Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,451-7,500 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Please understand that the below is my opinions based on my understanding, not accusations or assumptions.
"

One could wonder how something that starts with the above is an olive branch; one could ask which part of the post was intended as an olive branch.

In truth, though, I don't feel there's a need to extend an olive branch. I'd like to see, in my life and in this thread, honesty and respect. With each, come equal treatment ... in my mind.

I'd like to address one other point. You said, "I fully accept that non-theists have been rude here, but I feel that people of all kinds have been rude here, and I can understand why you find it more stark from non-theists while I find it more stark with theists."

First, I have a question. Did I, in my posts, address the fact that believers were inappropriate here? Did I admit that I had been? My memory tells me I acknowledged that, time and again.

Your statement, in my opinion, makes it seem as if I didn't acknowledge that, which confuses me.

Further, if you find it "more stark" with theists, that's your prerogative. I don't, actually, find it more stark with non-theists, as evidenced by all the times I've spoken up when theists were rude or wrong. Saying you can understand why I find it more stark with non-theists implies that to be the truth; it isn't and the evidence (my words) show that not to be the case. (This extends to conversion. In my opinion, conversion is wrong regardless of which group does the converting. Cataloguing people, in my mind and heart, is also wrong. I don't much care who does it; I'd rather no one did. My level of horror is not lessened when it comes to believers. I'm not that sort ... the sort who excuses or turns a blind eye to inappropriate acts if they're done by my group ... whether that be women, Independents, believers, New Englanders, etc....)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "One could wonder how something that starts with the above is an olive branch; one could ask which part of the post was intended as an olive branch."

*Long sigh* because I was pointing out and accepting that this was my perception rather than trying to tell you what was true.

However, I am not going to lie about what I perceive or feel, even out of politeness.

Shannon wrote: "Your statement, in my opinion, makes it seem as if I didn't acknowledge that, which confuses me."

Again that is why I said it was my observation. I felt that you missed several things I found bad and usually followed any acknowledgement of it with an general comment about non-theists.

Shannon wrote: "Further, if you find it "more stark" with theists, that's your prerogative."

I was attempting to acknowledge a potential unconscious bias, not choosing to have one.

Shannon wrote: "I don't, actually, find it more stark with non-theists, as evidenced by all the times I've spoken up when theists were rude or wrong."

Except the times you didn't think they where.

Shannon wrote: "Saying you can understand why I find it more stark with non-theists implies that to be the truth"

Which is exactly why I prefaced it with the comment above.

Shannon wrote: "it isn't and the evidence (my words) show that not to be the case."

I disagree. Am I allowed my opinion?

Shannon wrote: "This extends to conversion. In my opinion, conversion is wrong regardless of which group does the converting."

Except that you don't think religion is wrong but religion is demonstrably based on the conversion of the next generation to the same faith, otherwise you wouldn't have majority Catholics in Ireland and majority of Muslims in Iran. Where is your horror at conversion there?

Shannon wrote: "Cataloguing people, in my mind and heart, is also wrong. I don't much care who does it; I'd rather no one did."

So why comment about what non-theists have said at all? Surely a non-cataloguing response would be to say that "many people have been rude regardless of their faith or lack of it" rather than saying "atheists have been rude too" or "atheists catalogue others" or "atheists have a website that I find offensive".

[Robbie]

From what I have read and seen religion has caused conflict since its inception. There is bloody conflict even within they're own religious ranks.
I think man would be better off without it.

[Kurt]

Yes, Robbie, but the same can be said about science. But I agree, if choosing between one or the other, religion would get the boot.

Shannon, Gary - No Exit.

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "Yes, Robbie, but the same can be said about science."

Not really, there hasn't been a single war started by a difference in science, a difference in political ideology, a difference in economic ideology but not science.

Science has had some fierce debates but I think the worse that has happened has been some chalk has been thrown.

Certainly science has been used in wars, but those wars were still over political, economic or religious ideology (or greed).

Kurt wrote: "Shannon, Gary - No Exit."

Yes I'm seeing that.

[Robbie]

Kurt wrote: "Yes, Robbie, but the same can be said about science. But I agree, if choosing between one or the other, religion would get the boot.

Shannon, Gary - No Exit."

I agree that science has its evils but at least those that practice it can do so in a rational way. Science means evidence, you can argue a point. Religion does not need evidence therefore to argue against it to those that practice it is futile.

[Maria]

Kurt wrote: "Shannon, Gary - No Exit."

Exactly.

[Kurt]

Robbie, Gary - I guess the correctness of your assumptions is determined by the boundaries of your definitions.

Science. Military science? Political science? Economic science?

Regardless the cause, we will always find clever ways to rationalize the effects of our irrational behavior.

[Brian]

Kristal wrote: "I feel I should mention that I think Dan Brown is an insultingly bad writer. Just a cheerful note to add to the discussion. :>"

Why would you say that Kristal? He has a huge following. What is it that makes him such an insultingly bad writer? I am asking honestly, so I better understand. I hear many people make remarks about Brown.

[PaulWADE]

I have no intention or desire to qualify my comment, other than to say, by now the folly of asking people in general any question relating to religion is folly indeed.
I admit, I dodged sideways and chose an attempt at humour, rather than describing my actual feelings about religion. I would for sure have offended many more people if I had done so.

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "Robbie, Gary - I guess the correctness of your assumptions is determined by the boundaries of your definitions."

People are always looking at science like it was an authority or a religion, it's not, it's a methodology.

Saying that 'science' is responsible for wars is like saying 'literacy' is responsible for war, or the ability to talk is responsible for war.

Science certainly gets used by war, but it is never the cause.

[Mike]

Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."

Do they, or do we project personalities onto them?

And even if they do, we are born different in many, many ways. Our personalities are as much genetic as they are environmentally shaped, I suspect.

[Ken]

Religion is overrated. We will eventually learn to live without religion, but we cannot survive without science.

[Kurt]

Right, Gary.
What it may be is one thing; how it may be applied is another. Let's just say when relating either religion or science to war, they both have a sordid relationship with it.

Regarding the original question of this discussion, I think you and I agree. Regarding the tangential discussion we have here, I still think you and I agree - but to be honest, I'm not exactly sure its premise...maybe trying to award responsibilities in relation to war? If the award is for which of the two is responsible for starting more wars, then the award goes to religion. If the award is for which of the two is responsible for killing more people during war, then the award goes to science.

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "If the award is for which of the two is responsible for killing more people during war, then the award goes to science."

Again here is the word 'responsible'. Certainly science improves technology and technology has made it easier to kill people in war. However, whether it's an atom bomb, a machine gun, a sword or a fire hardened pointy stick does the responsibility lie with the person who uses the technology or the technology?

The difference between religion and science in this regard is that science does not give reasons to go to war, whether the reasons be honest or manipulative. Religion does. There is no scientific reason to kill people from another country, but if you believe that their presence and beliefs place the eternal afterlife of yourself and your kin in jeopardy it is easy to see a reason to kill.

If life is less important to you than your beliefs, so the lives of others are so devalued.

If you are going to lay blame for science and technology then you need to also acknowledge its benefits. The only reason it is possible for 7 billion people to be alive and some of them to enjoy twice the normal longevity is through science. So for every life 'science' has contributed to taking, countless it has contributed towards saving.

Religion has no such proven record.

[Stephanie]

I would absolutely chose to live in a world without religion. Science is far too important to me personally, I study it and have hopes of one day having a doctorate in physics. I was born a catholic but fell from that a long time ago. On the other hand I believe faith is important, especially to those that have it... but I am no fan of religion itself. Many good points in the comments above but it does seem to be a question that will have no ultimate answer, it all depens who you are and what's important to you.

[Gary]

Stephanie wrote: "On the other hand I believe faith is important, especially to those that have it... but I am no fan of religion itself. "

May I ask why faith is important?

Conviction in your self and your morals I can see is important. Trust in yourself and in others is also important, but trust comes with the understanding that it can be broken.

Why is faith important when all it is is an unfalsifiable trust in something. Surely that is naivety not a virtue?

[Kurt]

Gary wrote: "Kurt wrote: "If the award is for which of the two is responsible for killing more people during war, then the award goes to science."

Again here is the word 'responsible'. Certainly science impro..."

Gary, I do not see how just about everything you just said cannot be also said about religion. The common denominator of both religion and science is people. Without people, both are just concepts.

It seems you allow religion to be its own irresponsible being, acting out on its own accord, separate from human activity, while you restrict science to mere methodology. Again, what one is is one thing, how one is applied is another.

[Maria]

Gary said "May I ask why faith is important?"

Hi Gary - Faith is only important to those who have it. Sometimes it gets them through difficult situations, sometimes it holds them back from doing something really bad that they would otherwise do - maybe like hurting someone else.

Even though to those of us who don't have faith it is an illusion - at least the illusion served a good purpose to maybe an otherwise violent or hateful person.

Also, to clarify - we are talking about faith in god, religion, etc. I have faith (i.e. belief) that my husband loves me, that I raised a great son - things like that - so faith, in and of itself, does not always reference religious faith.

Your thoughts?

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "Gary, I do not see how just about everything you just said cannot be also said about religion. The common denominator of both religion and science is people. Without people, both are just concepts.

It seems you allow religion to be its own irresponsible being, acting out on its own accord, separate from human activity, while you restrict science to mere methodology. Again, what one is is one thing, how one is applied is another. "

Science does not claim to give moral guidance. Religion does. People can be motivated by religion to do great things and also terrible things.

That is the difference. Religion can be used to justify violence and hate. Science cannot.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Hi Gary - Faith is only important to those who have it. Sometimes it gets them through difficult situations"

Surely that is courage or fortitude?

Maria wrote: "sometimes it holds them back from doing something really bad that they would otherwise do - maybe like hurting someone else."

Surely that is either self-restraint, or even better, a conscience.

Faith can lead people to despair (as I know has happened with some people who have felt their homosexual urges meant that they were evil, so they killed themselves).

Faith can lead people to do violence as easily as it can prevent them.

Maria wrote: "Even though to those of us who don't have faith it is an illusion - at least the illusion served a good purpose to maybe an otherwise violent or hateful person."

What about when faith leads a peaceful person to do violence or condone atrocity?

Faith is complete surrender of will to another authority which means that your morality is subsumed to that authority.

Maria wrote: "Also, to clarify - we are talking about faith in god, religion, etc. I have faith (i.e. belief) that my husband loves me, that I raised a great son - things like that - so faith, in and of itself, does not always reference religious faith."

Just a slight quibble in usage. To me Faith is that unshakable belief that can never be countered. What you describe I would call trust, you trust that your husband loves you, and hopefully that trust will never be broken. The difference is that it is not inconceivable that it could be broken.

This is why I feel trust is much more honourable than faith. Faith is turning a blind eye to anything that would undermine that faith, trust is a voluntary accepting of the risk of betrayal because your trust in them is so strong.

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "It seems you allow religion to be its own irresponsible being, acting out on its own accord, separate from human activity"

Because Religion tells its followers how certain groups of people should be treated.

Violence has been committed repeatedly in the name of religion. Even if every single person that committed that violence was actually cynical and didn't really accept the religious reasons they claim (which is highly unlikely) then the fact that they thought it was a good excuse should worry you at least.

In the meantime religion has never led to a measurable difference in violence or crime, in fact more religious societies tend to have more human rights violations and violence than secular societies. If religion had a positive influence we should see the opposite, not little to no effect.

So science has definately had far more benefits than penalties, there is no proof - beyond claims of an 'afterlife' - that religion has even broke even on its positive effects versus the negative.

[Maria]

Gary wrote: "Surely that is courage or fortitude?"

You're right, that's exactly what it is - but people claim that their faith gave them that courage and fortitude rather than thinking it came from within themselves. Maybe a lack of self-confidence?

Gary wrote: "This is why I feel trust is much more honourable than faith. Faith is turning a blind eye to anything that would undermine that faith, trust is a voluntary accepting of the risk of betrayal because your trust in them is so strong."

I agree with this. What I described is more trust than faith, and it could definitely change and not be true any more - whereas faith assumes it will always be true. I trust that my husband will always love me, I believe it, but it is not a given.

[k]

Science unifies people, Religion tears us apart. Banish religion, adopt Aesop's Fables, they are more interesting, more useful and more insightful than anything in modern religion can provide.

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "You're right, that's exactly what it is - but people claim that their faith gave them that courage and fortitude rather than thinking it came from within themselves. Maybe a lack of self-confidence?"

Indeed, and that to me is what makes faith insidious. So many times I have seen faith take credit for the courage and conscience of good people, while blaming the lack of same on it's absence.

The end result to enforce that lack of self-confidence and increase dependence on the perceived outside authority.

Maria wrote: "I agree with this. What I described is more trust than faith, and it could definitely change and not be true any more - whereas faith assumes it will always be true. I trust that my husband will always love me, I believe it, but it is not a given.

Exactly.

To me Faith makes a mockery of trust as it says "whatever happens, whatever you do, I place blind trust in you". It makes a mockery of morality because it abdicates responsibility and conscience to an outside authority, even when the persons personal conscience may rail against it.

Yet faith is still considered a virtue and an inalienable right?

[Joyce]

I would choose to live with religion, actually, because even though I'm not a believer I still think that faith can and will compensate for the lack of cold facts and numbers.

Religion, on the other hand, is something approachable yet distant, fulfilling yet leaving people hungering for more, rewarding and punishing...all those things, and the world would be a bleak place indeed if people had nothing to believe in.

[Gary]

Joyce wrote: "I would choose to live with religion, actually, because even though I'm not a believer I still think that faith can and will compensate for the lack of cold facts and numbers."

So you would sacrifice the internet, computers, medicine, agriculture, architecture, shelter and fire because faith will compensate?

How exactly?

Joyce wrote: "Religion, on the other hand, is something approachable yet distant, fulfilling yet leaving people hungering for more,"

The same could be said of science. Ask anyone who has done experiments at school or been amazed by the beautiful pictures of nebulae and galaxies?

Joyce wrote: "rewarding and punishing..."

Who is doing this rewarding and punishing, and how can you be sure that it is being done - if it is in the afterlife - or that you are on the right 'team' considering the proliferation of mutually exclusive faiths.

Joyce wrote: "all those things, and the world would be a bleak place indeed if people had nothing to believe in. "

Why bleak? Can you not appreciate art without believing in something? Can you not experience happiness without believing in some sort of magical thing? Can you not love someone, be they family, friend or lover, without believing that the love is borrowed from some other entity?

Perhaps the world would be a lot less bleak than you realise. Without religion and without faith what's left is each other. Perhaps once we respect each other more than we respect our myths then humans may start treating each other with respect.

[Kurt]

Gary,
You are a patient, prolific, and persuasive proselytizer for atheism. I appreciate and enjoy reading what you have to say here. To what do you attribute your faith belief trust in the correctness of your convictions? Our inability to prove the existence of god?

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "You are a patient, prolific, and persuasive proselytizer for atheism. I appreciate and enjoy reading what you have to say here. To what do you attribute your trust in the correctness of your convictions? Our inability to prove the existence of god? "

I don't.

Unlike a faith I do not claim to know the answers. There lies true humility in the face of the unknown universe. There is so much majesty, wonder and mystery that I think trying to claim that it is lorded over by anything as mundane as a consciousness suspiciously similar to our own in outlook, seems somewhat unimaginative.

I trust in the scientific method because it is proven to be the best methodology for the uncovering of truth and knowledge with no exception. (You are looking at blatant evidence of this now.) This isn't just a method that works for labs and scientists, but is also the best way that truth is found in Law, Sociology and all other fields because it endeavours to take away our own ego from the search for truth.

Yes believers have not the ability to prove the existence of god, but that isn't the biggest problem. There are two far more important. First, the hypothesis of god is not falsifiable, there is no test that you can make that will distinguish the existence of god from the existence of any other similar supernatural entity or its absence. This makes the hypothesis worthless.

Second, I used to be a believer until my own keenness to be the best believer I could be became my undoing. After reading the bible I was utterly disgusted at the contents and the revealed morality of this "good book". Soon after I came to realise the ethical problems with the broader Christian cosmology, and then further to the inherent paradoxes of Monotheism in general. Finally I realised what faith was and who it serves.

Faith ultimately serves nothing but itself, though the unscrupulous can often wield it to their own advantage.

Does this answer your question to your satisfaction Kurt?

[Hazel]

Kurt, I love your use of alliteration :D

[Maria]

Gary, after reading some of your posts, and feeling quite the same way myself, I had a question. Please don't take this the wrong way.

I wonder,after all your reading and research into the bible, you just don't like what you saw, therefore refused to believe in a higher power.

If you had read about a kind, benevolent god, or if what you read had not been abhorrent to you, would you believe then? Do you just not believe because you found the bible disgusting and unethical? Or would you believe if the god you found in the Bible was deserving of your belief?

Just wondering.

[Kurt]

Gary wrote: "Does this answer your question to your satisfaction, Kurt?

My satisfaction? Rarely do answers to these types of questions satisfy me, including my own answers. But since you've asked, there are some parts of your response that I think I understand/satisfies me, and there are other parts that are not quite as understandable to me/less satifying.

And much of what you write here in defense of atheism and/or science and/or scientific method (it's not always clear to which your referring to), and as I have pointed out before in response to one of your other responses, seems it could be just as sound if you swapped in that which you argue against. But, take no mind in this, for it is fuzzy and overly subjective.

But such is much of life.

When I asked, "To what do you attribute your trust in the correctness of your convictions? Our inability to prove the existence of god?" You responded, "I don't."

To me that's a little unclear but my assumption is that it is meant to mean, "No, I do not attribute the correctness of my atheistic convictions to our inability to prove the existence of god. I attribute it to nothing.

If you had ended your response there, I would have been mostly satisfied with it as an answer.

But you continued and, as you did, things became less understandable/satisfactory for me.

"Unlike a faith I do not claim to know the answers..." As you did before with religion, you again seem be allowing faith to be its own being. A faith does not claim to know the answers, people do. Like we use the scientific method to discover and affirm the physical, we use faith and religion to discover and affirm the metaphysical. What I assume you mean is, unlike the faith one has in one's belief in the knowledge of god, I do not claim to know the answers/if there is a god or not.

"I trust in the scientific method because it is proven to be the best methodology for the uncovering of truth and knowledge with no exception." But, at this point in time of our awareness, science has proved truths and knowledge only in that which is of the physical. It has yet to prove anything outside the physical. Although, I suspect that, if we don't kill ourselves off as a species first, science will eventually lead us to an understanding of more than just the physical world; it will lead us to an understanding of the metaphysical world, of the worlds of different dimensions, of the worlds of science fiction, and perhaps it will even lead us to an understanding of "god." Somewhere along the line it will become the one and only true religion.

"Faith ultimately serves nothing but itself..." Once again you're personifying an abstract concept that is nothing without human consciousness...unless I'm mistaken and you're attributing faith to a higher being. ;)

Like I said before, people are the common denominator in everything. Everything. For it, anything, to exist, to matter, we must project ourselves on it to make it so.

Good stuff, Gary. Thanks for listening and sharing.

[Kurt]

Hazel wrote: "Kurt, I love your use of alliteration :D"

:)

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Gary, after reading some of your posts, and feeling quite the same way myself, I had a question. Please don't take this the wrong way."

I always endeavour to answer honest questions honestly. :-)

Maria wrote: "I wonder,after all your reading and research into the bible, you just don't like what you saw, therefore refused to believe in a higher power."

Actually that's not the entire story, I sometimes simplify it to say that "I read the bible and was an atheist by the time I finished it", which is true but perhaps misleading. I remember really not wanting to be true and having the same responses that I've seen in other people who have recently left their faith.

For a time I actually courted other religions and learned about them, but rather than being a ready convert I became disenchanted with them too.

At the same time I was studying physics and eventually I realised that though everyone else was claiming to have (different) answers, here was a body of knowledge that said "this is what we know", "this is what we suspect" and "this is what we don't know yet... and that's ok!"

Maria wrote: "If you had read about a kind, benevolent god, or if what you read had not been abhorrent to you, would you believe then? Do you just not believe because you found the bible disgusting and unethical? Or would you believe if the god you found in the Bible was deserving of your belief?

Just wondering. "

That's indeed a very interesting question and the honest answer is "I don't know". Perhaps it was a lucky break, depending on your point of view. The important point was that the bible started me on the path to non-belief, but it was everything else that got me there.

Then again perhaps I was unlucky, as when I "came out" finally as an unbeliever I was witness to the truly ugly sides of "christian love". This was after a period of fairly traumatic soul searching so it was quite a lot to endure.

This is why I have all sympathy for people who want to believe but have doubts. The path to non-belief can be difficult enough without the sudden hatred of others.

In the end though I suspect percentage-wise that perhaps if I never read the bible I would have eventually become a non-theist. Certainly a large percentage of those who follow my educational path do the same. It really is hard to look at the wonders of the universe and then really be impressed by the prosaic cosmologies offered by religion.

[Jettcatt]

I too Gary read the bible to "Be a good Christian" and ended up throwing it against the wall...to me it only made me look around at the "christians" around me and the realisation that I was surrounded by the biggest lot of hyprocrites was totally devasatating. After making a decision to leave the church I am now looked on as a "Fallen christian" or a "back slider" and I'm sure my entire family are still stratching their heads as to where it went wrong. It has taken me 20 years to forge a new family and friendship group that I feel are like minded, and in that 20 years there has been many moments of pain. I am now careful to teach my children to seek knowledge for themselves and question everything before taking it as "gospel" so to speak.

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "And much of what you write here in defense of atheism and/or science and/or scientific method (it's not always clear to which your referring to), and as I have pointed out before in response to one of your other responses, seems it could be just as sound if you swapped in that which you argue against."

Let me see if I can explain myself. I try to stay within context of the thread so many of my comments are directed at dispelling common misconceptions of both science and religion (from my point of view obviously).

"Atheism" is a term that I accept, but I don't like much, mainly because usually atheism is only understood by atheists. Believers tend to equivocate their own conceptual framework to the atheist and end up with the concept that an atheist is a "believer in the non-existence of their god." Which would be like calling someone a-santaist if they didn't really believe in the idea of a fat man in a suit flying around the world at christmas.

You will note that I rarely (if ever) claim that "god does not exist", because that to me would be like saying the baen-sidhe breed of fae don't exist. I would likely be right but what is the point of denying the infinite things that can be imagined, especially when it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Which is why science tends to follow evidence of what is rather than what is not.

Kurt wrote: "To me that's a little unclear but my assumption is that it is meant to mean, "No, I do not attribute the correctness of my atheistic convictions to our inability to prove the existence of god. I attribute it to nothing."

To be clear I don't trust in the "correctness of my convictions" because of anything. What I trust in is evidence and reason.

I feel again that the problem is that you above identify a trust in my "atheistic convictions" as if it was a thing in itself. Atheism is specifically an absence of a thing rather than a thing in itself.

Kurt wrote: ""Unlike a faith I do not claim to know the answers..." As you did before with religion, you again seem be allowing faith to be its own being. A faith does not claim to know the answers, people do."

Faith is an ideology. What it says is that certain things have to be accepted on authority without question.

Kurt wrote: "Like we use the scientific method to discover and affirm the physical, we use faith and religion to discover and affirm the metaphysical."

How can faith and religion discover and affirm when the point is to take things on trust? Faith and religion is itself illogical on this point as faithful "witness" to potential converts, which is claiming a form of evidence, and often points to scripture, miraculous tales and other such evidential sources, yet then advocates faith instead of evidence.

The split physical/metaphysical is also completely fallacious, just the same as natural/supernatural. If there gods, ghosts, faeries etc. exist then they would be part of the nature of the universe to exist. Therefore they would be natural. If something "metaphysical" exists then it should be measurable in some manner for us to confirm it's existence and therefore be part of our enquiry into physics as a whole.

"Metaphysics" and "supernatural" are two very modern ideas in an attempt to constrain science to a certain area of knowledge to free others to make claims "beyond science".

Science however is simply the search for knowledge. Nowhere does it say that this search is only for 'material' things, or this set of things or that set. It is the search for knowledge and as soon as you blinker yourself in that search then you are no longer doing science.

Ironically of course the oft repeated metaphor here of "cold logic" and "hard facts" has little to do with modern science. It is a holdover from this artificial Victorian idea of magisterial realms. In fact modern physics contains ideas and concepts far beyond the prosaic metaphysics of most mystics. The difference is that these incredibly strange ideas can be evidenced.

Kurt wrote: "What I assume you mean is, unlike the faith one has in one's belief in the knowledge of god, I do not claim to know the answers/if there is a god or not."

If you believe in a god, you are claiming to know at a fundamental level how the universe works without any evidence to back up the claim, or to refute others who believe in different metaphysical ideas.

Kurt wrote: "But, at this point in time of our awareness, science has proved truths and knowledge only in that which is of the physical. It has yet to prove anything outside the physical."

Again this "physical" idea is a Victorian construct, 200 years out of date. Science has shown that what we used to think was 'physical' is nothing of the sort. Science as an understanding of how strange the existence we are part of is has thundered past such primitive concepts.

Kurt wrote: "Somewhere along the line it will become the one and only true religion."

No. Never. For religion requires belief, science specifically eschews belief in return for knowledge. If science proved god there would be no need to believe in him any more, you'd just accept his existence.

Kurt wrote: ""Faith ultimately serves nothing but itself..." Once again you're personifying an abstract concept that is nothing without human consciousness...unless I'm mistaken and you're attributing faith to a higher being. ;)"

Yes I think you are mistaken. I am talking about faith as an ideology. All known ideologies require human consciousness because that is the only creature we know that can conceptualise ideas.

In a similar way I could talk about the invalid ideology of racism, demonstrate flaws in the ideology of racism and muse on the causes of racism such as fear and tribalism. The concept though does require people who subscribe to that ideology - i.e. racists - just as faithful subscribe to the ideology of faith.

My point is that yes people can be flawed, but in certain cases the ideology isn't flawed by the failure of people to adhere to it, the ideology itself is flawed.

Kurt wrote: "Like I said before, people are the common denominator in everything. Everything. For it, anything, to exist, to matter, we must project ourselves on it to make it so."

So you believe in a subjective reality? A reality that does not exist unless there is someone to observe it. Why?

Kurt wrote: "Good stuff, Gary. Thanks for listening and sharing."

No rpoblem, I hope I have addressed the holes in the previous response.

[Maria]

Thanks, Gary, for your honest and detailed answers. I can relate to most of what you say.

There are a lot of non-believers who stay with their church because of family pressure and the social ramifications of leaving. Their church is their social circle and they don't want to alienate themselves from it.

You said that seeing the wonders of the universe solidifies your non-theist views - but to me they make it difficult not to believe that something other than science put all of them in place.

Things are in such order - the planets and other "things" in the universe don't crash into each other, are just the right distance apart - and probably a lot of other phenomena that I am not aware of - to attribute that to science alone, without some type of guidance - to me it leaves too much to chance.

Also the fact that they are all so beautiful and pleasing to the eye - that is certainly not a scientific necessity, it's like it was meant for someone to enjoy as well.

At any rate, you have given me a lot to think about, and I really enjoy your responses - you do not insult or condescend, you merely state your views and explain how you came to feel that way.

Thanks~

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "There are a lot of non-believers who stay with their church because of family pressure and the social ramifications of leaving. Their church is their social circle and they don't want to alienate themselves from it."

Another reason why I am sympathetic to believers. I have been through that pain.

Maria wrote: "You said that seeing the wonders of the universe solidifies your non-theist views - but to me they make it difficult not to believe that something other than science put all of them in place."

Which to me is just a circular argument. If you believe someone had to choose to create something then that creator then requires something just as incredible to create him etc. Eventually you get to the point that oh it must have created itself, or was eternal, but neither answer explains anything and asks far far more.

It feels to me like an answer for the sake of having an answer, personally I would rather wait for the right answer. It is likely to be far more amazing than just a person.

Maria wrote: "Things are in such order - the planets and other "things" in the universe don't crash into each other, are just the right distance apart - and probably a lot of other phenomena that I am not aware of - to attribute that to science alone, without some type of guidance - to me it leaves too much to chance."

Again this is a popular mistake made by believers. You say I attribute it to being "science alone", but science is not a force, science is not a replacement god, science is a methodology of finding out the truth. The theory of gravity does not exist because of science, we know how gravity works because we used science to uncover what was there already.

This is why I say if there is a god, then he should be scientifically provable, because science is nothing more than a rational search for knowledge about existence.

The universe isn't amazing because of science, the universe is amazing because it's the universe. Science just allows us to glimpse its majesty free of the egotistic practice of assuming someone 'just like us' had to make it for it to be so 'perfect'.

Maria wrote: "Also the fact that they are all so beautiful and pleasing to the eye - that is certainly not a scientific necessity, it's like it was meant for someone to enjoy as well."

Again you are projecting that the universe was made somehow "for us" rather than us being a result of the universe. Without meaning offence I find the first point of view quite egotistic.

Moreover neuroscientists already know that a lot of what we term "beauty" is guided by simple rules of mathematics and symmetry. It is not hard to discern from that point why we would develop to find these things beautiful, because these relationships tell us important information quickly. For example, symmetry we probably see as beautiful because things that are symmetrical are usually 'fresher' or 'purer' than things that are not. Scientists have shown that humans tend to find faces that are symmetrical are more attractive, perhaps partially seeing it as better genetics. We also tend to find fruit and food more pleasing when symmetrical, which can tell us how safe that foodstuff is to eat.

Obviously there is a lot more to it, but the point is that art and beauty do not need mysticism to explain it or to enjoy it.

One other misconception you are making is that we know chaos and chance can not only lead to beauty, but it often also contains complex patterns, patterns that emerge from simple rules yet are beautifully intricate and complex.

Maria wrote: "At any rate, you have given me a lot to think about, and I really enjoy your responses - you do not insult or condescend, you merely state your views and explain how you came to feel that way."

Thank you, I hope I continue to do so.

[Maria]

"It feels to me like an answer for the sake of having an answer, personally I would rather wait for the right answer. It is likely to be far more amazing than just a person."

Exactly - it doesn't have to be a person. I know this sounds sci-fi, but what if it's a force (may it be with you :), a mass of energy, something that created the universe, or at least oversaw the scientific phenomena taking place and kind of directed it, so to speak.

I know, it sounds crazy to me even as I type it.

I guess the thing is, how would that force have gotten here in the first place, who created the creator, etc.

Maybe I'll just enjoy the beauty and not try to figure it out! :)

[Kurt]

Something I always thought to be good advice: If you feel you're in a hole, stop digging.

Gary wrote: "So you believe in a subjective reality? A reality that does not exist unless there is someone to observe it. Why?"

You kinda answered the "why" with your own response (which I'm pretty sure you anticipated I would use just for this situation): "All known ideologies require human consciousness because that is the only creature we know that can conceptualise ideas."

For anything -- any thing, be it an acorn, a planet, an ideology, your faith/belief/trust in the atheistic (or whatever term you're most comfortable with to describe it) idea of the nonexistence of...whatever -- to exist, to matter, matter both physically and emotionally, my conscious must be aware of it; I must consciously recognize it. Anything outside of my consciousness simply just doesn't [have] matter to me.

In this regard, all your other admirable hole filling attempts were a paradoxical exercise in wonderment...and futility.

~~~~

This little ditty of mine is somewhat germane: The Angel In The Cracked Mirror

[Gary]

Maria wrote: "Exactly - it doesn't have to be a person. I know this sounds sci-fi, but what if it's a force (may it be with you :), a mass of energy, something that created the universe, or at least oversaw the scientific phenomena taking place and kind of directed it, so to speak."

Yes I have come across the idea before and still to me it seems to miss the point. On another thread someone keeps referring to the concept of a 'consciousness that guides everything'. I find it hard to see anymore why people do not see it as redundant.

You have a consciousness guiding the apple that falls, or a sun that burns, but why does it always follow the same laws if it has a choice about it? Doesn't it make more sense if things behave because that's the way they behave rather than needing some decision to then behave in the exact expected way?

By it's nature all of the conscious universe arguments inevitably become circular, until someone steps in and tries to define an ending by appealing to some infinity.

Maria wrote: "I guess the thing is, how would that force have gotten here in the first place, who created the creator, etc."

Exactly :-)

Maria wrote: "Maybe I'll just enjoy the beauty and not try to figure it out! :) "

I see no reason not to speculate or not to figure things out. Personally I will rate a curious theist over an incurious atheist any day. The problems I have with theism all start to come when people try to impose their distorted morality or concepts of reality on others by virtue of their faith.

Here's an interesting one for you though.

Why do we need a creator?

I will try to explain this concept simply (apologies if it makes no sense.)

First, no one has never ever observed anything being created. Reconfigured, restructured or changed, yes, but created, no. Even the "creation" of virtual particle pairs in esoteric quantum physics is actually a reconfiguration of space-time rather than creation from nothing.

The whole concept of creation is based on the artificial line people draw between an object not being and being. You can create a chair, but you really are just reconfiguring wood until at some point you define the resultant object as a "chair".

So why does the universe need a creator?

The universe is not only matter, energy and particles, it is space and time. (Space-time to physicists). "Creation" requires a time when something doesn't exist and a time when it does.

Creation of the universe would be creation of everything within it, including space and time, but how can you create time if there was never a time that it did not exist?

People tend to look at the question of the origin of the universe and say "well obviously it must have come from somewhere" without realising the humanocentric conceit this is based on. Somewhere is 'space' and coming into existence needs a time when it wasn't in existence.

This can bend your head into weird shapes I've found.

So the universe can have both existed "for all time" and yet finitely, because "all time" is 13 Billion years and counting (plus change).

[Gary]

Kurt wrote: "to exist, to matter, matter both physically and emotionally, my conscious must be aware of it; I must consciously recognize it. Anything outside of my consciousness simply just doesn't [have] matter to me."

This would imply that you are the only consciousness in a personal universe.

Kurt wrote: "In this regard, all your other admirable hole filling attempts were a paradoxical exercise in wonderment...and futility."

I like to explore concepts, but my point is that personally I accept the axiom that "existence exists" without me. There is no way this can be proven, but as a basis for proceeding with gathering knowledge about that existence it is a necessary step.

Again though you seem to be in danger of trying to define my world-view by what it isn't, rather than what it is.

[Sam]

I am not sure if this has been posted yet but there is plenty of science in the Quran. I can list the examples here but if your interested it is an interesting journey for yourself. That being said I don't believe you can have one without the other. If you are a person who believes in a Divine Creator then by default you would have to agree that science is man's way of describing the workings and mechanism of the world that has been created for us to live in.

[Kru]

Religion may have a little bit of science in it.
Every religion has them, or people try to attach science to the beliefs, but they are too divisive and mostly blind.
But science is always based on facts and reasoning, so more acceptable, progress and less chaos.
So, living in a world without science is just living in darkness...

[Gary]

Sam wrote: "I am not sure if this has been posted yet but there is plenty of science in the Quran. I can list the examples here but if your interested it is an interesting journey for yourself."

I did find the Qu'ran hard going and I don't know it nearly as well as the Bible so I had to try to re-find these quotes.

Surah 18:86
"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

Setting place of the Sun? A flat Earth with the sun travelling over it? A Muddy spring that survives daily contact with a star's surface at 6000K?

The Qu'ran also mentions specifically the Sun and Moon being placed in orbits in the sky, but not the Earth. placed in orbit around the Sun.

There are also many other verses talking about the Earth being spread out under heaven.

All this shows it's science as a flat earth geocentric universe, yet the flat Earth theory was debunked centuries earlier.

I once debated with a Muslim apologist who had his list of Qu'ran "science" and about half of it was cherry picked statements that was retroactively interpreted to match modern science, while the other half (orbits in the sky, primitive biology) where all things well known thousands of years before.

Funnily enough that apologist was saving up to put himself through college to learn science for the sole reason to debate scientists and prove his religion to them. If you decide what truth is before you look for it, you will never find it.

Sam wrote: "That being said I don't believe you can have one without the other. If you are a person who believes in a Divine Creator then by default you would have to agree that science is man's way of describing the workings and mechanism of the world that has been created for us to live in."

So by your definition your first sentence is wrong. If science is man's best way of describing the world and discovering about it, then religion gets in the way as unnecessary. If god exists then surely he should be found easily in science and belief would be unnecessary.

What I find surprising that I didn't see when I was a believer, and believers don't seem to see now, even believers should see that belief is a poor way to discover truth. After all, no matter what religion you are, you can be guaranteed that the majority of people throughout history have believed something different. So what use is religion or faith if it's - even to a believer - usually wrong?

[[deleted user]]

World without religion... No doubts! A world without science would be like back to the cave!

[Matej]

Neither of them... for science is a religion for me

[Gary]

Pablo wrote: "Neither of them... for science is a religion for me"

Then you're doing it wrong.

[Matej]

Gary wrote: Then you're doing it wrong."

Maybe I am...
but...
If I didn't, others wouldn't be able do it right.

[Gary]

Pablo wrote: "Gary wrote: Then you're doing it wrong."

Maybe I am...
but...
If I didn't, others wouldn't be able do it right."

I'm not sure I follow.

What I meant was that religion requires belief. If you believe in science then you are not doing science. Science requires belief to be tested and discarding if it is found wanting.

Equating science to religion is just a false equivalence to try to claim equal authority for religion. However, science requires disbelief rather than belief, the willingness to ask the question "what if what I think is wrong?"

The benefits of such thinking? Well you are reading from one.