The Passion...

[dribbleglass]

Cheers, ya'll!

I've been off the thread for a while, so I won't respond to individual statements.

Here's my stupid observations, from the perspective of someone who feels that science and religion are seperate realms. Science has and is  allowing us unprecedented success as a species, providing us with incredibly powerful tools for controlling our environment and understanding the physical universe and the natural world. Religion speaks to a deep need humans have for meaning and purpose, providing solace for our distress at knowing our own fragile mortality, and teaching "morality" as interpreted by the particular religion. They are not compatible at this time, because science deals with evidence, and religion deals with matters of faith.

The thread has contained references to faith. Faith is all very well. If having faith in a God or an afterlife is what makes living better for a person, great. The problem comes in when the doctrine of the religion demands an undying effort on the part of adherents to convert other people. This results in constant attempts to insinuate religious beliefs into society on a number of levels, the most damaging being assaults on the separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is absolutely critical to a just, free and free-thinking society. After all, there is no universal agreement on religious doctrine. There are many religious faiths, and even the Judeo-Christian body of religious beliefs is fracured into numerous denominations and sects. I believe many of the proponents of "non-denominatioinal" prayer-in-school would not be happy if a teacher started reading to their children from the Koran or the I-Ching, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The unspoken assumption is that in this "Christian Nation" the prayer will be in a Christian vein. I say keep all religious teaching and indoctrination out of the publicly funded governmental realm. That's what churches, temples, mosques, etc. are for. "Faith-based" initiatives are in the same arena. It is in the interests of us all to keep the separation of church and state in force.

There are also a lot of anthropmorphic assumptions. Going back to mathematics, I'll re-iterate that math is a human tool, not a universal tool. Mathematics was not in existence awaiting human discovery like the laws of thermodynamics or gravitation or chemistry. Mathematics is simply a language invented to be used as a tool.  It is a very useful way to describe and predict the behavior of the natural world, but it is a human artifact.

We are pattern-recognizers, and we want to impose order on the universe. Fortunately, it does appear there are universal laws that apply everywhere, and this gives us hope that we can fundamentally understand physical laws. However, we are a long way from reconciling General and Special Relativity with Quantum Theory to make a Unified Theory. The universe is very big and very mysterious, and we look at it through a keyhole. We only see a tiny slice of the electromagnetic pie, and have an infintessimally brief span of observation. There is no reason to think the universe will conform to human expections. Time, for instance may be much stranger than we think, but that is a red herring. My point is that we can not impose human needs on the physical world. Good and evil, religious doctrine, morality, these are human artifacts. They are a result of the dynamics of human biochemistry and cultural development. They allow us to survive as social creatures. Morality and good/evil are agreements society has made about what is acceptable behavior in terms of our ability to live together in  groups. Much as we would like to believe that these were rules handed down by a benvolent and all-compassionate omniscient being, this is simply does not appear to be the case. If evidence was discovered, it could be evaluated using the scientific method. Until then, there is no reason to think this is a human universe. We occupy a grain of sand in a vast, dark ocean.

Humanity should be very proud of its achievements in the areas of scientific inquiry. Science has made us masters of our domain. We are safer, better-fed and longer lived than ever before. Our homes are clean, we have numerous stimulating diversions of all types, and some leisure time to enjoy them if we're lucky. We understand in general terms the evolution of the cosmos back to billionths of a second after the event we call the 'big bang'. We have solid theories about the development of life on earth. We have awe-inspiring technologies and a tireless curiosity and exploratory nature. The sky's the limit. We can be less proud of our history of rich and detailed violence and senseless short-sighted waste. And historically, organized religion has supressed scientific inquiry at every turn. It is in spite of, and not because of, religion that we live so well.

Religious faith provides something many humans need, but it is a human artifact. It is what we hope or wish to be true, not what we observe around us. When we die, the electro-chemical machine which allows us to be conscious will cease to function. People talk about conservation of energy as a hope for the continuance of the consciousness or 'soul" sfter death, but it doesn't look good. The energy of the functioning brain merely becomes randomized in a number of ways, heat dissipation, biological decay, etc.

I'm not saying there's no God, no life after death. I am merely saying there is absolutely no  verifyable compelling evidence of either. Scientists don't seek to 'disprove' the existence of God. You can not prove a negative. A scientist merely says "where's your evidence?", and if you have none, the scientist moves on to something more interesting. So in comes a convenient device for religionists: the concept of "faith". Faith would mean nothing, they argue, if God revealed himself. It is the willingness to believe in the absence of evidence which distinguishes the "saved" from the infidels. Personally, I don't buy it.  If God created humanity, He has wired us with the ability for critical thinking and logical thinking. So why would He expect blind belief from us? It is the profiteers from organized religions who have always asked that of us. These tax-exempt businesses and social-clubs. Religious institutions across tthe world seek everything from tithes to participation in suicide terrorism from the faithful. The motives of religious leaders very greatly, from a will to help and provide solace to their fellows to a desire to control and conquer all the world. I do not see any monopoly by people of religious beliefs of good and fair and moral behavior. I know many atheists and agnostics who lead very generous and kind lives, and have great compassion for others. When was the last time you saw an atheist with dynamite strapped to him?

People have the right to believe whatever they want in free society, and I will support that right with my last breath. Unfortunately this is not good enough for evangelicals. They want to impose their beliefs on others, so the others can be "saved". Many of them want the ridiculous and easily disprovable Young Earth Creationism given equal time in science classes with evolutionary biology. Even the many who have abandoned this untenable position embrace "intelligent design", which is just a slightly more palatable form of creationism. There may be a "designer", but evolutionary theory does not require one. It explains very well how these processes can have taken place without any guidance from a designer. ID is just an attempt to place a designer (God) into the center of the science of the origin of life, and it is nothing more than an unscientific assault by religionists on scientific theory.

In my opinion, humanity would be better off keeping the religion out of government and science. I'm just a knucklehead, what do I know, but remember in a free society dissent is critical, and the speech and opinions you should be first to protect are thos you agree with most.

Smile on your brother!

[torgosPizza]

How is #3 just assumed to be true? Why does moral obligation to any type of supreme being automatically prove its existence? That's a logical flaw, and is not a way to structure an argument for your cause.

please provide us with how premise 1 can be true and 3 is still false (for the record it can and has been done)

also the fact that moral obligation exists doesnt automatically imply that obligation is to any god at all.  Moral obligation can in fact be something that exists outside of god.  I look at it that god exists but didnt create that obligation, but is the only being with full complete understanding of it. 

Sarcasm, I was quoting a bullet point / talking point from the apologetics press website. Those were not my ideas. I agree with you, I'd like to know whow any of those are assumed to be true.

But life HAS to be meaningful, doesn't it?  It is, after all, OUR life.  But how can we if there's no rational reason to value it?  The answer, of course, lies in some form of grand illogic, whether it be religion or secular values.  Any empirical analysis, undertaken with an appropriate detachment from our inherent biases as living beings, will find both systems to be equally absurd and arbitrary (unless, of course, it turns out that God does exist).

Personally, I believe in a God whose existance is neither falsifiable by nor inconsistant with science.  Then again, I also believe that FOX News is fair and balanced and that JFK is still alive and being held captive by an elite team of mutant cyber ninja O.J. Simpsons from outer space, so I really shouldn't be trusted with this kind of thing.

Well, THERE's your problem! 

In seriousness though, who says life needs to have importance and meaning? Simply because we're the only species on Earth (as far as we know) with the cognitive reasoning to think about our own demise, doesn't mean that we have some higher place in the spectrum of meaning. We're an organism who shares much of its DNA with the rest of what's around us, making us as much a part of the planet as the plants and the grubs. They serve a purpose, yes - everything does in the ecological cycle - but meaning is a bit more of a stretch.

And I'd be very interested to learn what these positive atheists know about the beginning of the universe (the "Planck epoch," during which neither time nor space existed) that I don't.  I'd also like to know how the hell they found out about it, since such conditions would be impossible to create, let alone observe.

There are lots of theories out there, but of course no one can explain it with 100% accuracy, since none of us were there. But we can look at evidence that shows us what "might" have happened, with a high degree of certainty.

I much prefer the other form of atheism.  Members of this camp argue that the burden of proof lies on proving God's existance and not on disproving it, and that there is not enough evidence of his existance to justify belief.  If, by some miracle, evidence capable of holding up under intense scientific scrutiny were to arise, however, this person would most certainly take it into consideration. 

The idea of using evidence to chance one's stance on a theory isn't weak, it's science. I've never heard of "soft" atheism, to tell you the truth. But those who misunderstand science often have trouble coming to grips with the idea of new evidence changing a theory. Unlike religious documents such as the bible and Qu'ran, science changes on a daily basis. Scientists don't claim to have ALL the answers, but more of a "we're orking on it" type of attitude. Evolution doesn't claim to prove how the universe started, just how we got to where we're at now.

We are pattern-recognizers, ...  We only see a tiny slice of the electromagnetic pie, and have an infintessimally brief span of observation. There is no reason to think the universe will conform to human expections. Time, for instance may be much stranger than we think, but that is a red herring. My point is that we can not impose human needs on the physical world. Good and evil, religious doctrine, morality, these are human artifacts. .. We occupy a grain of sand in a vast, dark ocean.

... People talk about conservation of energy as a hope for the continuance of the consciousness or 'soul" sfter death, but it doesn't look good. The energy of the functioning brain merely becomes randomized in a number of ways, heat dissipation, biological decay, etc.

There is so much to quote, I had to snip a lot out. I agree with everything you've said. I forget which philosopher said it, but the human mind can't grapple with the idea of nothing. It scares itself when it thinks of the possibility that "After death, there is nothing." Because that's a sad state of affairs and not anything pleasant to think about. The idea that "matter is just energy in another form" works well for thermodynamics, but not so much for the human condition.

In my opinion, humanity would be better off keeping the religion out of government and science. I'm just a knucklehead, what do I know, but remember in a free society dissent is critical, and the speech and opinions you should be first to protect are thos you agree with most.

Another thing that's misused in the religious argument all the time - that we are a Christian nation. Well, we're not. Nor were our laws based on the Judeo-Christian religion. It's simply not true, and I have evidence to back it up, things written by the Founding Fathers themselves. Religious fundamentalists, usually, are the first ones to remind us that we're a religious nation, a Christian nation, this that and the other thing. And that we have "under god" in our pledge, and on our money. But what they continue to ignore is the fact that, that was a result of anti-Communist propaganda in the 50s. Commies were a godless people, and we wanted to prove to the world that we weren't like them. Most of us weren't around at the time this happened, so it's easy to ignore. I'm a huge advocate of reinstating the original pledge, which simply read, "One Nation, indivisible." When we are a nation so diverse in beliefs and ideologies, forcing us to be "one nation under God" pigeonholes us into being exactly what the Islamic fundamentalists hate so much. A country full of infidels, because we don't believe the prophet Muhammed was the one true messenger, and as it says in the Qu'Ran, anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity deserves to die by the sword of Allah.

I'd like to know how other Christians on this board feel about that.

[MarkAndrew]

Another thing that's misused in the religious argument all the time - that we are a Christian nation. Well, we're not. Nor were our laws based on the Judeo-Christian religion. It's simply not true, and I have evidence to back it up, things written by the Founding Fathers themselves. Religious fundamentalists, usually, are the first ones to remind us that we're a religious nation, a Christian nation, this that and the other thing. And that we have "under god" in our pledge, and on our money. But what they continue to ignore is the fact that, that was a result of anti-Communist propaganda in the 50s. Commies were a godless people, and we wanted to prove to the world that we weren't like them. Most of us weren't around at the time this happened, so it's easy to ignore. I'm a huge advocate of reinstating the original pledge, which simply read, "One Nation, indivisible." When we are a nation so diverse in beliefs and ideologies, forcing us to be "one nation under God" pigeonholes us into being exactly what the Islamic fundamentalists hate so much. A country full of infidels, because we don't believe the prophet Muhammed was the one true messenger, and as it says in the Qu'Ran, anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity deserves to die by the sword of Allah.

I'd like to know how other Christians on this board feel about that.

  I'm a Christian but I'm not going to enter a debate on religion on this board.  I've had bad experiences with Fark.com.  Honestly, I can't spend the time to address all these issues with the due thought and weight I feel they deserve.

  I'd like to address one portion here.  We do not have an established, state church like England does.  So by a strict definition we are not a Christian nation.  The founders did not want government dictation what it's citizens must believe.  In England, you needed to be a member of the Church of England in order to hold a variety of offices.
  However, we are a nation founded by Christians, the Pilgrims, the Quakers and Methodists and other Christian dissenters from Europe were their earliest, most influential and successful colonists.  And that has left it's mark on our society.  We are not a nation founded by Athiests, Unitarians or African Animists, though all can be found here now.  One of the founding, vital forces that built America was to be nation where you were free to worship as you wish.  Freedom of Religion, not freedom from religion was what the founders sought.
  The phrase 'Under God' appeared on US currency in the 1860's and onward for decades.  This was a result of the 19th century religious revival called, "the Second Great Awakening", I think (I might have the phraseology) which was a reaction against the 18th century humanism.

  The prevalence of Religion in public life in the US ebbs and flows in fairly natural tides every generation or so.

  One final note, I think wanting to change our currency so Islamic countries will hate us less is foolish.  The burden to act decent and tolerant is on them.  We permit Mosques and Islamic worship here quite freely.  And I think it says something damning about Islam if it truly says in the Qu'Ran, "anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity deserves to die by the sword of Allah."

my $.02

[ScottotD]

Because no other religious book mentions punishment for non-believers?

Why is the burden on 'them'?

[torgosPizza]

However, we are a nation founded by Christians, the Pilgrims, the Quakers and Methodists and other Christian dissenters from Europe were their earliest, most influential and successful colonists.  And that has left it's mark on our society.  We are not a nation founded by Athiests, Unitarians or African Animists, though all can be found here now.  One of the founding, vital forces that built America was to be nation where you were free to worship as you wish.  Freedom of Religion, not freedom from religion was what the founders sought.

Again, you are misusing their writings. Jefferson was an atheist, or at the very least, agnostic. Read much of what he wrote, he is very much against religion, Christianity specifically. I can provide examples if you wish, and they will not be taken out of context. To say that the original settlers of the country were 100% Christian dissenters is a bit misleading. Many of them, sure; not all of them. Freedom from religion is exactly what they were after when they decided upon the "wall of separation." They did not want religion to interfere with people on a personal or governmental basis.

  The phrase 'Under God' appeared on US currency in the 1860's and onward for decades.  This was a result of the 19th century religious revival called, "the Second Great Awakening", I think (I might have the phraseology) which was a reaction against the 18th century humanism.

Thank you on that clarification. But again, putting god on currency as a reaction against another movement doesn't make it right. I think if this had happened during Jefferson's time, they wouldn't have allowed it.

One final note, I think wanting to change our currency so Islamic countries will hate us less is foolish.  The burden to act decent and tolerant is on them.  We permit Mosques and Islamic worship here quite freely.  And I think it says something damning about Islam if it truly says in the Qu'Ran, "anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity deserves to die by the sword of Allah."

I don't think we should change our currency and pledge so other countries hate us less. Sorry if I mislead you to believe that was my point. I think we should get rid of such religious dogmatism in anything dealing with our government if we truly are a free nation made of many religions, and even an ever-increasing non-religious crowd. How would you feel if the tables were turned, and it was "One Nation Under Allah?" I think it should be One Nation Under Law, if anything. The term "God" is inherently Judeo-Christian, and that's my main issue with that. Again, you can have religion in your life, if it makes you happy, I'm not going to hold it against you. But don't make all of us swear to the same diety.

I may retract my comment about "dying by the sword of Allah" if you believe in Jesus divinity - that's not a direct quote. But it's basically what the book is saying. The Qu'ran, from what I understand, denies Jesus as being the son of god, and of course teaches many of its followers to convert non-Muslims, and if that fails, to sacrifice themselves to enter Paradise.

[J-Proof]

Another thing that's misused in the religious argument all the time - that we are a Christian nation. Well, we're not. Nor were our laws based on the Judeo-Christian religion. It's simply not true, and I have evidence to back it up, things written by the Founding Fathers themselves. Religious fundamentalists, usually, are the first ones to remind us that we're a religious nation, a Christian nation, this that and the other thing. And that we have "under god" in our pledge, and on our money. But what they continue to ignore is the fact that, that was a result of anti-Communist propaganda in the 50s. Commies were a godless people, and we wanted to prove to the world that we weren't like them. Most of us weren't around at the time this happened, so it's easy to ignore. I'm a huge advocate of reinstating the original pledge, which simply read, "One Nation, indivisible." When we are a nation so diverse in beliefs and ideologies, forcing us to be "one nation under God" pigeonholes us into being exactly what the Islamic fundamentalists hate so much. A country full of infidels, because we don't believe the prophet Muhammed was the one true messenger, and as it says in the Qu'Ran, anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity deserves to die by the sword of Allah.

I'd like to know how other Christians on this board feel about that.

As for items such as our currency and our pledge which retain "Christian" or at least "religious" text on them>>
Getting rid of said text or retaining said text doesn't really change the number of "faithful" people there are in the country, so I don't think in the end it will really do much but harden the noses of the faithful populous, and honestly, extremists and terrorists will still look at us the way that they do. It isn't really our general faith that they use to justify their deeds, it is our secular reasoning and hypocricy that I think is /more/ under fire.

As for Jefferson being non-Christian>>
True, he wasn't a Christian, yet he was still instrumental in the founding of our country. But Jefferson is but one man. Washington was a Christian who regularly attended Sunday services. As was Franklin. As were both revolutionary Adams. As was Lafayette. As was Greene. As was Madison. The list goes on and on. Do I think the country should force people to believe in one God, though? No -- that denies the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. However, it would be incorrect to state that Mosaic Law is not the basis for an /incredible/ amount of our own law. Visit the Supreme Court House in DC and you'll see magnificent busts of Moses on display there (as well as King Solomon and others). Not to say that secular reasoning is entirely inadequate for law-making, but what is wrong with beneficial laws even if they come from great religiosu minds? Thou shall not murder is a pretty good idea....

As for Darwin >>
On his deathbed Darwin said that none of his theories made sense and renounced them all... Reason being that there is nothing but supernatural capability that could make his theories possible. There's also the idea that evolution presents where disorder leads to order, which is completely contradictory to anything scientific. If Darwin's theory is entirely correct, than apes should still be birthing human babies. That being said, I believe that in the scope things, Darwin was on the right track, and that God could very well have used evolution to bring things to the point they're at.

These convos are fun.... But I gots more work to do

[torgosPizza]

As for Darwin >>
On his deathbed Darwin said that none of his theories made sense and renounced them all... Reason being that there is nothing but supernatural capability that could make his theories possible.

This is another often-used, and incredibly wrong statement that I hear so often. Darwin NEVER said that. There are accounts of those who were with him at his deathbad, who have denied the story about his ever recanting.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Getting rid of said text or retaining said text doesn't really change the number of "faithful" people there are in the country, so I don't think in the end it will really do much but harden the noses of the faithful populous, and honestly, extremists and terrorists will still look at us the way that they do

I agree that it won't really help in the eyes of other (Islamic mainly) countries - but still. It seems to be a big, irrelevant talking point, especially with Dubya Bush in the white house, a man who wears his religion on his sleeve, and is well-known for putting faith and religion ahead of science and progress in all of his decisions. When it comes to deciding on laws about the environment, foreign affairs, stem cell research, and a laundry list of other things, his obligation to faith is only getting in the way of our society's reason and progress, in my opinion.

[Variety of Cells]

Progress is a strange, gray thing.

[Tyrant]

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html

  This is long. But very detailed. Read at your own risk.

Very interesting, Bathtub. We don't hear the Islam take on things very often and this was quite refreshing. Yeah, the first four minutes are kind of weird, but pretty much everything afterwards made sense. Thanks for putting that up here.

14. The Moral Argument

   1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
   2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
   3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
   4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

How is #3 just assumed to be true? Why does moral obligation to any type of supreme being automatically prove its existence? That's a logical flaw, and is not a way to structure an argument for your cause.

I respect your views, Tyrant, but I've read articles from Apologetics Press before, and they tend to be pretty insulting. None of these arguments are new, and just as easily defended in a real debate, not in a website such as AP that assumes there is (to start) some kind of moral obligation.

And also, I'm not sure that the Islamic video that BathTub posted "makes sense" as you put it. Mountains were created to keep the earth from moving during an earthquake? A water barrier that keeps salt and fresh water apart? Not to mention the appalling views on females and the fact that Islam demands if you believe in Jesus' divinity, you should be killed. How does any of this make sense in a modern era?

  Apologetics Press should be used as a reference, not as an opinion builder. I threw it up here because it's one of the few sources that outlines the 20 Arguments for God in that detailed a manner. For the record, I respect your views as well, Torgo. I wanted to make sure everyone here knows that believers don't just go on blind faith, however. There's tons of reasoning and logic to our arguments just as there is in the opposition.

 As for Islam and Jesus, I suppose I should mention that it is the same founding monotheistic religion that gave rise to all three major monotheistic belief systems. All three are actually related which I see as the greatest irony because there's so much hatred between them. Ironic even more that the God of all three promotes love. Yet one group seems hellbent on blowing up the other two, and the other two seem hellbent in insulting the one. I can understand why some people won't give religion the time of day.

 Good points, all. But I feel I've overstayed my welcome on this thread so unless I see something really illogical or someone addresses me directly, I'll hold my tongue and just enjoy the read.  

 

[gbeenie]

Freedom of Religion, not freedom from religion was what the founders sought.

Absolutely, factually UNTRUE. Several of the Founders made specific reference, in their writings, to the First Amendment erecting a "wall of separation" (THEIR term) between religion and government.

And as for the OUTRIGHT LIE that "America was founded by christians," the fact is that most our country's Founders were deists, which was the closest thing there was to atheism at the time. Deism held that, while, sure, God (or something god-like) created the Universe and everything in it, He/She/It/They certainly have no interest in the affairs of the human race now. This is, at least, a much more reasonable view of God than the bloodthirsty maniac He's depicted as being by pretty much every major Western religion.

  One final note, I think wanting to change our currency so Islamic countries will hate us less is foolish. 

I couldn't agree more; I don't give a rat's ass what islamists think of us. We should change it because it's a specific, unquestionable violation of our First Amendment.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Sarcasm, I was quoting a bullet point / talking point from the apologetics press website. Those were not my ideas. I agree with you, I'd like to know whow any of those are assumed to be true.

I was too (oh and sorry for skipping PAGES AND PAGES OF TEXT).  I meant if premise 1 is true how can premise 3 be false?

[torgosPizza]

No I'm saying, that argument assumes 1 to be true - which I don't believe it is. A lot of their arguments seem to take that as a presumption, that there is some moral obligation we are restricted to, when I'd argue that that's not the case.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

oh well i was asking because you said:

How is #3 just assumed to be true?

so i was just going off of that.  If i remember right and im too lazy to go back and check point 1 was that morality is objective?  well that brings up relativism again.  and you and i already did that one, i dont wish to do it yet again lol

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

ok i lied i went back and checked anyways, yes premise one states what i said. and heres what the site said about your question:

Question 1: The argument has not shown that ethical subjectivism is false. What if there are no objective values?

Reply: True enough. The argument assumes that there are objective values; it aims to show that believing in them is incompatible with one picture of the world, and quite compatible with another. Those two pictures are the atheistic-materialistic one, and the (broadly speaking) religious one. Granted, if ethical subjectivism is true, then the argument does not work. However, almost no one is a consistent subjectivist. (Many think they are, and say they are--until they suffer violence or injustice. In that case they invariably stand with the rest of us in recognizing that certain things ought never to be done.) And for the many who are not--and never will be--subjecivists, the argument can be most helpful. It can show them that to believe as they do in objective values is inconsistent with what they may also believe about the origin and destiny of the universe. If they move to correct the inconsistency, it will be a move toward the religious view and away from the atheistic one.

so yeah if you beleive in relativism completely then yeah this argument wont work as a convincing argument for gods existence. 

[msmpls]

I couldn't agree more; I don't give a rat's ass what islamists think of us.

I think you meant "Muslims"