A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[Persecuted]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/sc...gewanted=print

November 21, 2006

A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

By GEORGE JOHNSON

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

She displayed a picture taken by the Cassini spacecraft of Saturn and its glowing rings eclipsing the Sun, revealing in the shadow a barely noticeable speck called Earth.

There has been no shortage of conferences in recent years, commonly organized by the Templeton Foundation, seeking to smooth over the differences between science and religion and ending in a metaphysical draw. Sponsored instead by the Science Network, an educational organization based in California, and underwritten by a San Diego investor, Robert Zeps (who acknowledged his role as a kind of “anti-Templeton”), the La Jolla meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” rapidly escalated into an invigorating intellectual free-for-all. (Unedited video of the proceedings will be posted on the Web at tsntv.org.)

A presentation by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford University biologist, on using biblical metaphor to ease her fellow Christians into accepting evolution (a mutation is “a mustard seed of DNA”) was dismissed by Dr. Dawkins as “bad poetry,” while his own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is “brainwashing” and “child abuse”) was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had “not a flicker” of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed.

After enduring two days of talks in which the Templeton Foundation came under the gun as smudging the line between science and faith, Charles L. Harper Jr., its senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth.

That brought an angry rejoinder from Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who said his own book, “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine,” was written to counter “garbage research” financed by Templeton on, for example, the healing effects of prayer.

With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

“Every religion is making claims about the way the world is,” he said. “These are claims about the divine origin of certain books, about the virgin birth of certain people, about the survival of the human personality after death. These claims purport to be about reality.”

By shying away from questioning people’s deeply felt beliefs, even the skeptics, Mr. Harris said, are providing safe harbor for ideas that are at best mistaken and at worst dangerous. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is not merely a matter of lack of education or economic despair,” he said.

Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?

“There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.”

“People need to find meaning and purpose in life,” he said. “I don’t think we want to take that away from them.”

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.

“The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”

That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.”

Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.”

Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”

[Persecuted]

In the end it was Dr. Tyson’s celebration of discovery that stole the show. Scientists may scoff at people who fall back on explanations involving an intelligent designer, he said, but history shows that “the most brilliant people who ever walked this earth were doing the same thing.” When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.”

It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.

“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ”

“Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance,” he said. “Something fundamental is going on in people’s minds when they confront things they don’t understand.”

He told of a time, more than a millennium ago, when Baghdad reigned as the intellectual center of the world, a history fossilized in the night sky. The names of the constellations are Greek and Roman, Dr. Tyson said, but two-thirds of the stars have Arabic names. The words “algebra” and “algorithm” are Arabic.

But sometime around 1100, a dark age descended. Mathematics became seen as the work of the devil, as Dr. Tyson put it. “Revelation replaced investigation,” he said, and the intellectual foundation collapsed.

He did not have to say so, but the implication was that maybe a century, maybe a millennium from now, the names of new planets, stars and galaxies might be Chinese. Or there may be no one to name them at all.

Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.

“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”

Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”

[Persecuted]

I of course do not agree with a lot of what was said in that article regarding science and religion but I wont bother to argue that here.

My purpose for posting this was to highlight how agrresive these people are towards religion Dawkins, Harris etc...

What I've highlighted in bold is an example of the behaviour I was talking about that leaves me with nothing but contempt for people like Dawkins. Can anyone tell me was he an only child that was really spoiled? Just wondering...

[tpreitzel]

ROTFL ....

Wow, scientists really ARE pompous, but they certainly aren't intellectually honest as a group. As I've said previously, science will eventually disappear either by assimulation of spiritual constructs or outright replacement. Actually, science is in the midst of this paradigm shift now. At its core, science is merely the investigation of human consciousness.

[out of shape]

That is because it is becoming increasingly difficult to make people understand the difference between fact and fiction. I have not studied all the religions of the world, but some parts of the major religions is not at all aligned with fact. E.g., the earth is not 6000 years old. The scriptures say it is, but science disagrees. So you have an entire group of people taking it personally, either coming up with new scriptures, denying science's methodologies (even though they are accepted world wide), or taking up arms and ranting about it. Instead of continuing with this, let me give you another example.

People use to pray to the moon (and sun). Now, these days it is look on as being ridiculous. Yet, if I proved to the ppl that prayed to the moon by building a space ship, landing on the moon, take some pics/moon rocks etc etc, the majority of the moon worshipers would take offense and kill me/change their scripture to a far away star/etc/etc/etc and NOT accept the fact they were wrong about praying to a freaking rock.


So, through the ages, you had more and better creative ideas about supernatural being(s). From idolatry where it went from praying to a statue to praying to the 'spirit' in the statue, to a 'being' that may or may not look human in a place far away called heaven. 'God' became more and more unreachable.....more and more unlikely to disprove his/her existence. However, it is also more and more likely to prove his/her existence, something that is now pissing religious ppl off since more and more people are seeking answers rather than being 'scared' into believing.

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Persecuted

I of course do not agree with a lot of what was said in that article regarding science and religion but I wont bother to argue that here.

My purpose for posting this was to highlight how agrresive these people are towards religion Dawkins, Harris etc...

What I've highlighted in bold is an example of the behaviour I was talking about that leaves me with nothing but contempt for people like Dawkins. Can anyone tell me was he an only child that was really spoiled? Just wondering...

This is a really great article and I wish you'd posted it for a better purpose than to take a hack at Dawkins and Harris. Yes, we all know they don't like religion, and we know you don't like them.

Now can we talk about the real content of the article?

The video of this entire conference in available here: http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

Personally, I find myself sympathizing a lot with Dawkins and Harris. I have yet to encounter a good reason to believe in God--arguments from personal experience, incredulity, complexity, etc. do not qualify--and therefore I am inclined to agree that belief is silly. Religious faith is absolutely arbitrary, and that should be apparent from the fact that thousands of distinct religions have enjoyed an earthly following. Most people end up dying believing in the god(s) they were raised to believe in.

Religious belief should be criticized just like any other kind of belief. Of course people should not be persecuted for religious belief, but they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously in regards to their belief unless they can present good reasons for their belief.

[powerman2000]

Originally Posted by tpreitzel

ROTFL ....

Wow, scientists really ARE pompous, but they certainly aren't intellectually honest as a group.

You left out hypocritical.

[stealth_swimmer]

it amazes me how some scientists are so full of themselves and yes, hypocritical at times. I liked the example of evolution. I don't see why some Christians don't believe in it. It's kind of an easy concept to grasp, although some folks get messed up along the way.

Example: Evolution merely is a long term culmination of inherited traits, mutations, and natural selection. I don't mean to start beef with anyone or anything but I personally don't see how some people who believe in evolution think that humans descended from apes.

To me it doesn't make sense, seeing as there are various places where both humans and apes live near each other. Evolution would sort of discredit that human descended from apes because of this. If we had a common ancestor then some mutation occured and humanities ancestors would have branched off but seeing as it would still be closely related, it would have to compete for food and one species would have to leave one way or another. Obviously it would have taken a while for us to figure out how to use tools well enough to beat out competition for food/shelter, so seeing as humans are pathetic in terms of strength when compared to apes, it would make no sense that humans are still around.

Not only that but my high school biology teacher was telling the class(mind you I am just taking his word for it, so I'll admit right off that I'm not sure what credibility this has...but I trust him) that a fossilized hominid skull was found, and that it was older than neanderthal skulls but it didn't have the low forehead. This leads my biology teacher to believe (as well as other folks including myself) that "neanderthals" were really humans that had a genetic condition that gave them their appearance and that they were probably outcast from normal societies since the normal thing in the past was to get rid of people who were different.


Long story short: I'm Christian but beleive in evolution, and there are some scientists that need to quit being full of themselves.

[Persecuted]

Originally Posted by out of shape

That is because it is becoming increasingly difficult to make people understand the difference between fact and fiction. I have not studied all the religions of the world, but some parts of the major religions is not at all aligned with fact. E.g., the earth is not 6000 years old. The scriptures say it is, but science disagrees. So you have an entire group of people taking it personally, either coming up with new scriptures, denying science's methodologies (even though they are accepted world wide), or taking up arms and ranting about it. Instead of continuing with this, let me give you another example.

Here's a fact for you, the only word that is available in ancient hebrew for the expanse of a long time period i.e. an epoch or age is 'Yom'

This word (Yom) is what is used in the first chapter of Genesis that describe the days of creation. Scripture does not by any means require belief in a young earth, I myself am one of many Old Earth Creationists and we do not need to bend or twist our belief to fit the data by any means.

Wanna see more go here www.reasons.org

[Persecuted]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

This is a really great article and I wish you'd posted it for a better purpose than to take a hack at Dawkins and Harris. Yes, we all know they don't like religion, and we know you don't like them.

So you don't think they are in the least bit a little extreme?

Dawkins goes on about religion spreading evil but I tell you this it would be my religious beliefs keeping me from laying him out cold if I ever met him... I shouldn't say that I know but the man makes my blood boil.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Now can we talk about the real content of the article?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

The video of this entire conference in available here: http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

There is quite a few clips there all quite large. Do you recommend any in particular? Have you seen them all? If you haven't seen the one with Paul Davies I would urge you to watch it. I haven't seen it yet but I like his written works I have a few of his books.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Personally, I find myself sympathizing a lot with Dawkins and Harris. I have yet to encounter a good reason to believe in God--arguments from personal experience, incredulity, complexity, etc. do not qualify--and therefore I am inclined to agree that belief is silly.

I'm tempted to go into a list of reasons but I think I'd rather start a new thread for that which I plan to but I wanted to get a couple more books first...

Did you ever see me give the total solar eclipse example?

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Religious faith is absolutely arbitrary, and that should be apparent from the fact that thousands of distinct religions have enjoyed an earthly following. Most people end up dying believing in the god(s) they were raised to believe in.

I don't think what you have said qualifies that deduction at all, true alot of people do grow up following the faith of their forefathers but this doesn't at all give us any reason to believe that all faiths are wrong.

I could say the same with science and philosophy there have been thousands of proposed theories and ideologies of which only a handful proved to be true but yet there is still truth to be found.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Religious belief should be criticized just like any other kind of belief. Of course people should not be persecuted for religious belief, but they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously in regards to their belief unless they can present good reasons for their belief.

I prefer it being investigated rather than outright criticized, this goes for any religion.

[SteR-]

Originally Posted by Persecuted

Dawkins goes on about religion spreading evil but I tell you this it would be my religious beliefs keeping me from laying him out cold if I ever met him... I shouldn't say that I know but the man makes my blood boil.

After reading that, I felt exactly the same! "Religion spreading evil" my ass.. that's ludicrous! If people followed the teachings of Jesus (just using Jesus as an example here) then this world would be such a better place... everything he taught was good and kind..he never hurt anyone! It's just a pity too many people are focussed on which book is correct rather than the messages taught within (which actually all seem to be the same)

[Persecuted]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

This is a really great article and I wish you'd posted it for a better purpose than to take a hack at Dawkins and Harris. Yes, we all know they don't like religion, and we know you don't like them.

Now can we talk about the real content of the article?

The video of this entire conference in available here: http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

Hey I tried d/l one of the clips but it didn't work, I tried running it in quick-time renaming it to a .mov file running it in IE and firefox as well as media player but couldn't get it going.

Did you have any problems with this or did you watch it streaming? I listened to Steve... forgot last name and Lawrance Krauss so far.

[1dayIWillBeBig]

Originally Posted by SteR-

After reading that, I felt exactly the same! "Religion spreading evil" my ass.. that's ludicrous! If people followed the teachings of Jesus (just using Jesus as an example here) then this world would be such a better place... everything he taught was good and kind..he never hurt anyone! It's just a pity too many people are focussed on which book is correct rather than the messages taught within (which actually all seem to be the same)

...

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

it amazes me how some scientists are so full of themselves and yes, hypocritical at times. I liked the example of evolution. I don't see why some Christians don't believe in it. It's kind of an easy concept to grasp, although some folks get messed up along the way.

Example: Evolution merely is a long term culmination of inherited traits, mutations, and natural selection. I don't mean to start beef with anyone or anything but I personally don't see how some people who believe in evolution think that humans descended from apes.

To me it doesn't make sense, seeing as there are various places where both humans and apes live near each other. Evolution would sort of discredit that human descended from apes because of this. If we had a common ancestor then some mutation occured and humanities ancestors would have branched off but seeing as it would still be closely related, it would have to compete for food and one species would have to leave one way or another. Obviously it would have taken a while for us to figure out how to use tools well enough to beat out competition for food/shelter, so seeing as humans are pathetic in terms of strength when compared to apes, it would make no sense that humans are still around.

Not only that but my high school biology teacher was telling the class(mind you I am just taking his word for it, so I'll admit right off that I'm not sure what credibility this has...but I trust him) that a fossilized hominid skull was found, and that it was older than neanderthal skulls but it didn't have the low forehead. This leads my biology teacher to believe (as well as other folks including myself) that "neanderthals" were really humans that had a genetic condition that gave them their appearance and that they were probably outcast from normal societies since the normal thing in the past was to get rid of people who were different.

Ugh. Your high school biology teacher needs to buy and read this book: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/l...eroutlines.asp

That's the college textbook I used in my Human Evolution class. If your teacher thinks that the only evidence for human evolution is a single skull, then he is woefully, woefully uninformed.

That means your public education has failed you, at least on this issue. I encourage you to look more deeply into this subject because you're not going to learn about the real evidence from your teacher, which is a damned shame.

Take a look at this website: http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#

It's a very brief overview but it should whet your appetite for a deeper look at the subject. If you're headed toward college, you should consider taking a class in biological anthropology or human evolution. Look up your university's anthropology department and see if they offer a similar class.

If you have other questions about human evolution I'd be happy to answer them. I study anthropology and have taken several courses on this subject so I'm more qualified than the average person. I have several textbooks and notebooks from previous classes that I can refer to.

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Persecuted

Hey I tried d/l one of the clips but it didn't work, I tried running it in quick-time renaming it to a .mov file running it in IE and firefox as well as media player but couldn't get it going.

Did you have any problems with this or did you watch it streaming? I listened to Steve... forgot last name and Lawrance Krauss so far.

I didn't have a problem but I streamed them instead of downloading... did you try that?

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Persecuted

So you don't think they are in the least bit a little extreme?

Dawkins goes on about religion spreading evil but I tell you this it would be my religious beliefs keeping me from laying him out cold if I ever met him... I shouldn't say that I know but the man makes my blood boil.

They both make statements I wouldn't endorse but I understand where they are coming from and I think that in many cases their opinions are tenable. Dawkins has stated before that he does not think that religion is the root of all evil (he had no control over the titling of the BBC documentary with that in the title), but he does think that religion causes a lot of problems, which I'm inclined to agree with. I think that it discourages critical thought and encourages bigotry. Of course not all religious people are closed-minded bigots--not even half--but I think that's despite religion rather than because of it.

I understand why you and others are upset but I think that Dawkins and Harris are often viewed as being more extreme than they really are.

There is quite a few clips there all quite large. Do you recommend any in particular? Have you seen them all? If you haven't seen the one with Paul Davies I would urge you to watch it. I haven't seen it yet but I like his written works I have a few of his books.

Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to watch them all, so I can't really make recommendations. I'll check out the Paul Davies clip next. I'm not familiar with his work but I see and hear his name all the time.

I'm tempted to go into a list of reasons but I think I'd rather start a new thread for that which I plan to but I wanted to get a couple more books first...

Did you ever see me give the total solar eclipse example?

I don't recall seeing this example. Sometime you should make your thread and we can have a theology and philosophy party. You bring the music, I'll bring the whores of Babylon.

I don't think what you have said qualifies that deduction at all, true alot of people do grow up following the faith of their forefathers but this doesn't at all give us any reason to believe that all faiths are wrong.

Well not all faiths can be right, can they? They all make contradictory and non-compatible claims.

I could say the same with science and philosophy there have been thousands of proposed theories and ideologies of which only a handful proved to be true but yet there is still truth to be found.

The beauty of science is that it never claims its present theories are the end-be-all of theories; instead, science has no problems with throwing out obsolete theories in favor of new ones. Religion, on the other hand, will remain the same regardless of evidence because it operates on faith.

Science is based on observations and evidence rather than arbitrary faith. Science is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

I prefer it being investigated rather than outright criticized, this goes for any religion.

How would we go about investigating a religion? Why do religions merit investigation at all? Should Roman Catholicism be investigated more than the hundreds (or thousands?) of sub-Saharan tribal religions?

[basement iron]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Most people end up dying believing in the god(s) they were raised to believe in.

I couldn't agree with you any more about that one sentence.

I don't see most religious people searching for a faith, I see children born into their parents religion by default, they are taught that religion and they soak it up like a sponge.

Children take to heart what their parents tell them, if no one ever told a child that Santa Claus was not real, and someone secretly left presents for that child every year, would that child grow into an adult believing in Santa?

And their parents religion, or anyones for that matter, mostly depends where on this planet they were born.

It's a cycle.

Naturally there will always be exceptions like some people finding their religion later in life, people switching religions, people becoming atheists, etc.

I was brought up Catholic, but if I was born on the other side of the planet there is a good chance I would be praying to Allah right now.

[PianomanRichie]

Of all the arguments against religion and creationism, Dawkins puts forth the most thought-provoking and creative ones...

Sadly, he feels he needs to resort to ad hominem attacks and sarcasm to reinforce what already would be interesting and challenging rebuttal... That's my problem with MANY atheists who want to 'debate'... You'll find a lot of the time it's not a debate they want, it's a roast...

[Persecuted]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

They both make statements I wouldn't endorse but I understand where they are coming from and I think that in many cases their opinions are tenable. Dawkins has stated before that he does not think that religion is the root of all evil (he had no control over the titling of the BBC documentary with that in the title), but he does think that religion causes a lot of problems, which I'm inclined to agree with. I think that it discourages critical thought and encourages bigotry.

I would have to disagree I think some religions do discourage critical thought but not Christianity as I have stated before in Judaism and Christianity we are encouraged to test people claiming to be from God and not to take anyone's word for it.

Also look at my signature "Test Everything" this is from the Bible. Christian tradition also shows this to be the case with the canonization of the Bible. Rather than popular myth that there was a myriad of documents floating around and the church chose the best ones.. It was actually quite a careful process with the church fathers looking back in the historical records and only accepting documents that could be either traced back to the apostles or the presbyters (disciples of the apostles).

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Of course not all religious people are closed-minded bigots--not even half--but I think that's despite religion rather than because of it.

Also we need religion to encourage critical thought of atheistic ideologies that have now permeated mainstream science.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

I understand why you and others are upset but I think that Dawkins and Harris are often viewed as being more extreme than they really are.

I don't think I really have any mis-conceptions about them, I would say they have done a great job in letting the public know their true feelings towards religion.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to watch them all, so I can't really make recommendations. I'll check out the Paul Davies clip next. I'm not familiar with his work but I see and hear his name all the time.

If you can have a look at his book 'The Origin of Life' it's pretty good as well as 'God and the New Physics'.

Also there is another book of his titled 'The Accidental Universe' I haven't read this yet but am planning to buy it. In one of his other books he references this book stating that there is a long list of just right co-incidences that enable the universe to support physical life. Judging by his writing he seems like a bit of a mystic.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

I don't recall seeing this example. Sometime you should make your thread and we can have a theology and philosophy party. You bring the music, I'll bring the whores of Babylon.

haha I am really anxious to it's going to be extremely long but I actually think I may just change a few minds on here.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Well not all faiths can be right, can they? They all make contradictory and non-compatible claims.

Exactly but of course one or even several could be for example I would have to say both Judaism and Christianity can be considered right. According to Christianity Jesus is the fulfillment and promise of Jewish law. Though I would agree not all faiths can be right.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

The beauty of science is that it never claims its present theories are the end-be-all of theories; instead, science has no problems with throwing out obsolete theories in favor of new ones. Religion, on the other hand, will remain the same regardless of evidence because it operates on faith.

See that's a tricky one because science can do nothing of it's own volition it is but a tool to be used by men to investigate the way the physical world works.

However there are many advocates of science that in the guise of science lie, twist and manipulate to suit their own agenda. There is actually great reluctance which has been witnessed among scientists to accept certain facts that don't appeal to them. For example the Big Bang. Sir Arthur Eddington wrote,

Philosophically I find the idea of the universe having a beginning repugnant, I should like to find a genuine loophole.

It took almost seventy years for the idea of a single beginning for the universe to be finally accepted and you have to wonder why. After they threw out the steady-state model they brought in the oscillating universe model which was based on absolutely nothing at all. It was science fiction as was the steady-state that was well endorsed by many in the scientific community. To me this makes it obvious that Aheistic scientists can be just as biased or even more-so than Theistic scientists (No Young Earthers).

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Science is based on observations and evidence rather than arbitrary faith. Science is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

The scientific method is yes I agree.

Originally Posted by Fidelis

How would we go about investigating a religion? Why do religions merit investigation at all? Should Roman Catholicism be investigated more than the hundreds (or thousands?) of sub-Saharan tribal religions?

The same way you would investigate any account of the past... First read the texts, look for corroborating evidence if available or even contradictory evidence. That's a start anyways. It depends on the claims of the religion if it warrants investigation or not.

[SteR-]

Originally Posted by 1dayIWillBeBig

...

...

what are you trying to say? lol

[TheLivingEnd]

Originally Posted by Persecuted

Scripture does not by any means require belief in a young earth

Amen. I don't see God creating humans as babies who need to then be nurtured and grow before He could have a meaningful relationship with them. I also do not see God creating all vegetation as saplings and seeds still within the ground. The earth would have been an ugly, barren space. Lastly, I do not see that God would need to create an earth that "acted brand-new" without active volcanos or forged valleys.

[Couldbebigga]

Damn that was a good article!

And I love how all the religious folk on here bash Dawkins for his extremism and ad-hominen attacks (which I don't think he does much) while never ever attempting to refute his ideas. And you guys call the scientists hypocritical!?! haha

And Persecuted, the only thing stopping you from punching Dawkins is your relgious beliefs? Well, give me the most pompous religious person in the world annoying me and my own morality would stop me from punching them. Does it disturb you to know you'd be so violent without the colalr of your religion while your athiest friend Couldbebigga, while capable of opening a can of whoop ass, would only do so to protect himself? Or was your statement throwaway and off the cuff?

[HatesFat]

Originally Posted by Couldbebigga

Damn that was a good article!

And I love how all the religious folk on here bash Dawkins for his extremism and ad-hominen attacks (which I don't think he does much) while never ever attempting to refute his ideas. And you guys call the scientists hypocritical!?! haha

And Persecuted, the only thing stopping you from punching Dawkins is your relgious beliefs? Well, give me the most pompous religious person in the world annoying me and my own morality would stop me from punching them. Does it disturb you to know you'd be so violent without the colalr of your religion while your athiest friend Couldbebigga, while capable of opening a can of whoop ass, would only do so to protect himself? Or was your statement throwaway and off the cuff?

A salient point, the whole "if I didn't have religion to guide me, I'd be going around raping and pillaging" worries me. You can know GOOD without knowing GOD. I can prove that if anyone doubts.

[ViolatorJF]

I understand what Persecuted means by the way Dawkins often chooses to be brief yet discourteous, however there will always be those who put so much faith in God as to believe that science somehow is not relative (referring to evolution in particular).

However, to make a point that it is your religion keeping you from laying out Dawkins is a bit ironic, in the sense that if you did not believe in religion then you would likely agree with all his points.

That's another weird thing. You can have two perfectly logical people who have similar morals and act what would be considered by many to be "good" or "kindly", yet some think Dawkins is a lunatic and others think he is perfectly sensible.

Actions speak louder than words...unless you're typing really fast.

[Persecuted]

Wow this is an old thread but anyway as Couldbebigga and ViolatorJF have brought up the issue of me wanting to knock dawkins out I will respond.

Originally Posted by Couldbebigga

Damn that was a good article!

And I love how all the religious folk on here bash Dawkins for his extremism and ad-hominen attacks (which I don't think he does much) while never ever attempting to refute his ideas. And you guys call the scientists hypocritical!?! haha

Well I didn't post the article for that reason, personally I have read 2/3 of the God Delusion and so far I have only seen one good argument from Dawkins which yes did actually give pause to my beliefs... The rest of it I have read so far is almost pure conjecture.

If you're wondering about the argument it was the one how he highlights that we are invoking something more complex to explain the complexity we see. At first it hit me pretty hard I was like he's right... but then I began to think about it and it isn't really as powerful as I first thought...

I don't know if I want to get into it now because I was thinking of doing a short critique on Dawkins book when i'm finished.

Originally Posted by Couldbebigga

And Persecuted, the only thing stopping you from punching Dawkins is your relgious beliefs? Well, give me the most pompous religious person in the world annoying me and my own morality would stop me from punching them.

First a question, are you admitting Dawkins is pompous? hehe

Also I just have to take your word for what you say here, we both really don't know how you would act if someone like that got in your face.

Also you hit the nail on the head "your own morality" what makes your own morality better than anyone elses? It may be better for this particular society if your personal goals and beliefs are that it is good to abide by societies laws.. And it would be good for you if you are seeking to avoid societies retribution for your actions it has deemed unfit.

This does not make it objectively good however. And what if someone elses morals are predisposed so that they feel hitting people that annoy them to be a good thing? Why are your morals better than theirs? Do you define it as better or do you allow society to define it as better and follow suit?

Originally Posted by Couldbebigga

Does it disturb you to know you'd be so violent without the colalr of your religion while your athiest friend Couldbebigga, while capable of opening a can of whoop ass, would only do so to protect himself? Or was your statement throwaway and off the cuff?

Not really actually I would be far more disturbed if I were to find out that there was no God and all of humanity faces ultimate and inescapable death...

Punching someone like Dawkins would be a trivial matter in light of that. If I did it or not I probably wouldn't care either way.

I would definitely live my life differently if I came to believe sincerely there was no God.

Next,

Originally Posted by ViolatorJF

I understand what Persecuted means by the way Dawkins often chooses to be brief yet discourteous, however there will always be those who put so much faith in God as to believe that science somehow is not relative (referring to evolution in particular).

Yes there will I am not one of them, I think science as absolutely relative to this whole dialogue of origins especially evolution, I just don't happen to believe it accounts for the living world.

Originally Posted by ViolatorJF

However, to make a point that it is your religion keeping you from laying out Dawkins is a bit ironic, in the sense that if you did not believe in religion then you would likely agree with all his points.

Not really I would probably more likely agree with Nietzsche in particular his parable of the mad man. I still wouldn't agree with him that religion is a great cause of evil, at least not Christianity.

Originally Posted by ViolatorJF

That's another weird thing. You can have two perfectly logical people who have similar morals and act what would be considered by many to be "good" or "kindly", yet some think Dawkins is a lunatic and others think he is perfectly sensible.

Actions speak louder than words...unless you're typing really fast.

I disagree, I think if people disagree about Dawkins they are more than likely going to disagree on other moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia etc...

I doubt Dawkins is pro-life.

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Persecuted

Not really actually I would be far more disturbed if I were to find out that there was no God and all of humanity faces ultimate and inescapable death...

Punching someone like Dawkins would be a trivial matter in light of that. If I did it or not I probably wouldn't care either way.

You can't think of any good, secular reasons not to punch people? I'm not sure you're thinking hard enough.

[Persecuted]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

You can't think of any good, secular reasons not to punch people? I'm not sure you're thinking hard enough.

LOL of course I can think of many, don't want to go to jail, face charges etc... Maybe I don't like hurting people (which is true) I always felt guilty in the past even of hurting people I don't like.

I don't like to see others in pain, but maybe some people do. So it's good for me not to hurt them but it may be good for others to hurt people for their own sense of satisfaction.

This doesn't make it good or bad either way... Also what if you want to go to jail? Not many would, but if that's your goal and you like hurting people then for that individual it is a good thing to do..

BTW if you're wondering if I wasn't religious, no I would not just go around punching random people. I also wouldn't risk my life for another person because if I die I've lost my chance at life for a supposedly noble cause which I will never know about.

Could you imagine sacrificing your life so that another may live knowing that this life is all you have?