There have been a few pieces here about faith and atheism, and what science can or can't prove. Couldn't let it go without adding my two cents. FAITH AND SCIENCE
Many people will tell you that religion and science are not opposed to each other. They treat with different issues and address different aspects of the human condition, therefore they should not conflict. This is manifestly untrue. The subjects of ethics, cosmology, evolution and psychology all involve differing views depending on whether one is taking a religious or a scientific perspective.
The reason why there are relatively few scientists who are also religious, is that the scientific method teaches that we should look for objective evidence to build a hypothesis - a model - of how some aspect of our world works. We might "make up" part of this hypothesis e.g. we might wonder if the pancreas is the place where insulin is made; but then we have to test the hypothesis, in this example by observing what happens to an animal without a pancreas. A hypothesis can never be absolutely 100% proved true, although the balance of evidence might be overwhelming. Just one tiny piece of contradictory evidence, and the hypothesis may crumble, or at least need a major refit. Scientists do not deal in the certain, only the highly probable. Anyone who is both a scientist and religious has to keep flip-flopping between the scientific method and faith throughout their daily lives, and it hurts.
Faith is different. When St Thomas, the doubting one, did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, he said he would only be convinced when he saw the nail holes with his own eyes, and put his hand into the wound in Jesus' side. Jesus appeared, Thomas saw what he needed to see, and then believed. He was being pretty scientific. But Jesus said to him "You have seen, now you believe, but I tell you that more blessed are those who have not seen, but still believe".
Jesus was talking about the nature of faith. A belief that one comes to, without any evidence, but because of one's trust in the authority of the person doing the telling. This is diametrically opposed to the scientific method, and many times in history, that kind of faith has been misplaced. Remember how the German people believed Hitler when he told them that the Jews were the cause of most of the economic ills besetting their nation?
I will go further than that. Faith is not just a belief in something without the evidence, but it can even be a belief in something despite the evidence. The creationists jump through myriad hoops to explain the existence of a fossil record, including rubbishing the techniques of geological stratigraphy, carbon dating and other well-founded methods. The simpler route would be to believe the evidence.
I read a book about a Christian family whose 15 year old daughter was diagnosed with a rabid form of ovarian cancer. At first they prayed for her to be healed, remembering Jesus' promises "ask and it shall be given you" and "what Father would give his son a stone when he asks for bread?". The girl was not cured, in fact she deteriorated. They convinced themselves that this was not because God does not keep his promises, but that their faith and their prayer was inadequate because of their sin. The girl was now on the brink of death; the pious family's faith was apparently not as big as a mustard-seed. As she died, they consoled themselves that God must have had a higher purpose, that he taken Margaret to himself, that she was too good for this world, that he was using her death to teach them forbearance... on and on it went. God was granted excuse after excuse for failing to keep his promises, the family clung to anything to avoid the thought that either he does not exist, or if he does he is either not omnipotent or not benevolent.
Faith can be used to justify everything from pacifism to the holy war. Faith can be used to cow people into subservience in this life with promises of the next. Faith is blind to earthquake and tornado, war and torture, tsunami and terrorism. If you have faith, God gets away with it, every time.
Atheists are not people who "believe" there is no God. They are, like scientists, keeping an open mind, but have seen no compelling evidence so far. Religious people say that God will not be proved because he wants us to come to him of our own free will. I say, as do other atheists, God is pretty good at hide and seek.
And agnostics, those religious fence-sitters, are in a really bad way. Theirs is not a position that can be held long term. They think that perhaps there is a God and perhaps not. If I thought there was a possibility that there may be a God, I would start looking, very seriously, just in case there was one, and he had some stuff for me to do. It would be highly dangerous to do nothing, in case you end up in hell.
So I have come to the conclusion that the scientific method and faith have been set up to be in opposition to each other. I have taken my own position where the evidence has led me. To do otherwise would be to deny my own intelligence and become one of those who is told, rather than one who thinks.
|
VERY well put!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Thanks for this coherent, convincing piece of argument, Veronica!
Re your first paragraph - I have always felt that the so-called sophisticated 'no conflict' argument is a massive cop-out.
Your example of the dying 15-year-old girl really underlines and reinforces the points you are making.
Well done for speaking out - you may not win friends among some on GW, but that's not the point!
Respect!
John |
Written by Phil (6963 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | This is a subject that interests me - and one I've written about here a year or so ago, but in far more emotional and personal terms.
I thought this was an excellent read, Veronica. You set out your thinking clearly, use good examples and take the reader from the opening idea to a personal conclusion without muddle or lack of clarity.
On a personal level, you've bashed into shape some thinking I tried to waffle on about in response to another piece posted on this forum. The difference is, you have a scientific background - it came across in much more ordered and easily digested manner than my unplanned ramblings did. Personal thanks for that. This is a good starting point for my more ordered thinking.
The piece as a whole had good structure and a high level of interest, but the last three paragraphs really gave focus and bite to the piece as a whole. There was some clever phrasing in there.
A little more than two cents worth, IMO. By any measure of writing on this forum: excellent, whether the reader agrees or not.
Phil
|
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Before I comment on the piece, can one of the atheists please explain to me what 'soft atheism' is? My definition of atheism is 'believing in the non-existence of god(s)'. Now apparently this is called 'hard atheism'. So what then is 'soft atheism' and in what way is it different from agnosticism? For if there is some middle ground that is called atheism, I might well be discussing quite a different thing.
Where your piece is concerned, the first half described it perfectly well. It's a pity that the second half went into a 'religion is bad' mode, for otherwise this would certainly have been the best piece on the subject so far.
religion and science are indeed two totally different things, and I would even go further than what you do in this piece and say that the two should in no way try to mix.
Religious people should understand that religion is, as you describe above, about faith and thus that it's totally unnecessary to explain their faith in scientific terms (as if that's even possible).
Similarly scientists should concern themselves with that which can be supported by evidence and thus ignore things that are irrelevant, such as the existence of gods. As long as they don't fit into the theory, it's totally unnecessary to make any assumption about them and thus a good scientist, just like Confucius, refuses to speak of the supernatural.
" The Master said: While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve the gods?" Lunyu 11.12
I think one can be both religious and scientific (as especially many exact scientists in fact are), but one does have to keep the two separated. Religion is something you do in the temple, shrine, church, mandir, mosque or synagogue. Science is what you do in your lab or at the university... |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3567 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | This really was an impressive piece of work I started this expecting to struggle with it and have it go over my head, but it was so clearly and coherently laid out that I had no trouble following your points. Your comments had a cogency made all the more compelling by the measured style. I'm guessing your scientific training helped there.
It was a real pleasure to read a well thought out essay on a complex and difficult subject.I was particularly impressed that didn't try to win over people with a hectoring style but but still made your points with judgement and logic. I will come back to this to help clear my thinking.
cheers
jane |
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | The point in my first paragraph, Maus, is that there is no way that faith and science can be kept in separate pockets. The abortion debate, euthanasia, contraception, transplantation, evolution versus creation, blood donation; all these aspects of life bring science and religion into conflict. There is ay that any of us can "in no way try to mix" the two.
BTW the book I referred to is "Margaret" by J. Cameron Peddie. |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Oops, my mistake. an obvious case of reading what one wants to read, hehe. But still most of the issues you mention seem to cause little conflict: Science does not set norms, it just describes. Religion on the other hand does set guidelines.
No scientist (at least not in his position as scientist) would claim that abortion, euthanasia, contraception, transplantation or blood donation are either good or bad, they'll just make it possible, just as they created rather destructive weaponry just to see if it was possible. Whether it's ethical to use them is beyond the scope of science, for science does not set norms.
Evolution vs. creation is perhaps a bit trickier, but here I'd say that religious people can choose to believe in creation (as long as they don't try to give it a pseudo-scientific taste), while science can assume that evolution is more plausible and discard the creation theory as obsolete. If both accept that they're operating on different fields, it's still no problem. | Equivalism, Maus?
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | I don't see how science and religion can co-exist in what you seem to be suggesting is an 'equivalism' that keeps everyone happy.
Sorry - doesn't wash with me - unless I've misread you,I'm with V.
Beers!
John X |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3567 comments posted) 7th September 2008 |
Maus wrote
"Religion on the other hand does set guidelines"
Religion doesn't set guidelines.It sets dogmatic rules that you must follow or you will go to hell. Religions forbid they don't offer guidelines. It is science that offers guidelines by saying "the evidence point this way"- as Veronica has so clearly said.
|
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | To Katanga (Sorry Veronica; If I'm polluting the thread, please let me know):
Science and faith apply different methodology and serve different purposes; They are apples and pears. As I wrote in my first comment:
Faith should not seek to legitimize itself scientifically, for after all it's (as Veronica described so nicely above) faith.
Similarly science shouldn't occupy itself with that which is irrelevant to its theories. As long as no supernatural thing appears in any of its theories, it's not useful to say anything about it in a scientific context.
Ethics does not belong to science (or it should be a meta-study about ethics itself). | Sorry, Maus!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | I fundamentally disagree - I feel yours is the cosy way out, as Veronica states in her first paragraph.
Science and religion are not some kind of equally respectable 'parallel mental universes' which can co-exist.
One has to give - and Veronica is very persuasive here in saying bye-bye to religion.
No offence to you personally, Maus!
Cheers!
John X | something wrong here ...
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | St Thomas, I would very much like a reference to your source?
This says a lot without saying a single thing. You do not need to worry - denying god will eventually result in your death, but then it the same fate of those with faith.
State what you believe, do not dance around the arena. | Not buying
Written by patterjack (1435 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | The trouble with discussions of this sort is that no two participants ever seem to be using terms with the same meaning-- and as soon as the poster gets into definitions , the whole discussion goes pear shaped with further philosophical digressions
Basically I am with Veronica-- and I must say it is a very well written and well argued piece.
Otherwise , as the Pelion of argument is piled up on the Ossa of philosophical predilections , I am again and again reminded of the Poofoo Bird.
I am happy to be as I am , not caring a hoot about Heaven , Hell , God or gods .
patterjack
| The "Doubting Thomas" Reference
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 8th September 2008 | John 20:24-29 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Negligent of me not to put a proper reference into my little essay.
| Maus...
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 8th September 2008 | I still cannot buy your argument that religion and science speak of different things and can be considered separately.
Example 1, if McCain and Palin win the US election, there will be an attempt to overturn the US's "Roe vs Wade" abortion law. Then thousands of women will find that, whether they believe that a fertilised egg gains a soul at the moment of conception, or whether they believe that it's just a ball of cells, what happens to their lives and their bodies will be dictated by someone else's religious scruples.
Example 2, if children get taught in school that the world was made in 6 days and that the fossil record is the result of the Flood or the work of the Devil, it doesn't matter what the children believe or what their parents believe, the children will be taught a lie that flies in he face of all the evidence, because somebody religious says it should be so.
I can't condone that!
|
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 8th September 2008 | Hi Veronica,
The first one doesn't have to do with science; It's just politics. Souls, just like gods are not something science bothers about. Scientists made abortion possible; Whether people apply it or not is not their concern.
The second example is one of defining the context: The relgious people'd be smart not to speak of fossils, for the very same reason as to why scientists shouldn't speak of gods.
If they want to teach religion, they can present Genesis as it is and leave any pseud-scientific explanations out of it.
If they want to teach biology, they can present such an obsolete theory, but must allow the children t question it. | To Not Do
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 8th September 2008 | Hello Veronica
Just dropped by to apologies for my earlier comment, it is obviously completely up to you what you do or do not do. My comment was out of order.
I did find the essay as a whole a little frustrating despite making some good points, I think it has something to do with people direct quoting Jesus. As nobody that ever heard Jesus say anything ever wrote down a single word of what he said.
Anyway, I am sorry. | Expertly argued!
Written by Brett (987 comments posted) 8th September 2008 | A sensibly written piece, this V. Intelligent and with passion, though not blinded by any wish to preach or crusade - level headed and perceptive.
I agree entirely with your argument, science cannot know everything but can certainly teach us all the time - and your comments in your reply to Maus regarding McCain and Palin, well it's a terryfing prospect if they get elected.
To johniebg - as for direct quotations of Jesus (nobody seems to mind quoting him when preaching!) the same may be said of Socrates, and there is much contradiction in the writings of Plato and Xeno who use him as a voice for their own philosophy - surely that is all the Bible is(particularly the New Testament) individual accounts of a basic philosophy told to meet their own ideal? And whatever contradictions there are, they are as nothing to the way the simple message has been manipulated by faithful to result in so many divisions who all pray to the same god - they know what he said, but disagree as to how he said it.
Life could be so much simpler - if the second coming results in a repetition of his first miracle at Cana I shall be the first to be converted.
Cheers |
Written by andybyers (181 comments posted) 8th September 2008 | | Nicely summed up. I'm reading a book by Christopher Hitchens right now called God Is Not Great that expands greatly upon the theme you're investigating here. You might care to look it up. | meh
Written by cfergus30 (16 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | To say you know anything 100% is probably unscientific. Therefore I would say I’m a much maligned agnostic and not an atheist. ( I’m going by the simplest definition of the terms and not Dawkins redefinitions) I would qualify that by saying the likelihood of God is I guess in the 0.0000001% area and it’s probably not a good idea to run your life/society on the idea that a God does exist.
A point about these issues is that we all know the arguments and I don’t think this is going to convince anyone to change their views. Those who agree validate, those who don’t ignore.
It possibly comes down to a different mind set, or does it. Scientific minded people believe there is an Australia, even the ones who havn’t been there. I’d say that my belief in Australia (I’ve never been) is probably about 75%. The other 25 is sceptical. But many perhaps live their life 100% that Australia exists. And I doubt I’ll ever be able to reproduce the results from experiments at the Large Hadron Collider so I’ll just have to take their word for it. That suggests a little bit of faith is involved in science too.
All I know is the feedback of the instrument I measure things with - my body. But I would never claim that to be the ultimate reality as the chances are there is no such thing.
| Australia 75%?!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | Fergus, you a sceptic extraordinaire!
What's your view on the moon landings, about which conspiracy theories abound?
Sorry to go rather off-topic, Veronica!
Cheers!
John | Australia indeed!
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | | What a brilliant remark! But then, did anyone see The Truman show? I for one assume that australia exists and that people like Mia and Patterjack live over there, but indeed, one can't be sure. Not even if one lives there... |
Written by cfergus30 (16 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | Moonlandings I'd probably rank as a bit below the likelyhood of Australia, just an opinion. May I ask what your personal evidence is in support of the moonlandings.
Fledermaus - "one can't be sure. Not even if one lives there..."
too true  | No Personal Evidence!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | I have no personal evidence in support of the moonlandings and am not totally dismissive of the conspiracy theories.
However, surely one has to make assumptions about things for which one has no personal evidence in order to function at all?
There must be tome upon tome of philosophy on this issue. Bishop Berkley it was, I think, who concluded that only things which are perceived actually exist, and while he believed that remote trees in jungles exist without being perceived by people, he came up with the brilliancy that God perceives everything, thus proving the existence of God.
I cannot believe how anyone took him seriously!
Cheers!
John |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | " Bishop Berkley it was, I think, who concluded that only things which are perceived actually exist, and while he believed that remote trees in jungles exist without being perceived by people, he came up with the brilliancy that God perceives everything, thus proving the existence of God. "
In fact this argument has been repeated quite often, yet I think I would ask your bishop the following: If one doubts the existence of what is not being perceived, why then wouldn't one doubt that it ever existed at all? I think it's a rather selective form of skepticism. | Australia, and other stories...
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | Well the reviews keep on piling up, except they are now discussions about moon landings and Australia! Fair enough, they are a good example of my thesis.
Australia - I believe it exists because I have met people who claim to be from there, I've seen lots of maps, films, books, TV programmes, that come from a number of fairly reliable sources with no vested interests, telling me things that do not contradict each other, and that constitutes a fair body of evidence. Although, I cannot be certain, so I am going there at Christmas, just to check.
Moon landings; very few data points, mostly from a single original source (NASA) with a potential vested interest (making the US look good) so not much independent verification. I've never met anyone who has been there, and one or two sources contradict (moon rock, or green cheese? hmmm). Plausible that it might all have been done on a film set, although unlikely, but c.f. the Truman show...
God. Nobody has seen him first hand, he doesn't make videos like Osama Bin Laden, no-one alive has seen him. Nobody is sure where he is. Sources are variable, hard to corroborate, and vary widely in what they say about him. Not much evidence of his interaction with the world, most of the things he is purported to do or have done can be explained in other ways. Shaky ground. | Good Summary, V!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | Fascinating thread here - you're very good at picking out the pertinent points and putting them in clear English!
If Australia doesn't exist, Merry Christmas!
Cheers!
John |
Written by cfergus30 (16 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | Maybe we all just need to say maybe a bit more often as at the moment I think science might be heading towards beating to death anyone that thinks differently with an intillectual stick. I know I feel tempted when I hear creationists or scientoligists. But what the hell, live and let live.
I'm sure it was Descarte who said
'You may be talking out of your arse sir, but I will defend the right of your arse to talk.' (paraphrased, I think 
| Live and let live?
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 9th September 2008 | In my view - no!
The biggest equivalist mantra of all time.
I believe the world goes round the the sun.
My belief relies on other peoples' published scientific enquiry.
What's wrong with that?:
If somebody suggests that the sun goes round the world, then I will laugh at them.
The evidence, if not personal, is palpable.
If they insist on it, then I will spit on them . . . .
Hmmmmmm!
Cheers!
John X |
Written by cfergus30 (16 comments posted) 10th September 2008 | ‘I believe it because I read it in a book’ - Where have I heard that before?
Perhaps one of the science/religion differences is that science isn’t afraid to say ‘we don’t know’. It’s not fundamentalist. Although a lot of scientifically minded people seem to be getting that way about it.
If someone said to you there is a God and you replied ‘maybe, but here’s why I think it’s unlikely’ then you could have a conversation about it.
But if you said ‘no there isn’t, you idiot.’ Then you both entrench behind your positions - and then the spitting starts.
The conclusions of science change, depending on the available evidence. Will we reach a point where we have all the available evidence there ever is – doubtful. Therefore all we can say is this is what we think at the moment. There’s always room for other opinions, however unlikely. I think we should just focus on not letting them become mainstream influences until they can provide the evidence to back up their beliefs.
| Apologies!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 10th September 2008 | I apologise for my last comment - the 'spitting' remark was wholly over the top and offensive.
I'm truly sorry.
All the best,
John |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 10th September 2008 | Katanga wrote: "I believe the world goes round the the sun. "
The best thing to confuse people with, for didn't Einstein show that everything is relative? Hence it is easily possible to claim that the entire universe revolves around earth, provided that one takes earth does not spin around its axis. This does not conflict with todays scientific views, yet those who do not dare to question things might look at you as if you're crazy if you'd suggest it. | Now there's . . .
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 10th September 2008 | . . . a fascinating thought, Maus!
Doesn't the idea run into a problem though?
I'm very ignorant about such things but if the entire universe were revolving around the earth once every 24 hours, wouldn't that involve far away stars having to travel faster than the speed of light, which I gather is impossible, to get round in time, if you see what I mean?
And doesn't an object travelling at the speed of light theoretically have infinite mass, or so I seem to recall from my schoolboy discussions about relativity?
All too tricky for me - perhaps Veronica could help us?
Cheers!
John |
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 11th September 2008 | Well you should be applauded. This seems to have mobilised a huge amount of passion and debate.
I liked your summing up at the end but for an apparently unambiguous essay I really struggled with two things.
The direct reference to a saint from the writters POV. A saint is a christian concept and a latin translation of holy. If you are not christian saints have no meaning or relavence.
Saints were layered into cultural awareness by the catholic church when they started translating the new testament in the fourth century. Anyone deemed christian in the new testament was considered holy and therefore a saint but as that was applied centuries after the alleged fact, nobody in or near Jesus after he was allegedly resurrected was a saint.
For an unambiguous debate a direct quote from Jesus after he has been raised from the dead by god for our sins, also removes any unambiguity - for my mind. It implies the authors belief. Quoting a source (such as the New Testament) keeps the impartiality as I am sure has often been required of your science work. If I remember your profile correctly.
I did like sections of this especially the summing of agnostics but along with the above found the lack of any real point frustrating.
You certainly hit the sweet spot for readers here though.
| What on earth . . .
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 11th September 2008 | . . . are you trying to say?
'The direct reference to a saint from the writters POV. A saint is a christian concept and a latin translation of holy. If you are not christian saints have no meaning or relavence.'
Johnny-be-good.
Your incredible spelling mistakes undermine any point you are trying to make here.
Even ignoring these, I can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say.
What on earth . . . ?
Cheers!
John
| Katanga
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 12th September 2008 | The original post takes an impartial narrative. So from the original post:
'When St Thomas, the doubting one, did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.'
Saints are a Christian concept. It is a Latin translation of the word holy as found in the Old testament. If you are not Christian you would not consider anyone to be a Saint. So referring to Thomas as a Saint infers the authors Christian point of view even if that is not the case. Nobody that new Jesus was a saint, they were made saints by Christians at least three hundred years later.
From the original post:
'But Jesus said to him "You have seen, now you believe, but I tell you that more blessed are those who have not seen, but still believe".'
Once more by directly quoting Jesus the author implies the statement as a believed fact. Which removes impartiality even if it was not meant. If you instead quote the New Testament you keep the impartiality. Studying Christian history will probably not deny that Jesus lived but nobody actually knows what he said because what you read that he said was written down between thirty to seventy years after he died (in the Gospels) in Greek. The gospel quoted: John was probably seventy years after he died and even gets the day of his death different from the other gospels. So direct word for word quotes as statements are never a good idea where Jesus is concerned.
These were points that hit a discorded beat for me as I read the post. I understand they may bug me more than others. If I have not explained myself sufficiently then I will do my best if you provide specifics.
| Johniebg
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | You have missed my point by an ancient-Roman-occupation-of-Judea military mile.
You seem to say that if I am not a Christian, then I have no business mentioning a saint or quoting from the Bible. Well the Bible says that even the Devil can quote scripture (oops - I did it again!). I think it is absolutely relevant for me to quote from the Bible even if as an atheist I don't believe it myself, because I was using it to illustrate what Christians think they have been taught by their founder about the nature of faith. If Jesus never said it, it doesn't matter, I am saying that it is what Christians are supposed to think (and they believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that Jesus certainly did say it).
Whether Thomas was a saint or not does not matter to my reasoning. If I just called him "Tommy the Twin" it would make no difference whatsoever to the story I quote, so your argument on the point that he was not a saint at the time he supposedly said it, is irrelevant.
If direct statements about Jesus are no use, how much less use are indirect statements, and - bingo! - the whole religion now collapses because there has been nothing pertinent said at all.
I think you implied in one of your comments that you didn't understand what I was trying to say in this piece. Let me sum up the intention that I failed to get across:
!. Science is based on the sum of all evidence.
2. Faith is the direct opposite, it relies on the authority of the person who tells you something.
3. Faith makes a virtue, at times, of belief without evidence (hence the Tommy the Twin anecdote from an admittedly unreliable source).
4. Religious people seem to stick to faith in the most egregious circumstances, whereas scientists (many of whom find it easier to be atheists) will change their beliefs if the evidence no longer supports it.
Vron
| Brilliant!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | Vron, your closing four points are admirably succinct and, in my view, unarguably true.
Over to you, Johnnie!
Cheers!
John |
Written by Nick (163 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | Hi V,
Very nice piece and very well put. Particularly liked "God is pretty good at hide and seek." Seems to sum it up nicely.
I personally don't like labels. Atheist, Agnostic whatever, but I guess if i was to use one it would be Atheist.
I used to believe in God when I was a child but things happened in my life that led me to hate God. Of course, the older I got and the more I read and thought, I soon realised my anger towards God was pointless as I'd stopped believing in him.
I'll be interested to see what the swiss scientists discover with there Hadron Collider - Could be some really interesting results - of course, that's if their not just standing around poking a black hole with a stick!!
Nick
|
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | I may very well have missed your point but I can only read what you have written. My missing the point will be partly down to my own interpretation and your ability to communicate your message. That is just something we have to consider when writing.
I am saying that this essay appears to the first time reader as coming from an even handed standpoint. An unbiased point of view. From my perspective the direct reference to Christian dogma and naming detracts from that. I might just be picky.
I am saying that if you are not Christian or writiing from a non-Christian viewpoint then it is very important to get Bible quotes referenced because Christians have been getting them wrong for so many centuries. Christians accept the word of the Bible as a fact and therefore imply by right the ability to get quotes wrong or specifically choose a two line statement from whole passages as qualifications for a viewpoint. When the passage is often talking about something entirely different. Christians seem to think their book wasn't written by man and that makes their quotes extra special.
Your are perfectly entitled to quote from the Bible. But you don't. You simply say: 'But Jesus said to him "You have seen, now you believe, but I tell you that more blessed are those who have not seen, but still believe".'
By directly quoting Jesus the reader makes the assumption of that statement being an implied truth from the writers perspective. You might assume that the reader would assume that was a Bible quote but then I could state: 'Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.'
People could assume that was from the Bible too but you and I know that would be sloppy writing on my part and/or deviously misleading.
You state: 'When St Thomas, the doubting one, did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead,'
That implies the author believes Thomas to be a saint, which entirely validates Christianity. You are accepting that Thomas is a Saint, which accepts Christian dogma. Stating: The Christian Saint Thomas, the doubting one' keeps that impartiality.
If you intended those two statements in any other context I did not get that from your writing. Which was why I found the whole thing confusing. It was taking an even handed approach but seemed to take Christian dogma as a given.
I totally agree with the four intended objectives listed in your comment above but personally find that your writing did not accomplish that. And that will not change no matter how many lament my comments or strew them as not understandable.
You will either take what I have stated on board or ignore. Because we are not discussing anything worthwhile anymore. Points of view have been exchanged. If you wanted to discuss the validity of the Thomas Gospels and whether they likely proceeded the NT gospels or were later written or altered by gnostics, or were even used as source material for the gospels then that would be interesting.
Johniebg
Not an atheist by choice, just someone labelled as such because my opinion views modern faith as having no viable claim to god, based on the evidence we hold in our hands. Which does not necessarily mean I discount there being a god, we are just blinkered by modern religions perspective of what we are looking for in god.
| I lament . . .
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | . . . your comments,
I'm afraid you write illiterately.
I quote:
"I totally agree with the four intended objectives listed in your comment above but personally find that your writing did not accomplish that. And that will not change no matter how many lament my comments or strew them as not understandable."
" . . . strew them as not understandable."
Is this a typo? If not, what?
Do you mean 'construe'? I doubt it - it's quite a long, sophisticated word . . .
Gibberish, IMHO.
Katanga
| Katanga
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | It would seem literacy from your viewpoint also requires having nothing to say.
Sweet dreams. | Dream on, Johnnie!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 13th September 2008 | So true - I am very tired and have nothing to say to you at all.
Does that satisfy you?
Night night.
John X | Johniebg and Katanga!
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 14th September 2008 | Could you two now please cease and desist from having a personal slanging match in my review section? Try some PMs perhaps?
LOL
It's making my little essay look more interesting than it really is! |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 19th September 2008 | Perhaps this discussion could be moved to the forum instead? For it's a far way from reviewing by now, yet to interesting to leave it alone.
I actually liked the idea of the apostle Thomas being a scientist. I don't know about Jesus, but Confucius'd probably be pleased with such a disciple.
As for the core of this discussion you have still not convinced me, for what place does religion have in science or vice versa? I see no connection between gods and science.
You did mention ethics, but how then does ethics fit within science? Ethics is normative, not descriptive. As such ethics may be related to religion, but not to science... | Discussion moved?
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 19th September 2008 |
Veronica - I heartily apologise for my above spat - silly!
I don't think this discussion should be moved, as suggested by good old Maus.
It's too important.
If you want to relate 'ethics' to 'science', just look at 'Utilitarianism', the most illogical philosophical theory I've come upon. See John Stewart Mills.
Strangely, all so-called enlightened 'liberals' seem to believe in some form of 'utililitarianism'.
Theirs is a numbers' game. Just think of the problems - two people dying = twice the suffering of one person dying.
Total tosh! Otherwise, Shakespearian Tragedy, for a start, would not exist.
I'm too busy earning my daily bread to sort it out!!
Further comments welcome!
Cheers!
John X | Atheists
Written by AlisonKim (25 comments posted) 23rd September 2008 | Interesting piece - I alwasy like to read others views.
Though your definition of atheists as people who are keeping an open mind about the existence of a god or gods jarred a bit. My understanding, having read some atheist books, is that atheists don't believe that there are any gods, god or spiritual forces driving the universe and that it just exists as it is.
Perhaps they are split into those who start from the viewpoint of the lack of evidence as a reason for atheism and those who start from the viewpoint that there are no gods or spiritual forces. If that makes sense!
Well, that's my interpretation.
Cheers. AK | Atheists
Written by penstroke (19 comments posted) 27th October 2008 | | I am an atheist who does not believe in any god or gods but I do believe in spiritual forces. By this I mean the 'spirit' of co-operation, the 'spirit' of the law etc. I am not one for fairies, angels and the like and my point is I have no objection to those that do. I will not beseige their villages and cut off their drinking water because of it. One danger is in trying to define an atheist, or debating the hard/soft option. It is not as though I am in a group of other atheists who meet and try to defeat religion or something. It is just a worldview, as valid and meaningful as any other and one that I happen to believe. I have done some god searching and have come up empty handed, I will not be thought of as 'inadequate' for doing so. As the great man said '' To thine own self be true'' | Here here!
Written by Katanga (1515 comments posted) 27th October 2008 | Well said, penstroke.
I am with you on this and have done much such searching myself, and likewise drawn a blank.
However, where do you / we get this idea of a 'spirit of co-operation' or a 'spirit of the law' or anything else for that matter?
If we have to invoke some 'high notion' of humanitarianism, then I think all the old questions are begged again.
Just some musings . . .
Cheers!
John X | Spirit
Written by penstroke (19 comments posted) 27th October 2008 | Katanga
I refer to stuff like team spirit, "in good spirits", the stuff of good mood, good energy, not any entity at all.
I recoil at words like god or religion and have to interpret them my own way in an effort to live with such things. When presented with the god word I just call it life, doing what life does, there is no designer in my cosmology.
It's the same with faith. I have faith in our scientists who inform me that our universe is about 4.5 billion years old. I have faith that they will soon admit that they were wrong and come up with some other number. I am comfortable with people who admit that they are wrong from time to time and also are not afraid to admit when they are right. I have faith that if I drink 12 pints of beer my piss will stink in the morning. My faith is based in experience,
Oh greedy, fearful religion, do not dare to steal and keep for yourself stuff like spirit, faith and the celebration of life. They are the birthright of us all. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
