Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[Machinesworking]

I am in a technical field, and have a degree in electronics and physics, I still see more facts in the Bible than science has given on the topics of evolution and creation.

Just the simple unavoidable word fact being used to describe biblical facts on evolution......What's the point in talking to you about it?

Let's repeat some simple facts:
Biblical scholars forced the earth as the center of the universe for centuries, that the earth was flat etc. That's biblical science in action.

Since around 300 AD every new generation of christians has claimed end times, looked around them at the general state of the world and said that the signs of impending apocalypse are evident.

The church's stance on homosexuality is another example of negativity in action, and personally, I hold the church accountable for a large portion of hate crimes associated with homosexuality. The simple fact is most of the perpetrators are simple minded males from christian families. Not to mention what goes on in the muslim world in regards to gays.
...........
Nobody has denied that the ten commandments are a good moral code of behavior, or that practicing buddhists make good neighbors etc. All that has been stated at least by me is that it is no indication of the moral and ethical nature of a person. Atheists, and agnostics are not less ethical people, and religion for all it's good, has also done as much damage, simply because it's practitioners tend to read FAR too much into it. For instance looking into the bible for evolutionary theory, the age of the planet/universe etc.

[edge100]

Nobody has denied that the ten commandments are a good moral code of behavior

First, let me say I agree with everything you've said. I would argue, however, that the ten commandments could be pared down to six and be vastly improved.

Keep in mind that the commandments are the ONLY part of the bible that are actually physically written by the hand of god, and thus should perhaps be considered to be, in the eyes of the christian and jew, the most important words ever uttered.

The first three commandments are the voice of a jealous god, and have absolutely no bearing on inherent 'goodness'; the fourth tells us to keep one day a week 'holy' (and, by the way, is inconsistent in the two versions of the commandments in the OT). The rest of the commandments are generally good ideas (honouring your parents, not killing, etc).

But remember, these are allegedly the most important words ever uttered in the history of the universe, and the perfect guide to living a good, moral life. I find it absolutely astonishing that god would, in essence, waste the first four commandments, basically telling us nothing useful, except that we shoudn't take other gods, because god is jealous. I can think of any number of other 'commandments' that would lead to a healthier, happier, more 'moral' life than these first four commandments. Simply telling the ancients to wash their hands before eating, thus reducing the spread of bacteria and viruses, thus lowering the death rate (a 'moral' proposition, don't you think?), would be a better commandment than "You shall have no other God's before me", don't you think?

or that practicing buddhists make good neighbors etc. All that has been stated at least by me is that it is no indication of the moral and ethical nature of a person. Atheists, and agnostics are not less ethical people, and religion for all it's good, has also done as much damage, simply because it's practitioners tend to read FAR too much into it. For instance looking into the bible for evolutionary theory, the age of the planet/universe etc.

I'm not one to get into a risk-benefit analysis of religion. But, even when religion has done good things (and frankly, I struggle to think of many examples), there were perfectly good reasons to do likewise that had nothing to do with the divinity of Jesus or that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse.

If religious people are to cherry-pick their holy books (the Old and New Testaments, the Qu'ran, and the hadith being the prime modern examples), then they must also be prepared to defend the words in those same books that condone the most abhorrent violence for the most trivial offences. And yes, I include the NT in this; the coming of Jesus may have symbolized a new covenant with god, but Jesus was very clear that we shouldn't forget even a word of what the prophets told us (meaning, "the Old Testament is as valid as ever").

But this is all a red-herring; the central point here is that even if we accept every moral teaching of all of the holy books ever written, that provides not one iota of evidence in support of the literal existence of god. "Chicken Soup for the Soul" and Dr. Phil have undoubtedly provided good moral advice from time to time, which is to say that morality is not inherently religious, and even if it were, this is no reason to believe in transubstantiation or any of the other idiotic notions of modern religion (or, by the same token, in the existence of Zeus or Thor).

[Huey]

I really don't think that Biblical Scholars came up with the world is flat concept. Ancient well know "scientist" stated the world was flat and explorers proved it incorrect. There are many christian churches who do allow homosexuals as pastors and they preach every Sunday. So the statement that the "church's stance on homosexuality" is kind of a blanket statedment that all churches hate homosexuals. That is not the case. I am merely stateing my beliefs. The Bible states that a union or marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it hate homosexuals, no. Does my church tell me to hate or not tolerate that behavior, no. I have several gay friends. I will have a beer and sit and talk to them all day long. They are very close friends of mine. Do I tell them that they are going to hell, no. But I do believe that they will have a problem come judgement day. That is my personnal belief. Hate crimes against homosexuals do not stem from the church. Look at the class of individuals that commit these hate crimes. They are generally lower class and uneducated. They definetely have not seen the inside of a church in a long time or never. They are conditioned by the bigotry of their parents or the lack of parental guidance. No, you won't find the age of the planets in the Bible. Never said you could. But science books can not explain how life began either. Evolution can not be explained scientifically. In fact evolutionary theory contridicts science Yet people alway spew forth "fact" that science proves it, when in reality, it doesn't. There are groups of people that take a very literal understanding of the Bible, like where in the Old Testament it states "if your right eye offends you, pluck it out". I am sure there are some folks that would do it. They really don't go any further in the context of the statement. Like going into the New Testament where things changed quite a bit in terms of God's word. I am not "Cherry picking" from the Bible. I am quoting. I guess I could turn around and say the same thing about Dawkins's book. Your just cherry picking from that and parroting back what he says. Quoting is not cherry picking so that argument is kind of a cop out. One word "Mythology" your sun example. Its called Mythology for a reason. Do you find modern Greeks worshipping Zeus? No. They are predominently catholic. Like I said, these are my beliefs and no my parents did not thrust them down my throat. I was given the chance by my parents for form my own beliefs and moral values. This thread will never go anywhere because it is perpetuated by people with their own belief system. I believe in God, you don't so what. Where the problems arise is that people state that, for a fact that there is no God. No one has proven otherwise. All I know is I believe that everything around us was not a "happy accident". Something as complex as life did not happen from a big bang. Someone stated way back in this treat that the chances of there being a God was so miniscule that he could not comprehend it. Well the chances of everything lining up from an explosion to form a living cell it is exactly the same. Anywho, thats just my input and I shouldn't be chastised for my beliefs.

Don

[Tone Deft]

George Carlin cuts the 10 commandments down to 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zju8wSDAdXY

[edge100]

I really don't think that Biblical Scholars came up with the world is flat concept. Ancient well know "scientist" stated the world was flat and explorers proved it incorrect. There are many christian churches who do allow homosexuals as pastors and they preach every Sunday. So the statement that the "church's stance on homosexuality" is kind of a blanket statedment that all churches hate homosexuals. That is not the case. I am merely stateing my beliefs. The Bible states that a union or marriage is between a man and a woman. Do it hate homosexuals, no. Does my church tell me to hate or not tolerate that behavior, no. I have several gay friends. I will have a beer and sit and talk to them all day long. They are very close friends of mine. Do I tell them that they are going to hell, no. But I do believe that they will have a problem come judgement day. That is my personnal belief. Hate crimes against homosexuals do not stem from the church. Look at the class of individuals that commit these hate crimes. They are generally lower class and uneducated. They definetely have not seen the inside of a church in a long time or never. They are conditioned by the bigotry of their parents or the lack of parental guidance. No, you won't find the age of the planets in the Bible. Never said you could. But science books can not explain how life began either. Evolution can not be explained scientifically. In fact evolutionary theory contridicts science Yet people alway spew forth "fact" that science proves it, when in reality, it doesn't. There are groups of people that take a very literal understanding of the Bible, like where in the Old Testament it states "if your right eye offends you, pluck it out". I am sure there are some folks that would do it. They really don't go any further in the context of the statement. Like going into the New Testament where things changed quite a bit in terms of God's word. I am not "Cherry picking" from the Bible. I am quoting. I guess I could turn around and say the same thing about Dawkins's book. Your just cherry picking from that and parroting back what he says. Quoting is not cherry picking so that argument is kind of a cop out. One word "Mythology" your sun example. Its called Mythology for a reason. Do you find modern Greeks worshipping Zeus? No. They are predominently catholic. Like I said, these are my beliefs and no my parents did not thrust them down my throat. I was given the chance by my parents for form my own beliefs and moral values. This thread will never go anywhere because it is perpetuated by people with their own belief system. I believe in God, you don't so what. Where the problems arise is that people state that, for a fact that there is no God. No one has proven otherwise. All I know is I believe that everything around us was not a "happy accident". Something as complex as life did not happen from a big bang. Someone stated way back in this treat that the chances of there being a God was so miniscule that he could not comprehend it. Well the chances of everything lining up from an explosion to form a living cell it is exactly the same. Anywho, thats just my input and I shouldn't be chastised for my beliefs.

Don

Ok, I'm going to bite.

I really don't think that Biblical Scholars came up with the world is flat concept. Ancient well know "scientist" stated the world was flat and explorers proved it incorrect.

The idea that the Earth is flat predates Christianity by several thousand years, so you are quite right. But, the question I'd like answered is, why don't YOU believe the Earth is flat? Presumably, it's because of the numerous lines of converging evidence that suggest it is geoid (not quite spherical). Anyone who suggests otherwise is not a part of rational discourse. Why? Because their 'beliefs' don't scale with the available evidence.

There are many christian churches who do allow homosexuals as pastors and they preach every Sunday. So the statement that the "church's stance on homosexuality" is kind of a blanket statedment that all churches hate homosexuals. That is not the case.

Absolutely true; there are numerous Christian sects that accept homosexuals. That's wonderful. They are simply ignoring scripture, which you do every day by failing to prosecute with death those who disobey the Ten Commandments. Religious moderates betray faith AND reason equally. I think it's great that homosexuals can, in many sects, be accepted and, in fact, be leaders. That doesn't for one second imply that the bible doesn't disagree with this stance. The bible is VERY clear on this issue, as it is on MANY issues (inlcuding the eating of shell fish, the keeping of slaves, and those who handle mixed fibres). If you choose to ignore certain elements of scripture, because they are incompatible with a civilized society, that's fantastic; but don't whitewash the fact that you are, after all, ignoring the stated will of god.

Hate crimes against homosexuals do not stem from the church. Look at the class of individuals that commit these hate crimes. They are generally lower class and uneducated. They definetely have not seen the inside of a church in a long time or never.

Perhaps you are partially correct. I don't want to give the impression that religion is the cause of all evil; it certainly isn't. But it is frankly disingenuous to claim that intolerance of homosexuals (and women, and others) has NO basis in the 'holy' books. The books are very clear, and there are people who really do believe the literal truth of the bible, for instance. If you firmly believe this is not so, you should be campaigning hard agains't those who misinterpret the bible, rather than just befriending homosexuals. Personal tolerance is one thing; standing up for what you believe is truly wrong is quite another. But I, frankly, cannot see how the bible can be misinterpreted; Yahweh really does hate homosexuals and really does condone slavery, YOUR feelings on the issues notwithstanding.

But science books can not explain how life began either. Evolution can not be explained scientifically. In fact evolutionary theory contridicts science Yet people alway spew forth "fact" that science proves it, when in reality, it doesn't.

There was a time that science could not explain the constitution of stars (Dawkins' example), or how heredity works. Those questions were answered through the development of new methods of data collection, and we can now state with very high certainty (which is as good as science can do, incidentally) that stars are made of predominantly hydrogen and DNA is the genetic material.

The fact that a question cannot be answered today doesn't imply there IS no answer, or that tomorrow's methods won't serve this purpose. I cannot tell you how life began, and neither can you. But our guesses about this are not of equal probability. As I said earlier, even if we accept that the universe WAS made by god (which, when god is defined as I think you define it, I do not accept), we must also accept that the chance of god being exactly as you describe him is infinitesmally small, given the number of possible gods (which, if not infinite, certainly tends towards infinity).

Whether there is or isn't a god is an entirely scientific question, with a real, literal answer, in the same way that the question "Who was the first President of the United States?" has a real, literal answer. Our methods may not yet be sophisticated enough to answer this question, but that doesn't change the fact that the question IS answerable.

Insofar as the evolution question is concerned, I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Evolutionary theory is supported by multiple lines of converging evidence, which suggest that life has evolved over tens of millions of years, from lower organisms, based on natural selection. Again, this is supported by physiology, molecular biology, comparative biology, and the fossil record, to name a few sources of evidence. If you believe that evolution is not correct, that's fine. I have no issue with that, nor should any true scientist. The onus, however, is on YOU do tell me why evolutionary theory APPEARS to be right.

I am not "Cherry picking" from the Bible. I am quoting. I guess I could turn around and say the same thing about Dawkins's book. Your just cherry picking from that and parroting back what he says. Quoting is not cherry picking so that argument is kind of a cop out.

Quoting is fine, no issue with that. But you are stating that the bible doesn't condone violence. Even a cursory reading of both the OT and the NT tells me that this is patently false. The god of the OT is a violent, jealous, woman-hating, slave-trade-condoning, tyrrant. Jesus will return to earth trailing clouds of glory, and cast the unworthy into the fire where their flesh will burn for eternity. Jesus may have said some wonderful things about turning the other cheek, but the rest of the OT and NT leave me somewhat dubious of your claims. I can think of several modern role models of peaceful, moral thought that I would prefer to study over Jesus.

I have indeed quoted Dawkins' book, and I have read it all the way through (as I have the bible). I assure you that at no time does Dawkins express opinions that are at odds with what I've said in this thread. Have I cherry-picked quotes from a book that, in its entirety, shares my worldview? Yes; this isn't the same as making the bible seem like something it isn't. If you aren't killing those homosexual friends of yours, you are cherry-picking from the bible every day.

One word "Mythology" your sun example. Its called Mythology for a reason. Do you find modern Greeks worshipping Zeus? No. They are predominently catholic.

I love it when people make my points for me. WHY did those "myths" die out? Seriously. The did so because the people who believed in them came to use logic and reason to observe the world, and realized that their beliefs didn't scale with the available evidence. No, modern Greeks DON'T believe in the Olympian gods. Why? Because their existence isn't consistent with the available evidence. But there is exactly as much evidence for the divinity of Jesus as there is for the existence of Zeus. EXACTLY as much. None.

Do you really, honestly believe that the ancient Greeks did not REALLY believe in the literal existence of their Gods? Do you honestly believe that muslims don't believe in the literal fact that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse? If you do believe these things, then ask yourself why YOU don't believe them too. Is it because they don't jive with what you observe every day?

I believe in God, you don't so what. Where the problems arise is that people state that, for a fact that there is no God. No one has proven otherwise. All I know is I believe that everything around us was not a "happy accident". Something as complex as life did not happen from a big bang.

No one has ever proven that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter. There are an infinte number of things that no one has ever proven DO NOT exist. Is this REALLY the standard you hold yourself to, proving all negatives?

What is the likelihood that there IS a celestial teapot orbiting the sun? Very low, wouldn't you agree. But I can't prove there isn't, because you can NEVER prove a negative. But you can collect evidence for or against something, and make a statement of probability. I would put it to you that the probability of there being a celestial teapot, or the notion that Jesus currently sits at the right hand of the father, are supported by equal amounts of evidence in their favour.

And, I wholeheartedly agree with you; this life wasn't a happy accident. That implies chance. Chance has NOTHING to do with natural selection. Natural selection is a logical process whereby specific advantages make it more likely for a specific organism to pass on its genes.

Oh, and I should point out that you're moving the goal posts again. Perhaps this universe is infused with a force that is beyond our comprehension. I'm not so arrogant as to refute that possibility. But you believe in a personal god that will judge the wicked (like homosexuals, apparently). THAT is a VERY different notion than an overriding force of nature, which one calls 'god'. Which is it? I'm serious. What is your definition of 'god'? Until we settle this, there can be no discussion because we may differ on the definition of what we are discussing.

Someone stated way back in this treat that the chances of there being a God was so miniscule that he could not comprehend it. Well the chances of everything lining up from an explosion to form a living cell it is exactly the same. Anywho, thats just my input and I shouldn't be chastised for my beliefs.

Is life complex? Is what you see before you the 'best' that could ever be, in terms of complexity? If your answer is 'yes', then how do you know? How do you know we are not hopelessly backwards, compared to what we COULD be?

And as far as "chance" is concerned, ask yourself this: how many 'chance' occurences had to happen for you to be born. Just go back 3 generations, and think how many absolutely unlikely things had to happen to get your mothr and father to even MEET one another, let alone conceive you. but it happened, and you are here to ponder why it happened. If it hadn't happened, someone else would be here to ponder it. Think of all the things that have NEVER happened, strictly due to chance. We humans are blown away by what we see as 'chance', which is really just statistical probability.

Let's say you win the lottery. What are the chances of that? About 1 in 13 million or so. Now, compared to the odds you're talking about, that's small, but you'll humour me. Now, you won the lottery, which I think you'd admit, is pretty unlikely. But you won. There are two possible explanations. One, dumb luck; statistical probability at work. Two, outside interference that skewed the results in your favour. The argument could be made that it is impossible for you to have won the lottery, because the chance is too small. But you won. By your arguement, there MUST be outside interference. And if you disagree with this, at what point does the "chance" become so large as to ensure that outside interference ('god') MUST have played a role? Serious question.

Let me leave you with a thought experiment, which may perhaps shed some light on the 'chance' question.

Consider a tank full of water, separated into two halves with a divider, such that one side is completely separate from the other. Into side A, you release a dropper full of red dye. The dye, of course, spreads out into side A, making the water in side A completely red. The dye is, as we know, composed of billions and billions of individual red dye molecules, which randomly scatter around side A.

Now, remove the divider. What happens? The red dye moves into side B, of course, eventually making the water in the whole tank appear red.

The question is: what is the chance that, at some point in the future, ALL of the red dye molecules will be back on side A, with none in side B? That is, what is the probability of having the molecules exist in the PRECISE ARRANGEMENT that puts them all on side A?

The answer is, of course: the probability is so small that we will, statistically, never see it in the entire duration of the universe. Never. This is patently obvious to anyone (and consistent with our observations).

Now, the next question is: what is the probability that the molecules will be in the PRECISE ARRANGEMENT in which we find them at any given time (say, exactly ten minutes from now)?

The answer is, of course: the probability is so small that we will, statistically, never see it in the entire duration of the universe. Never. This is patently obvious to anyone.

But we DID see that PRECISE ARRANGEMENT, didn't we. But it shouldn't have happened! Why aren't we amazed, in the same way we'd be amazed if we looked and saw the dye all back on side A????

The answer is, we humans are stupid beyond belief, and easily fooled. We look for patterns. The dye on one side is just as unlikely (and I mean REALLY unlikely) as any other arrangement. But we recognize a distinct pattern with all the dye on one side, whereas any 'normal, everyday' arrangement looks the same as any other. There are a nearly infinite number of possible arrangements that DON'T look like "all the dye on one side". There is only one that DOES. But by the same token, the molecules just as unlikely to be in any other SPECIFIC arrangement; it's just that there are so many other possibilities that they all look the same, and we aren't amazed by it because there is no pattern.

Similarly, if we flip a coin ten times, and get all heads, we are amazed. If we get HTTHTHHTHT, we aren't. And yet, what is the chance of seeing either all heads, or HTTHTHHTHT? Right, EXACTLY THE SAME!!! 1/1024. Why aren't you amazed by the latter? Because it doesn't fit a preconceived pattern that you were looking for. But it's probability is the same!

We look at ourselves in the same way, and see that we are alive. This is highly unlikely, ergo there must have been some outside interference. But there had to be SOME outcome, right? If we weren't here, someone or something else would be, and would be asking the same questions.

[Novel]

Here's a spin on it for you.

We, as individual human beings, experience 'consciousness' and 'self-awareness'. We are comprised of a collection of molecules that ordered themselves into a complex arrangement in accordance with physical principles through an evolutionary process over the course of billions of years.

The universe is a vastly larger system comprised of a collection of molecules that have ordered themselves into a complex arrangement in accordance with physical principles over the course of ??? years.

How can we possibly confirm or deny that this vast system may or may not have some experience of 'consciousness' or 'self-awareness'?

...And if it should, certainly there is no requirement that it cares or is capable of manipulating your personal human reality on an individual level, in much the same way that you have virtually no control over the destiny of a single cell inside your leg.

[edge100]

Here's a spin on it for you.

We, as individual human beings, experience 'consciousness' and 'self-awareness'. We are comprised of a collection of molecules that ordered themselves into a complex arrangement in accordance with physical principles through an evolutionary process over the course of billions of years.

The universe is a vastly larger system comprised of a collection of molecules that have ordered themselves into a complex arrangement in accordance with physical principles over the course of ??? years.

How can we possibly confirm or deny that this vast system may or may not have some experience of 'consciousness' or 'self-awareness'?

...And if it should, certainly there is no requirement that it cares or is capable of manipulating your personal human reality on an individual level, in much the same way that you have virtually no control over the destiny of a single cell inside your leg.

Lovely.

I have no issue with the idea of a 'conciousness' or 'life force' that is (potentially) outside of our comprehension. Perhaps this is the laws of physics (what we call 'physics') themselves. This is the god of Einstein; the god that doesn't place dice. This shouldn't, however, be called 'god', because of the connoations of that word. Whether it exists or not is unknown, but it certainly doesn't care who we are or what (or, indeed, WHO) we do.

The idea of a personal god is something quite different.

[pilcrow]

One of my two overall points, and I won't keep beating it to death here, is simply that Scientism is as much about faith as religion is. Science has not proven that reality is only those things that science can prove.

Ok, I'm joining this thread late, but as a scientist (Ph.D., molecular biology), I have to join in at this point.

Science is not about faith. Science is fundamentally about scaling one's beliefs about the universe based on empirical evidence. Any scientist worth his or her stripes readily admits that their view of the world is falsifiable; THAT is what science truly is. For nearly 200 years, we accepted that Newton had perfectly described kinematics; that is, how objects move in response to external forces. We still teach Newton's 'laws' today (F=ma, and the like), because for our purposes, they work. Of course, Newton's laws are wrong; or at least, they are incomplete. They provide an adequate estimation of kinematics at speeds that are very small, with respect to the speed of light. Einstein provided an alternate model of kinematics, based on special relativity. The onus was on Einstein to show WHY Newton's theory of kinematics APPEARED to be correct. Special relativity is likewise falsifiable (the incompatibility of SR and quantum theory means something isn't right), but any new theory of kinematics will have to show WHY Einstein appears to be correct.

The point I'm making here is that science in its true guise is, by definition, subject to falsification; theories are made based on the best available data. As new data arrives, theories change. But all new theories must explain why old theories appeared to work.

Religion cannot claim the same for itself. What piece of evidence, if discovered tomorrow, would convince you that god does not exist? If you cannot hold yourself to that standard, then your beliefs do not scale with the available evidence. The simple fact of the matter is that there either is a god or there isn't. But, even if we accept that the former is true, the likelihood that this god is Yahweh (the god of the Old Testament) is no greater than the likelihood that it is Zeus, or Thor, or any of the other millions of 'dead' god, lost only through the accident of history. You must remember two things: people throughout history have believed in their gods as strongly as you believe in yours, and that no additional evidence (really...none) has been produced to support the existence of any one god over another. In this way, (and I steal this line of thinking from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins) theology teaches us absolutely nothing. Anyone who claims to "know" that god exists, or that god likes one thing but not another, is simply lying. They may feverishly 'believe' this, in the same way that Burtrand Russel 'believed' (he was being facetious) in a celestial teapot. No one knows, not even scientists.

BUT, as Dawkins is correct to point out, there IS an answer to this question; it is a scientific question, in that it IS falsifiable, at least in theory; there either is a god, or there isn't. That doesn't imply that the probability of both options is 50/50; indeed, the likelihood of god's existence is very small, and even if we accept that there IS a god, the likelihood of any one god (as described in our 'holy' books) being the 'true' god is absolutely miniscule, given the infinite number of possible gods.

One also has to be clear on another issue; the definition of god. Theists have a responsibility to define, a priori, what they believe god is. It isn't fair to 'move the goalposts' after the fact. Is your 'god' a 'personal god', who takes an interest in our daily lives, hates sin, and banishes the sinful to hell after they die? Put another way, is your 'god' superhuman and supernatural? Or is your 'god' simply a force, possessing no 'human' traits, that governs the laws of the universe (or perhaps IS the laws of the universe), but plays no part in our day-to-day lives? This question is of utmost importance, because if I say I believe in a "force" that science cannot ever understand, you may claim "Aha! THAT is God!" But of course, my "force" is quite distinct from Yahweh, Zeus, of Thor; it is the basic 'first principles' set of laws that governs the universe. Let's put our cards on the table and then evaluate our cases for and against the existence of what we define as 'god'.

My other point, which I also stand by, is that civilization has benefited tremendously from religion. There's been harm too, sure--because there are human beings involved; humans, religious or not, can do tremendous damage. But willfully overlooking the humanizing, civilizing influence of religion on culture is just being obtuse.

In my opinion, the major cause of the vast majority of human misery is dogma; religion is but one form of dogma. The Inquisitors were dogmatic; as were those who burned witches at Salem. The 19 9/11 hijackers were dogmatic, as were the 7/7 London bombers. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were dogmatists as well.

There is absolutely no doubt that religion has had some positive influence on society. Of course, it's not really a fair comparison, since throughout the majority of our history, it was simply not acceptable to NOT be religious. Therefore good people may have been religious by necessity; whether their religion played a role in them being 'good' people isn't really clear.

Religion gives, as Sam Harris points out in The End of Faith, bad reasons for doing good things, when good reasons are available. I'll leave you to ponder this, or read Sam's book.

The other thing I would point out is that even if we accept that religion HAS produced good people (can you perhaps cite one or two for critical analysis?), this provides ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for the existence of god. Religion may simply act as a placebo. Moreover, it is also clear that the association between piety and 'goodness' isn't even close to 1:1, and non-religious people can be as 'good' as religious people. And, as I implied above, who is to say that religion was the source of the goodness anyway?

I know that if you really believe in god, what I say on a forum like this has very little chance of changing your mind. But I would encourage you, just for a second, to lend a critical eye to your beliefs (whatever they are...you are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want), and ask yourself, "Do my beliefs in god really stand up to the available evidence? And if not, why do I still choose to believe?" If your beliefs DO stand up to the available evidence, I'd genuinely like to have this presented. I suspect that you will, however, reply that your beliefs shouldn't be based on evidence. I am truly interested (not being facetious here) in what makes someone apply evidentiary standards to every other aspect of their lives but this one, and what makes someone forget that their beliefs are, when you boil it down, an accident of their birth. How would your beliefs have changed if you were born in Tibet? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Japan? Would you be any less sure of your beliefs if you were a muslim, or a christian, or a jew, or pagan? And if the answer is 'no' (as ALL of the available evidence suggests it is), the most glaring question of all is "Why? What does THAT tell us about the nature of 'belief'?"

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate the equanimity with which you state your case. The faith of scientism that I'm referring to is the belief of some (but, importantly, not all) scientists (and their followers) that the only way to apprehend reality is through the scientific method. Many intelligent and well-meaning people on both sides disagree about that, and we're certainly not going to end the question in this forum. Just one example: Francis Collins--head of the Human Genome Project, a doctor, a PhD in physics--is an evangelical Christian.

Don't assume too much about my conception of God (or anyone's really). My personal feeling is that "truth is one, but men call it by many names." i.e., had I been born in Tibet or Saudi Arabia or Japan, I would probably have been instilled with the geographically appropriate cultural expression of religion, but at its essence it would be pointing to the same truth that lies at the center of my own culture's religious tradition. I'm a bit of a Vedantist that way--not your typical Christian, I admit.

You asked why someone would apply evidentiary standards to "every other aspect of their lives but this one." I would posit that you go through a large part of your day disregarding "evidentiary standards" right and left, and rightfully so.

[Simon Waters]

Quotes edge100:

Absolutely true; there are numerous Christian sects that accept homosexuals. That's wonderful. They are simply ignoring scripture, which you do every day by failing to prosecute with death those who disobey the Ten Commandments. Religious moderates betray faith AND reason equally. I think it's great that homosexuals can, in many sects, be accepted and, in fact, be leaders. That doesn't for one second imply that the bible doesn't disagree with this stance. The bible is VERY clear on this issue, as it is on MANY issues (inlcuding the eating of shell fish, the keeping of slaves, and those who handle mixed fibres). If you choose to ignore certain elements of scripture, because they are incompatible with a civilized society, that's fantastic; but don't whitewash the fact that you are, after all, ignoring the stated will of god.

End quote

Christ came to fulfill the law by explaining it's true meaning. See:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

and as a specific example of where the law was inadequate:

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" "What did Moses command you?" he replied. They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one." Mark 10:2-8

[Tone Deft]

blah blah blah... ignoring the stated will of god... blah blah blah...

That's the problem with reasoning with religious people, "It is so because god said so." That's faith for ya. It's insanity.

The Bible was written and rewritten after hundreds of years of being orally passed down. It was rewritten by slave owning white men in power. That's your god for you, the tyranny of men. Saying the 10 commandments were written by the hand of god is, well, childishly nieve.

For just 1 minute consider the view of reality assuming there is no god, the world is a different place.

Do you people think you're going to change anyone's mind? Not gonna happen, go make music.

[edge100]

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate the equanimity with which you state your case. The faith of scientism that I'm referring to is the belief of some (but, importantly, not all) scientists (and their followers) that the only way to apprehend reality is through the scientific method. Many intelligent and well-meaning people on both sides disagree about that, and we're certainly not going to end the question in this forum. Just one example: Francis Collins--head of the Human Genome Project, a doctor, a PhD in physics--is an evangelical Christian.

The story of Francis Collins' coming to Christianity is well-described. From his book:

On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains … the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

He goes on to describe how the waterfall was frozen in three streams, thus reminding him of the holy trinity. That such a potent mind could be so polluted by such utter nonsense is absolutely fascinating to me. As Sam Harris writes in his review of the book:

Let us say that I saw the same waterfall, and its three streams reminded me of Romulus, Remus and the She-wolf, the mythical founders of Rome. How reasonable would it be for me to know, from that moment forward, that Italy would one day win the World Cup? This epiphany, while perfectly psychotic, would actually put me on firmer ground than Collins—because Italy did win the World Cup.

All of this means absolutely nothing, except that (a) humans can be, at once, extraordinarily insightful and brilliant, and (b) fooled by ridiculous fables, with all the same merit as tales of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the aforementioned celestial teapot. This provides no proof whatsoever of the divinity of Jesus. If anything, it proves the fallability of scientists.

The scientific method is based on logical inquiry, and, above all else, the notion that all theories are falsifiable. Is the method itself falsifiable? Sure, but I would put it to you that any system that replaces the scientific method would have a lot of explaining to do, insofar as the scientific method provides a suitable system of establishing cause and effect (which is what we are after, in essence) in virtually every domain of our existence.

"Scientism" is a straw-man developed by those who really do know that logic and reason are at odds with their Bronze Age thinking, but refuse to publically acknowledge this; it doesn't exist. I do have 'faith' in the scientific method, but only because the method itself works in my daily life. I don't have blind faith in science, and nor should any other scientist; I'm absolutely willing to accept other systems of inquiry. But, if you feel there is a better system, you need to explain why the scientific method works so well.

If you take this back to first principles, where logic and reason had to compete with 'supernaturalism', the onus was on the scientists to demonstrate the superiority of their methods of inquiry. You have to admit that the scientific method is pretty good at deducing why things happen. We don't have all the answers, but the system is flexible enough to consider that new data is always arriving. Remember, falsifiability is the hallmark of science.

Now, with that established, the onus is on those who disagree with the scientific method to prove that an alternate method of inquiry is more appropriate.

Don't assume too much about my conception of God (or anyone's really). My personal feeling is that "truth is one, but men call it by many names." i.e., had I been born in Tibet or Saudi Arabia or Japan, I would probably have been instilled with the geographically appropriate cultural expression of religion, but at its essence it would be pointing to the same truth that lies at the center of my own culture's religious tradition. I'm a bit of a Vedantist that way--not your typical Christian, I admit.

I'm reading from this that you believe that all religions are essentially saying the same thing about there being an unquantifiable "force", which is called (for want of a better term) 'god'. If so, this is acceptable to me (for what it's worth). The question of what we are is bigger than any one religion, and it's no surprise that it has turned up in many places throughout the world.

The issue is, your notion of a personal god is entirely dependent on where you were born. People come to religion because they were taught that religion, in the same way they were taught to have proper manners or that Santa Claus brings toys to children at Christmas time. And in the case of those who came to religion later in life, the question arises: did you arrive there through a genuine evaluation of all of the world's religions, having decided which one is the most plausible (or perhaps, the least implausible)?

I wont try to characterize your conception of god, but I would like to know how you define it. Again, we may be talking about vastly different things, here. But it's only fair to show our cards now, so that we can avoid discussing disparate subjects. Is there a personal god who is concerned with your day to day life, and will judge you when you die? Or is god a universal force that cannot be defined, but is certainly unconcerned with our lives? If neither of these, I would be very interested in knowing how you define it. This will allow us to properly tailor the discussion, and will ensure that the goal posts stay right where they are when it comes to looking the evidence.

You asked why someone would apply evidentiary standards to "every other aspect of their lives but this one." I would posit that you go through a large part of your day disregarding "evidentiary standards" right and left, and rightfully so.

I don't propose that personal freedoms be eliminated in favour of blindly following evidence; you are plainly free to do and think whatever it is that you want. In that sense, you are quite right: I do many things I shouldn't do, based on the evidence. I have a glass of wine with dinner sometimes, which based strictly on the evidence, raises my risk of developing any number of ailments.

But this is not what I'm talking about. Let's say I smoked (I don't, but let's say I did). This would be ignoring the evidence that clearly links smoking to heart disease, stroke, and cancer, to name but three examples. I would never demand that anyone MUST stop smoking (unless it harms those around the smoker...which it does); the freedom to make that choice is paramount. But, anyone who 'believes' that smoking doesn't cause disease is clearly not scaling their beliefs with the available evidence.

The point here is that we are now at a point in our existence in which belief in a personal god, which is not supported by any evidence at all (incidentally, I haven't heard one shred of evidence in response to my postings here), IS dangerous to the rest of us. A person can have sufficient scientific intelligence to harness the power of an atom (or, more benignly, to contribute significantly to the sequencing of the human genome), and still believe that Jesus was divine. What a person believes in their own home is their business, no matter how illogical (smoking and a personal god, to name two such beliefs); but when those beliefs become central to public discourse (which they very clearly ARE at the moment), that is when evidence must be proffered for or against, and decisions taken accordingly.

[edge100]

Christ came to fulfill the law by explaining it's true meaning.

Thanks for the scripture.

It's time we stopped this. I will ask two simple questions:

What is god?

and...

What independently verifiable evidence suggests that Christ was divine, or put it another way, why should I give any more creedence to to anything Christ had to say, versus, say, Gandhi, who claimed no such divinity?

I am absolutely convinced that I will get (a) no answer to these questions, or (b) something along the lines of "well, prove he wasn't divine!"

I've been rambling on all day about scaling belief with evidence. The simple solution for the religious people out there is to GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE, not to argue on about how I'm missing the point or misinterpreting people's beliefs.

Here's your opportunity to lay it all out; make the case for the existence of your god, whatever that is. Define him/her/it, and give me the evidence on which you KNOW that he/she/it is this way. If you don't claim to KNOW this, but simply go along because that's what you were taught, then I have no problem with you. But if you claim to KNOW what god is, the above two questions should be easy pickings for you.

Let us begin.

[Tone Deft]

Christ came to fulfill the law by explaining it's true meaning.

Thanks for the scripture.

It's time we stopped this. I will ask two simple questions:

What is god?

and...

What independently verifiable evidence suggests that Christ was divine or put another way, why should I give any more creedence to to anything Christ had to say, versus, say, Gandhi, who claimed no such divinity?

I am absolutely convinced that I will get (a) no answer to these questions, or (b) something along the lines of "well, prove he wasn't divine!"

I've been rambling on all day about scaling belief with evidence. The simple solution for the religious people out there is to GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE, not to argue on about how I'm missing the point or misinterpreting people's beliefs.

Here's your opportunity to lay it all out; make the case for the existence of your god, whatever that is. Define him/her/it, and give me the evidence on which you KNOW that he/she/it is this way. If you don't claim to KNOW this, but simply go along because that's what you were taught, then I have no problem with you. But if you claim to KNOW what god is, the above two questions should be easy pickings for you.

Let us begin.

Faith - belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

There's no arguing about it. Best to keep it to yourself and let others have their whatever it is.

[mdk]

Let us begin.

please.

i would really like to get to a point where we can discuss things on the basis of what people actually believe to be true. you have been very clear and patient with your posts.

[pilcrow]

OK, so the Genome guy doesn’t come up to snuff for you. I’ve not read his book. The point I was after was that there are scientists who are also religious. i.e., not every scientist has a problem with religion. I suppose that makes them all dolts in your eyes, but they’d probably disagree, and they’d probably be able to make their case for you better than I can in their stead.

I don’t have the kind of evidentiary proof for the existence of God that would satisfy you; it’s pointless to try. I believe that God is outside—over and beyond—the laws of nature. That’s kind of the crux of this whole argument, isn’t it? Where is your evidentiary proof for the “fact” that reality consists of only those things that science can prove?

I disagree with all the hand-wringing rhetoric about religion suddenly being the most dangerous affliction our planet’s ever seen. That’s reductionist and absurd.