tried to explain this to you and you ignored him.




FYI, I've re-read your posts and still find your portrayal of atheists to be ignorant and intolerant.
The fact that my fellow atheists have attempted to address this seems to support my conclusion.

[pnwmom]

254. You are right, I should have said SOME atheists in that first post

rather than making a blanket statement. It is only some atheists whose certainty reminds me of fundamentalists.

But did you really mean it when you said, "Atheists do not have beliefs." Do you mean, atheists don't have religious beliefs?

[pnwmom]

255. And I didn't mean to insult by using the word "beliefs." I could just as

easily have written "for their ideas" -- that is what I meant. (From my perspective, as you know, having beliefs isn't a negative thing.)

But I'm sorry that I offended you.

[beam me up scottie]

258. It's okay.

I think the fact that you were new to this forum is why Gobby tried to bring it to your attention.

There's a lot of history between many R&T posters, and a lot of it is just rehashing old battles, so when a newbie trips over the baggage it's not usually their fault.


Ugh, if you want to see some history that better explains our sensitivity, check out this post.

[pnwmom]

260. Rest assured, I don't view lack of belief as equivalent to having belief.

And I don't think that being an atheist is just another kind of religious belief.

But I do remember being surprised, when I went to the religion forum, that so many of the posts seemed to be by atheists. I guess I shouldn't have, because so many religion majors that I knew in college were atheists. (And a surprising number of friends that were in Divinity School! They even had a name for the theists -- "The God Squad.")

So I've thought for decades that all these lines that people want to draw were actually very blurry.

[beam me up scottie]

262. One of the reasons why we are so vocal

is because we feel threatened by this administration.
More so than ever before.

Another reason is that most of us cannot discuss atheism outside of internet forums.
So this is liberating for us.

I am glad you have joined us, we need more outspoken believers in here.

Despite the snarking and infighting, most of us are here for the same reasons; learning about people who are different than us and defeating the cabal of crooks that was installed in our government against our will.

[pnwmom]

264. Believe me (but there's that word again!) I feel threatened, too.

Did you read the article in the NY Times about abortion in El Salvador? These people are scary.

[beam me up scottie]

265. What they are doing is horrible.

It's inhumane and sadistic.

That's what they want to do to us here.
We can't let them.
We won't let them.

[Proud_Democratt]

309. BTW...

I love your username. I'm a Trekkie!

[beam me up scottie]

311. I knew it!!!

A Spock fan, right?

Almost all atheists dig Spock.

[Proud_Democratt]

315. Definitely Spock.......

but I really enjoy the comeradery btween Spock, Kirk, and Bones. Diverse, but yet in essence unitarian.

[beam me up scottie]

317. My favorite line:

"What DOES God want with a spaceship?"

Classic.

[Proud_Democratt]

318. Final Frontier

very interesting movie....my 2nd fav.....my fav is Undiscovered Country

[beam me up scottie]

256. That's another one of those words that is defined differently by people.

But, yes, most atheists don't have religious beliefs.

I, and many other atheists, don't actively disbelieve in the christian god.
In other words, we don't claim there is no god, we take the position that there is no evidence of god or gods and would probably change our minds if evidence were presented.

A few DUers insist that we are incapable of defining our atheism, they claim that we have religious beliefs.
They dismiss our definitions.
So it's become a point of contention with us.

I can't really be offended if you weren't aware of agnostic atheism.

[pnwmom]

257. You're right. I was aware of atheism and I was aware of agnosticism

but not of agnostic atheism. Interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

259. LOL!

I'm a lifelong atheist and a lot of this was news to me!

Since we don't congregate, go to church or practice the same philosophy, I didn't know that there were so many terms and definitions.

We're as different as believers; the only thing we have in common is that we lack belief in gods.

[pnwmom]

261. Got it -- I think

therefore . . . I am.

Dumb joke. Couldn't resist.

[beam me up scottie]

263. Snarf!

:D
We do a lot of that in here, it helps diffuse the tension.

The believers usually have the best jokes.

[pnwmom]

266. Thank you. Maybe it's because humor so often involves linking

two odd ideas, and believers are so good at that.

[beam me up scottie]

267. I think I mentioned in another thread

that I grew up in a mostly catholic area, surrounded by liberal christians.

None of the students I knew had a problem with the "theory" of evolution.

I discovered fundamentalism when I left home, and it floored me.

Still does.



ack! I have to get to bed, I have to get up in a couple of hours!

It was nice talking to you, I'll catch up with you tomorrow.:hi:

[Proud_Democratt]

295. Isn't it great

not to have feuds between Atheists??? Believers can't have peace...they always have to wage war. It's the "better than thou" attitude. If you're offended by my remarks...sobeit.

[beam me up scottie]

298. You mean about things like

my nonexistent deity can beat up your nonexistent deity?

Seriously, I like to think most liberal christians on DU don't participate in the predatory practices of their monotheism.

Of course, I don't consider anyone who tries to convert others, whether they're at my door or preying on native people, to be liberal.

While I'm sure they feel that their belief in their personal god is right for them, christians like TallahassieGrannie also welcome diversity.

I try not to broadbrush here, because even though I don't pull any punches when I think atheists are being unfairly maligned, I recognize the fact that we need people like her on our side if we want to stop the Amerikkkan Taliban.

And I really don't want to offend her, Maat, catbert, danca or any of my other friends.

[Proud_Democratt]

302. Lack of faith in a god...

means you can focus more faith on your inner strengths and weaknesses.

[beam me up scottie]

303. How would an atheist know that?

I've never been a believer.

Atheism is natural to me.

[Proud_Democratt]

304. My meaning is about self-confidence....

fixing oneself by means of self analysis. This does not require any theistic belief or indoctrination. If a friend of yours tells you "that you've been an asshole today"...you take that person's advice and change your attitude. This is natural, isn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

306. Look,

if you do a search on my posts in this forum, and wade through all of the epic battles and shit storms, you'll find that on more than one occasion I have expressed the viewpoint that if faith comforts people and helps them find strength and even occasionally gives then moral direction, I'm down with that.

I have a HUGE effing problem with it, however, when it's used as a tool to manipulate and oppress others or to convince believers that they are morally superior.

Many believers can't even begin to conceive what it's like to be an atheist, just like I have no concept of what's it's like to believe.

So, even though it's tempting sometimes, when I'm really pissed at a religious bigot, no matter what I say, I can't really buy into the whole we're better than them mindset.

Because I despise the people who feel that way about me.

Should science triumph over superstition, yes, definitely!

Should it do it by force?

No.

At least, not in my opinion.

[Proud_Democratt]

308. Being an Atheist...in regards to your inner self........

is a much harder road than any believer could conceive. You have no religious-reliance. You must constantly rely on self-motivation and examination. AN EXAMPLE: If you've done someone wrong....you must ask them PERSONALLY for forgiveness to ease your guilt...there is no religious intervention to rely on.

[beam me up scottie]

313. That is true.

But I'm pretty sure that most of my friends who are believers don't rely on religion the way fundies do.

They agonize over issues just like I do, and when they do the right thing, I think it's for the same reasons we do.

[Proud_Democratt]

314. I was raised in a strict

Pentecostal Church....speaking in tongues, casting out demons, people rolling around "under the spirit", Jericho Marches(marching in a circle)...these practices are very common.
As a child, I TRIED so hard to be a part of this...but I just couldn't follow through!
I attended church regularly till I was 16.....but never fit in.
Later I tried other religions, but I never, ever believed. It took me over 25 years of my life to discover that I was an Atheist.
All my relatives are Evangelical Christians....and I have never told them of my non-belief. They verbally cornered me...and they asked me if I was this or that. I told them I believe in myself. They ridiculed me.

[beam me up scottie]

316. That sucks.

I can only imagine how angry I would be.
Being married to a fundie's son was bad enough.

I admire people like you, not just atheists, but liberals in general who were raised like you were but still found the strength to refuse the culture of hate.

There are a lot of now disease free ex-fundies on DU, you'll meet some of them in here.

Have you read the essay I posted in here about the five lights?

[Proud_Democratt]

319. No...

but I will. Where is it located? BTW, sent a PM.

[beam me up scottie]

321. Wow, it's off the first page in this forum already?

Too many new threads to keep up with...

Here's the link, I think you'll really like it : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=58007&mesg_id=58007

[Proud_Democratt]

320. Also...

Was raised as a Republican....because of moral values, the minister preached against people like Johnson, McGovern, even Carter...because of the Playboy interview.

[beam me up scottie]

322. I loathe the southern baptists.

Especially for what they say about President Carter, a man I admire and respect.

I love the fact that he told them what to do with their dogma.

[Proud_Democratt]

307. In my lifetime....

I've observed this;

Many(NOT ALL) people use religion, alcohol, drugs,etc. to escape their lives. We need to learn to accept things, both good and bad, and recognize that we can fix many things within our own circle of life.
Not all things are within our control....be patient though...and remember conditions change.

[beam me up scottie]

310. I agree with you.

Completely.

A belated welcome to DU, by the way. :toast:

[Random_Australian]

195. There are two possibilities:

At the endpoint of Science, in the last and final set of laws, science will rule that there is no God. Therefore science 'wins'.

OR

The ultimate and final endpoint of science will be that there is a God. Therefore, they both 'win'.

[pnwmom]

202. Einstein also said that WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

In that case, science will have lost.

[trotsky]

273. LOL

And along the way, evil science will have saved the lives of billions thru antibiotics, surgery, better nutrition, yada, yada, yada.

Talk about rigid fundamentalist-type thinking. You bash science and bash atheists relentlessly.

(By the way, say Chimpy goes ahead with his nuclear launch against Iran. You've got a fundamentalist Christian regime going after a fundamentalist Islam one. Was science chiefly to blame?)

[greyl]

196. When religions or "living" mythologies fail to incorporate

scientific knowledge, they disqualify themselves from being transcendent to the authentic mysteries of existence and and become instead weakened dogmatic caricatures of previous states of human ignorance.
imo

[TallahasseeGrannie]

198. well said

[NAO]

208. Massive Book - "The History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology"

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by
ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena)
Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University

Two Volumes Combined

New York
D. Appleton and Company
1898


entire text online here:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/

[catbert836]

246. Strange question to ask.

In the future, I don't really see one triumphing over the other. Science and faith will always exist if people are there to believe in them. That's the way it has been for quite a long while, and as long as human civilization still exists, they will still be components.

[TheBaldyMan]

248. Science isn't a belief system, it is a method of investigaton into ...

physical phenomena. Scientists don't believe in science. They have confidence in scientific findings, nothing more is necessary except an awareness that the answer stands until a better explaination comes along.

[catbert836]

283. You're right, of course.

That word "belief" always throws me off. My bad.