Scorned for positive image...?

[Ken H.]

Boy, are we getting in deep here LOL!

Yeah, no doubt!

 

What it really, really probably boils down to is - what oil you use in your bike will determine the future of the human species!

 

[Ken H.]

I would say you've heard it a thousand times now in this thread. "Live and Let Live" means just that.

I have to philosophically disagree with it though. No person is an island. We all impact each other to some degree. The problem isn't - should or shouldn't we not try to influence others, the problem is the way we (for the most part) go about. Telling others ‘your way is wrong.’ Rather than showing them, ‘here’s why you should consider that my way might be better.’

 

 

It’s probably no surprise that I believe cooperation will get mankind further along than individualism will. Others obviously disagree. But I don’t think, “...it’s none of my business” arguments are valid.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Evolution IS messy, but ultimately that’s how it works. Some ideas help us, some hurt us. We either select enough ones that help that we continue, or select enough ones that hinder that we become extinct.

 

Even your plan, of the determining factor as to morality being those acts that would help us continue as a species could be problematic, Ken. For example, what if there were a big red button in front of you that you could push and randomly eliminate 9 out of 10 people in the world? No suffering or blood, just poof! and they would be instantly reduced to their atomic components in a flash. Could be the best thing for the human race....

[moshe_levy]

If a social/economic model, a religion, a government, a local law, a personal decision, whatever the issue or scale; turns out to not be in humans best interest, ultimately it will fail. (Or take down the species with it.) OTOH, if people engaging it (i.e. leading by example) shows it to be a benefit, that social/economic model, religion, government, local law, personal decision, whatever; will prosper.

 

Hmmmmm... well, maybe in an incredibly long term view that's true, but.... There are theocracies and dictatorships that have been in place for many decades (or centuries in some cases), clearly to the detriment of the average citizens of those countries. The only people prospering there are the ruling families. There are "major" religions today that got that way because over centuries they exterminated non-believers en masse. Centuries later people forget that the growth in "believer" population came about through literally eliminating the competition, not by selling people on a better idea. Many more such examples exist, obviously.

 

So point #1 - a system can certainly thrive and prosper for lengthy periods of time (to the point of becoming self-perpetuating) based on a fundamental foundation of less than virtuous circumstances leading to said growth. Shall we judge? I would say certainly so.

 

As for learning being cumulative, I would say - to an extent. We all know, for example, that tangling with a wild bear in the woods will likely lead to our own injury or death. Passed down from caveman (or "Adam?") to us over the years. But not much of substance can be agreed upon today. Get an argument over economics, politics, sociology, history, or some other subject going. You will quickly find that someone will very adamantly propose solutions which have already been tried, and failed utterly. He does not care about what actually happened historically, since he views things strictly through ideology (be it religious, political, or whatever). You will point out the actual historical failure as a rebuttal, and he will inevitably say that the idea failed because it was never tried in its "pure" form. In other words, we didn't go far enough! Compromise is seen by this person as the root of all evil and the mark of weakness. Such an argument or position is, in my experience, the hallmark of a zealot who is oblivious to reason, fact, or logic. There is really nothing further to talk about once that reveals itself. But my point is - cumulative learning of what actually happened (history) is often placed second to what we wish did happen (fantasy).

 

Example? Remember "NEVER AGAIN!!!" after WWII? We were supposed to learn something, right? It will be absolutely impossible for anyone to make a serious case that as a world community, we learned one damn thing, since the cycle continues to this day, and nothing is done about it. We stand by, and watch genocide - over, and over, and over again. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Can anyone seriously make the case that we are not doomed in most important parameters? Again - shall we judge ourselves?

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

Even your plan, of the determining factor as to morality being those acts that would help us continue as a species could be problematic, Ken. For example, what if there were a big red button in front of you that you could push and randomly eliminate 9 out of 10 people in the world? No suffering or blood, just poof! and they would be instantly reduced to their atomic components in a flash. Could be the best thing for the human race....

Oh there’s a 1000 hypothetical ‘what ifs’ we could debate, but it’s largely mental masturbation.

 

The truth is nobody really knows if pushing that big red button would be better for humanity as a whole until after (maybe well after) some pushed it. Even that would in the end be judged only by, “That was a good idea, look where we are now.” Or “Hmmmm… better not do that again.”

 

Could be problematic? Of course. This evolution/survival stuff is messy.

 

Even if one wants to look at it from the perspective of “God’s judgment” so to speak, and by extension his reaction, it’s STILL an evolutionally (of the species) decision that will retrospectively boil down to – Was good idea? Or not so much so?

 

Imitate that example/decission and do it again, or take a pass.

 

 

[Ken H.]

Hmmmmm... well, maybe in an incredibly long term view that's true, but.... So point #1 - a system can certainly thrive and prosper for lengthy periods of time (to the point of becoming self-perpetuating) based on a fundamental foundation of less than virtuous circumstances leading to said growth.

Oh we (humans) are rather lousy at learning from history, no argument there.

 

Or are we? Yes I do think more in longer terms that a few 100 (or even a few 1000) years. And in that context the very fact that we are still here is unarguable proof that we do learn by our mistakes.

 

Even on an individual’s life time scope though, I think, overall, we learn. Most people, most, wouldn’t stick their hand in a pot of boiling water more than once. Of course there always has been, and always will be the guy with two burnt hands.

 

He does not care about what actually happened historically, since he views things strictly through ideology (be it religious, political, or whatever). You will point out the actual historical failure as a rebuttal, and he will inevitably say that the idea failed because it was never tried in its "pure" form. In other words, we didn't go far enough!

And he may or may not have a point. There can be great ideas that failed in accuracy of execution only, that deserve to be tried again. Nobody (or at least not me) suggest that these are quick decisions (this idea works, that one doesn’t) or even that consensus is easy to come by, but eventually by process of elimination (of what doesn’t work) we progress toward it.

 

Compromise is seen by this person as the root of all evil and the mark of weakness. Such an argument or position is, in my experience, the hallmark of a zealot who is oblivious to reason, fact, or logic. There is really nothing further to talk about once that reveals itself.

Ah but that will shake out over time too. We will discover that compromise is a superior approach (my view) or discover that one man ‘standing his ground’ is the superior way for all of us collectively to move forward. (I doubt it! After all, those stubborn ones eventually die too, just like the rest of us!)

 

As for learning being cumulative, I would say - to an extent.

 

Example? Remember "NEVER AGAIN!!!" after WWII? We were supposed to learn something, right? It will be absolutely impossible for anyone to make a serious case that as a world community, we learned one damn thing, since the cycle continues to this day, and nothing is done about it. We stand by, and watch genocide - over, and over, and over again.

“To an extent” is the right term. But even in your WII / genocide example, yes it’s still going on, but at a much smaller scale. I think we, humanity as a whole, even with pockets of those who haven’t ‘got it yet’, DID learn – genocide? bad idea. I think it is unlikely the world well ever see genocide again undertaken at the level of Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. The rest of the planet would never stand for it. We’ve learned, not completely but we have learned something from WWII. I never said humans were fast learners!

 

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Can anyone seriously make the case that we are not doomed in most important parameters?

The jury’s out. It always will be. At least (if you’re right) until the last human on the planet takes his/her last breath.

 

Now if you are asking, is our short term (few 100 years), current social/economic model, world political model, environmental model doomed? IMHO, almost certainly. But that too is as it should be. We led by example and the future judged it – bad idea. Humanity to itself over time will then say, “Let’s do something different this time.”

 

Fascinating conversation. Wish I had more time for it. Don’t.

 

[moshe_levy]

Good show, Ken.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

But even in your WII / genocide example, yes it’s still going on, but at a much smaller scale. I think we, humanity as a whole, even with pockets of those who haven’t ‘got it yet’, DID learn – genocide? bad idea. I think it is unlikely the world well ever see genocide again undertaken at the level of Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. The rest of the planet would never stand for it.

 

I guess we hadn't had quite enough time to learn Hitler's lesson by the mid 20th century, since it seems that Mao may have topped Adolf. And I guess we hadn't had quite enough time to learn from Stalin's genocide to stop Hitler's.

 

My crystal ball into the future is as murky anyone else's, but I see no indication that any basic characteristic of human nature has changed that would reduce future genocides. The anthropological record indicates that it is a basic human characteristic to annihilate another human population that is competing for the same space or resources. Sometimes, the weaker population was assimilated, but just as often, it was annihilated. By far, the largest exterminations of humans by other humans outside of war in human history occured during the 20th century, and they have occured among many different racial groups in many different geographical areas of the world, for many different reasons (at a superficial level, at least). It puzzles me that anyone would consider this a cause for optimism that genocide would be reduced in the future.

 

Where have all the flowers gone?

[moshe_levy]

Agreed. Syria and Darfur are in the news this week and come to mind. No real action going on, just alot of lip flapping.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

The truth is nobody really knows if pushing that big red button would be better for humanity as a whole until after (maybe well after) some pushed it. Even that would in the end be judged only by, “That was a good idea, look where we are now.” Or “Hmmmm… better not do that again.”

 

To be logically consistent with a naturalist position I think it would be better to say that if the big red button is pushed it is merely what happened in the evolutionary chain. There is no room for concepts like better or worse. I appreciate your honest embrace of your position but encourage a more rigorous application.

 

If by "worse" you mean worse for human propagation and dominance, I would argue that as irrelevant. Just as "better" would also be irrelevant. Even if nothing biological survived, that would also be irrelevant. It would merely be that the course of evolution went from no life to life and back to no life. All ultimately meaningless. Since heat death of the universe is a way off yet, perhaps no life may cycle back to life. Also irrelevant.

[texasaggie97]

Moshe,

 

I am sorry you have been so burned by people of faith. It takes 10 times more faith than I have to believe in nothing. Wow I am amazed that in this day in age people still think that they just came to be from nothing.

 

You are right their are bad people in all walks of life. I will never defend religion I am a follower of Jesus Christ not a religion. Religion is man made. I am sorry for the christians who have killed, and lived false lives but that is why we need a God. I am a liar, I have been drunk, and I have done things I am not proud of in my life. I know that with hard work and faith I am a better person everyday. We are all sinners and we all will die including you. I hope that you take a step back from your views and really look at the bible and find one thing in the book you can disprove. There are many books out there written by some of the top scientist in the world who try to disprove this book only to find they could not and are now followers.

 

Read the bible and I know that when you finish you will have a softer heart for the cause. I know you have already read the book that is what everyone says but I will challenge you to really read the book. I want you to know that Jesus love you even though you do not believe, but there will be a time in your life that you will began to look at life through a different lens. We can argue now till we are blue in the face and we all will not change but when one of us faces cancer, death of a family member, or some other tragedy we will give this all another thought with a different heart.

 

Thank you for your thoughts and know how you feel to some extent. I use to argue just like you are now. I had a change of heart after a few life changing events and I can tell you faith pulled me through.

 

[chrisd]

There are many books out there written by some of the top scientist in the world who try to disprove this book only to find they could not and are now followers.

 

Can you list some of the books/scientists?

[moshe_levy]

Moshe,

 

I am sorry you have been so burned by people of faith. It takes 10 times more faith than I have to believe in nothing. Wow I am amazed that in this day in age people still think that they just came to be from nothing.

 

 

With all due respect, you need to read what I wrote a little more closely. Nowhere did I say I was burned by people of faith. I did say that people of faith burned other people - literally, in addition to mass-killings and mass torture and all sorts of other gleeful heinous acts in the name of their God - and that this historical fact makes me and many others weary of what happens when extremism takes hold. There is simply too much dirty laundry in organized religion for anyone with a working brain who looks at the evidence to ignore it outright. I also did not say that I believe in "nothing," but I remind you that my theory of Papa Smurf creating the earth out of a pile of magic Play-Doh in 3 nanoseconds has just as much objective proof of being true as your faith's theories of virgin birth and resurrection and all the rest do. Which is to say - zero proof. Again, faith is belief in the absence of fact - no problem in my view so long as it is not used to harm others. When fact exists, however, it displaces faith in the thinking person's mind. As Galileo said when the Church forced him to recant heliocentrism - scientific fact which inconveniently disproved their incorrect view of astronomy - "It (the Earth) still moves!" What a sad and bloody history, to suppress and murder millions of innocent people, not to mention the greatest scientific minds like Copernicus and Galileo and the rest for nonsensical faith when facts are present.... Have you studied this history as well as you have the Bible? Or do you define your faith only in terms of the positive aspects while willfully ignoring the negative which exists in objective reality?

 

I specifically said earlier, that I know people who have come through the worst life has to offer because of their faith. I also know of the worst crimes that have been committed because of faith. There are two sides to the coin. I am not certain of anything in which there is no proof - meaning religion or atheism. I simply don't know, and I don't feel the need to fill this void with something. I don't know - I'm very comfortable saying that, alot, because it's true. To presuppose as you seem to do that somehow, you are well ahead of the curve in thought and that someday, I will reach the pinnacle of understanding where you are now re this subject is quite an arrogant thing to say. Could be the other way around. Or not. I don't know - neither do you. Neither does anyone else, for certain. That, my friend, is the point!

 

-MKL

[Selden]

...I also did not say that I believe in "nothing," but I remind you that my theory of Papa Smurf creating the earth out of a pile of magic Play-Doh in 3 nanoseconds has just as much objective proof of being true as your faith's theories of virgin birth and resurrection and all the rest do....

 

...I am not certain of anything in which there is no proof - meaning religion or atheism. I simply don't know, and I don't feel the need to fill this void with something....

 

-MKL

Or a flying spaghetti monster.

 

If you will excuse the irony, Amen to uncertainty.

 

 

[philbytx]

Neener! Neener! Neener! My book's truer than your book....!

[Selden]

Neener! Neener! Neener! My book's truer than your book....!

Bible, Qur'an, Torah, Book of Mormon, Avesta, holy scripture of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Vedas and Upanishads, O'dno Jing, Tao Te Ching, or The Seven Valleys and The Hidden Words?

[RT66Rider]

I will never defend religion I am a follower of Jesus Christ not a religion.

So Christianity is not a religion... Now I'm really confused.

And I suppose that blue is NOT a color, baseball is NOT a game, and McDonalds does NOT have Golden Arches.

[Rocer]

 

-MKL

Or a flying spaghetti monster.

 

If you will excuse the irony, Amen to uncertainty.

 

 

...and earth is the meatball! What are the vegetarians and vegans to do with this information? Oh the humanity!

[roadscholar]

Could be the other way around. Or not. I don't know - neither do you. Neither does anyone else, for certain. That, my friend, is the point!

 

-MKL

 

Take home two volumes (I and II) of Kierkegaard's 'Either/Or' and call Moshe in a fortnight, it'll clear everything right up.

 

Link to Wiki : Soren Kierkegaard

[philbytx]

Fersackerly Selden !

[Selden]

I was not trying to mock anybody, but if all these sacred texts claim to exclusive truth (some do not), there is a problem. Some Christians and Muslims can be especially dogmatic about this.

 

I do not understand people of religious faith, although I have no doubt that they are sincere, and I know many who are extremely intelligent. Political blogger Andrew Sullivan discusses these issues frequently, and in some depth.

 

I've resigned myself to accepting that there are things that are empirically confirmable, and things that are not, which many people accept on faith. I'm firmly in Moshe's camp on this.

[Paul Mihalka]

I do not get into these discussions because I know it won't change anybody's mind, bur I'm firmly in the mindset of Selden and Moshe.

[Les is more]

[Rocer]

I'm not sure in what context the Dalai Lama made this statement. With respect I would like to hear him explain these sentiments in view of the fact that he has chosen to live in exile due to the forceful occupation of Tibet by the Chinese.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm not sure in what context the Dalai Lama made this statement. With respect I would like to hear him explain these sentiments in view of the fact that he has chosen to live in exile due to the forceful occupation of Tibet by the Chinese.

 

He's chosen to live in exile because he can't freely practice his religion in his own country. How does that conflict with his statement?

[philbytx]

Me Three....

[Selden]

The Dalai Lama has been a visiting faculty member at Emory University for some time. On my way home from work one day, someone walked up to me and asked, "Do you know where I can find the Dalai Lama?" It took a considerable amount of self-control to resist making an ironic answer.

 

Despite my agnostic outlook, my musical tastes tend toward religious (Bach B minor Mass, Monteverdi Vespers, Mozart Requiem, Gregorian chant). At the moment, I'm listening to one of my favorite radio programs, Krista Tippett's On Being (formerly Speaking of Faith). It's a re-broadcast of an old interview with Bishop Desmond Tutu, who just told this story about the Dalai Lama:

 

I give great thanks to God that he has created a Dalai Lama. Do you really think, as some have argued, that God will be saying: You know, that guy, the Dalai Lama, is not bad. What a pity he's not a Christian? I don't think that is the case — because, you see, God is not a Christian.

 

 

[texasaggie97]

Chrisd,

 

I am glad you asked. I will list scientist and they have all written books that discuss their faith in the text. There is also a list below all of these scientist who are great scholars who were non believers and on their quest to disprove became some of the most out spoken Christians.

 

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

 

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

 

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

 

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

 

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

 

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."

 

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

 

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)

One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

 

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

 

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

 

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)

Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

 

Max Planck (1858-1947)

Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

 

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

Here are some others who set out to disprove the bible and in their search to do became some of the most influential people in the movement. Please feel free to google them too many books to list. I am sure you will find some great stuff here as well.

 

 

C.S. Lewis

Anna Haycraft

Josh McDowell

Alister McGrath

George R Price

William Murray

Ignace Lepp

Francis Collins

Lee Strobel

 

These are just a few atheists who converted to Christianity.

 

[pbharvey]

I do not understand people of religious faith, although I have no doubt that they are sincere, and I know many who are extremely intelligent.

I've resigned myself to accepting that there are things that are empirically confirmable, and things that are not, which many people accept on faith.

 

I do not understand people of no religious faith, although I have no doubt that they are sincere, and I know many who are extremely intelligent.

 

I've resigned myself to accepting that there are things that are empirically confirmable, and things that are not, some which I accept on faith.

 

There are a lot of things I can't figure out but I don't let those things hinder me from believing in those things I have figured out. Its humbling to know God, to communicate with Him, and to see Him acknowledge your prayers. Its amazing and exciting and many times, overwhelming.

 

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6

[Roadwolf]

Well, this has been an interesting thread so far, I do find it interesting to hear the faithful's argument for just that... faith.

 

As a recovering Christian, I know the trappings of the narrow view of the Christian faith and it's assurances of love and eternal security. How strange that it has taken living this life for the better part of a quarter century to see the silliness of it all. As a person who looks through life with an analytical lens, organized religion in any form or the supernatural falls apart pretty quickly. It really isn't hard to see that if you look at it with any measure of objectiveness.

 

But this thread has gone off the tracks as to the original topic... the question on a singer who is given a free pass to live life on the edge and then mourned as though she did nothing to contribute to her downfall and we have a sports figure, first Tebow and now Lin, who publicly profess their faith and are not ashamed of it and get vilified for it.

 

I can't really speak for Houston as I don't defend her nor vilify her... it is indeed tragic that she lost her life in a dark hole of drug abuse and other addictions. But on the public profession of faith I can speak on as I was in that world. First, while I am sure being a nice guy and all that, Tim Tebow misconstrues his "mission" to evangelize. I doubt many, no, I doubt most if not all, are not swayed to a decision to become a Christian because of his antics. And, when I was a Christian, the "authentic" rarely needed to trumpet their devotion. It just rings hollow and Pharisaic... I personally know of people in my sphere of influence that absolutely adore his "Tebowing." But then again, they are those that wrap themselves in the Flag, carry their gun to church and bleed religious fundamentalism.

 

Oh, and lastly, the list of Scientists who were either non-believers (atheists or agnostics) who converted to Christianity is interesting. I would surmise that the reverse is far greater though. People raised with an upbringing of religious doctrine (whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) and find the scientific method and open inquiry at odds with that. People who search for meaning in the natural world usually find themselves leaving any orthodox form of faith. It is what happened to me and to many others I know. In fact, I would suspect that many a believer is just one encounter with reason from leaving the fold.

 

P.S. The list in the bottom of the following post had a name that is a joke... Lee Strobel - author of The Case for Christ.... read that years ago and the holes through his logic just astounds. Pretty weak apologetics.

[Dave McReynolds]

Leaving religion aside (which is how I like to leave it), arguments for or against the existence of God always puzzle me. A person either has a personal relationship with God or he doesn't. It is inconceivable to me that God would require a certain IQ level to understand him, and if he did, I'm sure it would be way above mine. For all I know, dogs understand God as well as I do.

[moshe_levy]

Wow..... WOW!! You know what? There is a gem of a word from the faith of my birth that I'm going to share with you here. It's called "Chutzpah." It basically means "audacity," and not in a good way.

 

It takes real honest-to-God Chutzpah to list some of these scientists the way you did as pro-religion, completely divorced from history, from fact, from recorded accounts. To use a religious phrase it "scares the hell out of me." Really. I can see the events of my lifetime being presented 180 degrees opposite to my children and then wiped out to my children's children. Wow.....

 

I bring up "Chutzpah" because to list Copernicus and Galilei in this list, above all others, shows a breathtaking ignorance of history. REAL audacity, considering Copernicus' great work "De revolutionibus" was banned by the Church in 1616 as "heretical," and Galilei was placed under "house arrest" for following Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism. He died while in church custody, an old man unable to put his mind to proper use.

 

While you were on Copernicus and Galilei, why did you forget Giordano Bruno? You know, that other scientist who advanced Copernicus' theories further, and was BURNED at the stake in 1600 as part of the Roman Inquisition... Want to know the charges against him? Here they are:

 

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;

holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;

claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;

believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and;

dealing in magics and divination.

 

Sense a theme yet? (The short version is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno )

 

It does not take much intelligence to guess at the outcome of such suppression of thought and science on the works of other brilliant minds, which are now twisted to be "outspoken Christians." Really? When the choices are to be an "outspoken Christian" or to be dead (Inquisitions, remember?) it's hardly a good argument for you to make these guys seem like they were part of the cause of the faithful. I would be an outspoken Christian too if a knife was at my throat as the only alternative. That, and the obvious fact that the less is known, the more power dealers in "faith" possess - why else kill everyone who disagrees with you?

 

And EINSTEIN?! You dare bring up Albert Einstein as a defender of Christian faith? Have you no shame? Einstein was born Jewish and had no affinity for religion (including Judaism) AT ALL. Any atheist site you visit will inevitably have Einstein quotes lying about, a more famous of which is "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, and the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

 

Chutzpah, indeed. Scary chutzpah. Wherever you cut and paste that incredibly wrong list from also likely calls cannibalism "alternative dieting." What a sham!

 

-MKL

 

 

[Selden]

G'night, all.

 

[Ken H.]

I don't know - neither do you. Neither does anyone else, for certain. That, my friend, is the point!

And that my friend, sums up my position on the whole subject quite succinctly.

 

As I said somewhere else, the smartest thing humanity could do for itself when it come to god, creation, afterlife, etc, etc, etc, would be to throw up its collective hand and say, “We haven’t the foggiest idea.”

 

[beemerman2k]

Take home two volumes (I and II) of Kierkegaard's 'Either/Or' and call Moshe in a fortnight, it'll clear everything right up.

 

Link to Wiki : Soren Kierkegaard

 

 

Great stuff in this thread!

 

Remember what I said about understanding point, and counterpoint? This discussion is a great launching pad from which to begin such a journey. Brilliant minds are registering some great insights in this discussion.

 

I particularly enjoyed reading about Soren Kierkegaard. I'm going to have to delve more deeply into this mans philosophical viewpoint.

 

Brilliant stuff! Keep it coming. I am also very pleased that people are able to speak freely and no one is resorting to rudeness, name calling, and other juvenile behavior that would be very unbecoming of their God, or their education

[FlyingFinn]

Just read this thread from the beginning to here.

 

Moshe for President!

 

Whip, you make a "Vote for Moshe" red on white t-shirt and I buy half a dozen.

 

--

Mikko

[hANNAbONE]

...i'M a lITTLE late to this party -- but I believe that if the camera's stopped filming and recording Tim Tebow, he'd still do what he do.

 

He doesn't do it for pub - he does it because it is woven in the very fabric of his existence. He has something that a ton of folks DON'T have....Conviction.

 

And with that conviction, comes gravity. And with that gravity, comes the "Y" road of choice.

 

Some choose it - some don't.

 

Uniquely, in the end, we'll all know - won't we.

 

YMMV

[beemerman2k]

He doesn't do it for pub - he does it because it is woven in the very fabric of his existence. He has something that a ton of folks DON'T have....Conviction.

 

And with that conviction, comes gravity. And with that gravity, comes the "Y" road of choice.

 

So this is where and why this issue is of such paramount importance in this country, the issue of "choice".

 

In the United States of America, every citizen is viewed equally, having equal freedom and rights and responsibilities, as any other. There are no special classes in this country, nor are there any un-special classes. The secular government of the USA is to respect all people equally without exception (sure, convicted criminals relinquish certain rights because in principle, they have abused those rights, but in general...).

 

However, the reality is that when religion speaks, some people are more "equal" than others, and that is the problem we face in this time today. Tim Tebow makes his own choices based upon the convictions of his heart, fortunately for him, those convictions happen to be in alignment with his religion. Therefore, Tim can marry who ever he chooses as odds are his church will bless the union.

 

But what about the "gay" Tim Tebows among us? Do they have the same rights and privileges as all other Americans do, or are they "less equal" than the rest of us? What do proper convictions demand of us: that we honor even the gay among us as equals, or that we consider them "less equal" because their sexuality happens to be in apparent disagreement with the sacred texts and social norms?

 

For some of us, we see proper convictions as those that are in alignment with the intents and purposes of our founding fathers. Therefore, we consider "all men (and women) to be created equally and to be endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That's how we see it. This doesn't mean we're "pro" or "anti" gay, it means we're "pro-freedom" in the manner our founders intended it -- in principle, if not in practice.

 

For others, however, proper convictions mandate that certain people whose lives and decisions are not in alignment with our understanding of God's intent as recorded in the Bible need to be placed in a special category where their rights are reigned in, less respected, less equal, and government regulated to boot! This strikes some as the actions of a righteous government, while others of us see this as yet another case of government intrusion and of government overreaching its authority into the personal lives of its citizens.

 

Same issue with women in many cases. When do we as a nation begin to insist that women be given the same latitude, the same rights, the same respect to pursue their happiness like the rest of us? I mentioned that story in John 8 in this thread, see how that woman is treated quite differently than the man who apparently was also caught in the act of adultery? His "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" was never put in jeopardy like the woman's was. We still have these same, hypocritical double standards today. Secular government says all are created equally, what does religion have to say about this? More importantly, however, is what do proper convictions mandate we do about this problem?

 

That is the problem we face in this day and age. If the convictions, and gravity, and the "Y" road of choice mandates that ONLY those who hold to these convictions are limited or constrained by those choices, then there's no problem. Religion is simply yet another expression of the kind of individual freedoms we honor in this country. But what happens when those convictions result in the limiting of someone else's freedom simply because their expressions of freedom are not in alignment with religious convictions?

 

The reality is that the freedoms of certain classes of citizens in this country are compromised by religion, and that right there is the problem we have to deal with in a manner that is consistent with our nations intents and purposes, whatever those intents and purposes may be. I suppose that's what we have to decide upon as an informed electorate.

 

[beemerman2k]

By the way, the questions I raised are your each of us to consider, not for ideologies or politics to determine for us!

 

If you cannot speak for yourself, if you need to drag a political ideology or a politician into the argument, to either validate or invalidate a position, then please refrain from speaking. We really do not care about your pompous, self righteous, nonsensical views.

 

What do YOU think?

[moshe_levy]

Precisely so. I was about to type that conviction in and of itself is no virtue. To whit, I'm absolutely certain the faithful who burned millions at the stake definitely were acting on their convictions (and Papal edict, of course, which is what fed said convictions no matter how monstrous).

 

Since we cannot discuss such matters in this forum (though for the record again I will say, "I wish we could,") let us instead deal in a hypothetical situation where we objectively observe how the faithful are behaving in, say, an election season.

 

First and foremost, in this hypothetical example of country "ASU," we observe that every single candidate, of either side, is Christian. All of them, without exception. So rather than rejoice that no matter who wins, the faithful have a someone of their faith running the show, they instead start arguing over who is more Christian than the other Christians. In other words, a complete domination of the offerings to the general public isn't enough. Faced with a fork in the road, the issue isn't to turn this way or that - it's how far we must turn, in specifically one direction. Does that have a chilling effect on those citizens in country ASU who feel that its Constitution, and not the Bible, should be the governing document by which the state functions? You betcha it does!

 

Someone kindly suggested that I be President. Let's ignore my obvious lack of qualifications and worthiness for a moment, and focus on my name. Let's hypothetically say that I was smart enough, experienced enough, and connected enough to run for President. A stretch, I know! Let's further hypothesize that I was living in country ASU. Can the citizens of this country ASU expect a person with a name like "Moshe Levy" - a person who is clearly not Christian - to have a serious shot in a political process when in reality, the process dictates that not being Christian enough (even when you're clearly Christian to begin with) is a serious political liability? When any and every candidate must pay homage to the cross no matter what his ideology really is?

 

In this hypothetical example, some may point to founding documents which confirm an equal opportunity for all. We all know how that is translated into reality, all too often. In the current climate of "ASU," how far is the ideal from the reality? Ask yourself that.

 

Ask yourself further, what exactly are the faithful preaching in ASU today? Are they preaching tolerance, equality, kindness, generosity? Or are they front and center in any debate on an issue to restrict a group of citizens' civil rights - and always on the side to restrict? Does that turn off independent minded citizens who then start pining for a country based on its stated ideals and not 18th century literal biblical interpretation? You betcha it does!

 

Last, to BM2K's point re discussing like adults, I will say I too am happy about it, but there is truly a line. I suspect if you had a real science enthusiast in here - a scientist by trade or a person very passionate about the subject - and he saw the names of Copernicus, Galilei, and Einstein being used in the same post as "outspoken Christians," that said person would hit the roof, and rightfully so. There is a line - like, say, using the name of Dr. Martin Luther King to justify Jim Crow - that is so obviously absurd, so historically ignorant, and just so plain stupid, that it has no place in any serious discussion and only serves to inflame passions to the boiling point. Yes, there are gullible people on all sides, but there is a line after which point a sane discussion without calling an idiot an idiot is not possible.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

 

In the United States of America, every citizen is viewed equally, having equal freedom and rights and responsibilities, as any other. There are no special classes in this country, nor are there any un-special classes. The secular government of the USA is to respect all people equally without exception (sure, convicted criminals relinquish certain rights because in principle, they have abused those rights, but in general...).

 

Really? Almost every non-white, non-christian group is a protected class in America.

 

I just bid a local school project and was required to provide part of the subcontract to "black or African American" companies and part to "Asian" companies. Not sure how the Hispanics got left out on this one. They also required part to "women owned" but not "disabled veteran owned." Are you seeing the picture here?

 

 

There are plenty of "gay Tim Tebows" in Hollywood and they routinely shout out to their favorite causes.

 

 

 

It is what it is...but let's not pretend its something different.

[beemerman2k]

 

In the United States of America, every citizen is viewed equally, having equal freedom and rights and responsibilities, as any other. There are no special classes in this country, nor are there any un-special classes. The secular government of the USA is to respect all people equally without exception (sure, convicted criminals relinquish certain rights because in principle, they have abused those rights, but in general...).

 

Really? Almost every non-white, non-christian group is a protected class in America.

 

It is what it is...but let's not pretend its something different.

 

 

I think you make a fantastic point! And we also have to examine this situation under the microscope of "intents and purposes of our founding fathers as well. Absolutely, very good point!

 

Personally (my 2 cents, that's all I'm giving here), I think any such special classes must be done away with ASAP, but that's just me. Special class thinking is not the answer. It is an answer, and I know it has helped many who might not otherwise have received such help, but it is not the answer.

[tallman]

James, For you.

Is this the Eye of Sauron?

 

or something else?

 

I'm not interested in proving myself right.

Why are so many intent on proving me wrong?

One might ask...

[Rocer]

I'm not sure in what context the Dalai Lama made this statement. With respect I would like to hear him explain these sentiments in view of the fact that he has chosen to live in exile due to the forceful occupation of Tibet by the Chinese.

 

He's chosen to live in exile because he can't freely practice his religion in his own country. How does that conflict with his statement?

 

Not only would he not be able to practice his religion he would not have been able to carry on as head of the Tibetan government - there was no separation of church and state at the time of his exile. I would also point out that had he continued to live in Tibet he would have been subject to the same fate of many of it's leaders ie. execution, torture, imprisonment etc.

 

My point is that, while I agree with the sentiment in his statement as quoted by Leslie, in my humble opinion, it sometimes happens that people taking different roads are "lost". If you read on the Dali Lama's web site he refers to the Chinese and their occupation of Tibet as "wrong". I interpret that as "lost".

 

Back to our regular channel where I'm enjoying Beemerman's (as usual) thoughtful posts.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

I'm not interested in proving myself right.

Why are so many intent on proving me wrong?

One might ask...

 

I think I already noted that I don't see life in terms of "right and wrong", nor do I see this discussion as such. The questions I am asking are more like, "what kind of govt and religion do you want to have? What is the role of each institution in the formation of social policies? Religious institutions have clear standards when it comes to "right and wrong", should govt? Should those standards be the same? Should one have reach into the arena of the other? If so, his much reach and in what form is appropriate?

 

These questions are a bit more complex than right and wrong, it's more a question of what's appropriate? Where do you draw whatever lines?

[moshe_levy]

Religious institutions have clear standards when it comes to "right and wrong"....

 

They do? What are they, exactly?

 

Thou shalt not kill - except when burning heretics?

Thou shalt not commit adultery - except when you're a big-time TV preacher?

Thou shalt not steal - except when stealing from your flock, to pay for settling pedophile lawsuits and political campaigns like Prop 8 in California?

Thou shalt not bear false witness - except when rewriting history (see above for the science example - I can't mention real life examples without starting a firestorm, but I refer you to "Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week," by Pope Benedict XVI. Consistent with history as presented by the Church for 2,000 years? Obviously not.)

Thou shalt not make any graven image of what is in heaven above - please! I've been to the Vatican. More statues of men and saints and gods than you can count.

 

Where does it stop? Sky's the limit. PBHarvey pointed out the vast chasm between the ideals and the reality politically. The same applies to religion, doesn't it?

 

-MKL

[philbytx]

When people utter the phrase "knowing God" to me, it sounds very supercilious. For how can one KNOW the unknowable?

 

However, being aware is something else entirely !

[beemerman2k]

Religious institutions have clear standards when it comes to "right and wrong"....

 

They do? What are they, exactly?

 

Oh nice, wake a sleeping man why don't you. Here I was drifting off into my simplistic ideological dream world and you go banging the cymbals right next to my ears!

 

This stuff is anything but simple and clear it would seem. It would appear that all we can do is to simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of the complexities, or seek to deal with them head on. If you wish to ignore them, you're probably not too happy with the nature of this discussion. I, however, like controversy, adversity, and conflicting aims. Such things help to keep me from passively drifting off into my nice simple ideological dream world where my views are right and all others are wrong.

 

Controversy, discussion, debate -- these elements form the fires that burn away all the dross to reveal the actual gold, if any, behind a particular perspective. If your truth can stand the gauntlet of public scrutiny, then it is a solid truth indeed!

[pbharvey]

When people utter the phrase "knowing God" to me, it sounds very supercilious. For how can one KNOW the unknowable?

 

However, being aware is something else entirely !

 

Well when I utter the phrase "knowing God" I certainly don't mean it to convey that I know something you (or others) don't. I only mean it to say that for me, God's existence has been confirmed. For me, it further means that not only has His existence been confirmed but a relationship has been established.

 

I don't think God is unknowable. I think the whole big cosmic picture is unknowable because it exceeds our capacity to comprehend it, but I don't think God Himself hides from mankind.

 

 

Proving the existence of God to someone is like proving the existence of a dream. There is no evidence. There is some measurable brain activity and sometimes some physical reaction, but there's no way for anyone to peek inside your head and see the dream being played out in your mind's eye. A person experiencing a relationship with God, much like one experiencing a dream, cannot share that exact experience with others, but can only tell them about it. It doesn't make the unseen and unknowable (to some) dream less of a reality, it only makes it personal to the one dreaming.

[moshe_levy]

Well, look, it really comes down to looking at the idea in and of itself first. What is moral, and just, and so on. That's messy enough - then we have to deal with the actual implementation. That's where the real fun begins.

 

So the faithful must, to some extent, intentionally turn a blind eye toward the history of the institutions where they worship. There is a huge degree of "do as I say, not as I do" here, and all cloaked in the "all is forgiven" nature of religion if you, in effect, would only agree (willfully, or not) to comply.

 

So you see, such is a setup that precludes true dissent because it supresses a worship of fact and elevates a worship of ideals. Bad enough, but said ideals are often lost most on those who claim to champion them. To the point where when the church WAS in charge, the period of time is now referred to as "The Dark Ages." It's not just a snappy title, is it? There are factual reasons for this name.

 

It is a sad, ironic thing. Those organizations whose only business is supposedly morality are often the least moral institutions in existence. We forgive trespasses we wuld NEVER, ever forgive in people who don't claim to be moral at all. What is the reaction of the flock to the worldwide scandals of pedophile priests (they're "lost souls" in need for forgiveness) vs. some unknown pervert creep ("throw the book at him!"). Why? Isn't it disgustingly ironic to hold people who claim to be the standbearers of morality to a lower standard than you hold average people to?

 

My caveat - if you ackowledge this history and love your faith, the brain is at least engaged. If you willfully ignore it, and then feign surprise when some of us don't, well then.....

 

-MKL