Ten Commandments

[Thorne]

Wikipedia says:


The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin

It is the responsibility of the person making an extraordinary claim to provide proof of that claim. Since it is impossible to prove a negative (except, perhaps, mathematically) there would be little chance of my proving that they are not divine in origin.

However, it is possible to show that the likelihood of that is so far removed from reality as to be next to impossible.

The article states that these "religious and moral imperatives" were "authored by God" "according to the Hebrew Bible." And what proof does the Bible give for this? Only that it is the written word of God. And how can we be sure it is the written word of God? Because the Bible tells us it is! A bit of circular logic here, isn't it? While the Bible is certainly a historical document, it is not a history book! There is no evidence outside the Bible that Moses existed or that the Exodus even took place.

Even if we assume that there was an actual Moses, how do we know that the Commandments were given to him by God? We only have his word for this, after all. He went up the mountain alone, and no one saw God hand him the tablets.

Perhaps the fact that there were at least eight previous codes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes#By_Date)can give some insight into the true origins of the Commandments.

And just as an aside, which version of the Commandments are we supposed to follow? Those given in Exodus 20, those in Exodus 34, or those in Deuteronomy 5?

While it's true that none of these items constitute proof that the Ten Commandments were not divine gifts from God, they do cast significant doubt on that hypothesis. And with the only evidence for that assertion being the words of some 11th or 12th century BC nomads I think we have to lean more towards doubting the Bible than accepting it.

After all, in the words of Dara O Briain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0123R6vjIoE), "It's only the Bible. It's not gospel."

[MMI]

I agree with every word of that. However, on the other thread, where the post you quoted appeared, I had stated that the Constitution of the USA was not a document of divine origin, like the Ten Commandments were. I didn't think anyone would interpret that statement so literally that he would fail to realise that it was made sardonically.

However, I think the excuse that you can't prove a negative in this case isn't good enough, because, ultimately, you can't prove a positive either. I offered a Wikipedia article in response to your demand that I prove the divine origin of the Commandment: you challenge the authenticity of the source, the Bible, because no-one can prove it to be truly the Word of God. If Jesus spoke to you and said, Verily, I say unto you, obey, for they are my Father's orders, you would ask Him to prove it ... after all, even JC's paternity can be called into question. If He would deceive you about that, what other lies would He tell? Furthermore, if the Good Lord Himself came down to answer your questions, you would ignore Him and tell Him He doesn't exist, so His answers don't count.

Even if you deny everything, you don't prove anything and you don't prove nothing either.

Yes, it is highly improbable that the Ten Commandments really are the Word of God. But isn't the reality of existence itself so highly improbable that even divine interference seems no less unlikely?

[Thorne]

if the Good Lord Himself came down to answer your questions, you would ignore Him and tell Him He doesn't exist, so His answers don't count.
If he could prove that he was indeed a supernatural being, able to do something which contradicts the laws of nature, then I would have to believe, wouldn't I? All he would have to do is, say, give new legs to an amputee, in a flash, immediately, with no external assistance, under proper supervision (to avoid fakery). Or make gravity reverse itself. Something which is technologically impossible, but certainly a piece of cake for a supreme being. In fact, the Amazing Randi has been offering $1 million to anyone who can prove a supernatural power. No one has yet come close to winning it.


Yes, it is highly improbable that the Ten Commandments really are the Word of God. But isn't the reality of existence itself so highly improbable that even divine interference seems no less unlikely?
What's so improbable about it? We're here, aren't we? That makes it a certainty in my book. There are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. At odds of a billion to one against the formation of habitable planets, there would likely be 200 such planets in this galaxy alone. Astronomers estimate that there are more galaxies in the universe than the total number of humans who have ever lived on the Earth! Even if there were only one habitable planet in each galaxy, or one for every ten galaxies, or one per hundred, the probability of at least one habitable planet forming is astronomical! Literally!

No, I still maintain that those who profess a belief in a supernatural being, whether divine or otherwise, are the ones making the extraordinary claim, and are therefore the ones who must provide the proof for those claims. Without that proof one might just as well claim that Santa Clause created the universe. There's just no way to prove that he didn't.

[MMI]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

[Thorne]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?
Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.


Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.
What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

[DuncanONeil]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

[Thorne]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

Well, for one thing, proving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists. Unless that god comes out and says, "Hey people, all you snake worshipers got it right. You other poor saps have been barking up the wrong tree.", you'll just have to have FAITH that it is your god who's been proven to exist.

But we don't even need to go that far. Just provide clear, concise, consistent evidence that ANY god exists. Just one example of something happening that could not possibly happen without the intervention of a divine, supernatural being. Like maybe a church which burned down after being struck by lightning miraculously rebuilding itself in front of eyewitnesses and TV cameras and maybe a few skeptical scientists thrown into the mix. Hell, that should be a piece of cake for any god who can create the universe.

As for faith, well I have faith, too. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that summer will follow spring, and that fall will follow summer. I have faith that if I jump off of a tall building I'm going to splatter myself all over the ground below. But who knows. Maybe your gods will intervene and none of those things will happen. But I'll still have my faith that that church won't rebuild itself.

[DuncanONeil]

"(P)roving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists"

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

I will presume that the rest of the message is tic


Well, for one thing, proving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists. Unless that god comes out and says, "Hey people, all you snake worshipers got it right. You other poor saps have been barking up the wrong tree.", you'll just have to have FAITH that it is your god who's been proven to exist.

But we don't even need to go that far. Just provide clear, concise, consistent evidence that ANY god exists. Just one example of something happening that could not possibly happen without the intervention of a divine, supernatural being. Like maybe a church which burned down after being struck by lightning miraculously rebuilding itself in front of eyewitnesses and TV cameras and maybe a few skeptical scientists thrown into the mix. Hell, that should be a piece of cake for any god who can create the universe.

As for faith, well I have faith, too. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that summer will follow spring, and that fall will follow summer. I have faith that if I jump off of a tall building I'm going to splatter myself all over the ground below. But who knows. Maybe your gods will intervene and none of those things will happen. But I'll still have my faith that that church won't rebuild itself.

[Thorne]

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.
You don't think that the Greco-Roman gods were different from the Abrahamic God? What about the Egyptian gods, or the Norse gods. The Hindu gods are certainly different. Or the Amerindian gods, Aztec, Incan, Polynesian, Australian Aboriginal gods? Are you saying that, despite all of the documented differences these are one and the same God? Who just happens to be the current version of the Christian God?

But I can be magnanimous. I will accept the argument that, despite these differences, all of these gods are actually the One True God®. You still have not provided any credible evidence for his, or their, existence.


I will presume that the rest of the message is tic
I must be feeling particularly dense today. I don't understand this comment, either.

[denuseri]

Nor has any credible evidence been provided to support a lack of their existance.

"It is the responsibility of the person making an extraordinary claim to provide proof of that claim."

I purpose that it is just as "extraordinary" of a claim to say that God/gods do not exist.

[leo9]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

Until a couple of hundred years ago this would have been a nonsense question. The Fathers of the Church enthusiastically offered miracles and such as proof that their teaching was true, and every generation of priests thereafter collected new miraculous cures, wonderful manifestations and the like to prove God's and the Church's power.

Only when science started debunking the miracles did the doctrine arise that it was more holy to believe without proof.

[Thorne]

I purpose that it is just as "extraordinary" of a claim to say that God/gods do not exist.
Tell me, please, which is the more extraordinary claim here:

1. There is a man who lives in my attic. You cannot see him. You cannot hear him. You cannot feel him. He leaves no tracks in the dust. There is absolutely no tangible, verifiable evidence that he exists. But I know he's there because he talks to me in my mind. He doesn't talk to anyone else, just me. Therefore, he is real.

OR

2. The narrator of #1 is probably insane and there is probably no man in his attic.

Can you honestly equate these two statements as being equal in insanity? Can you honestly believe that the person who makes statement #1 should be treated as though everything he says is the truth? And what if he tells you that some person (or people) must be killed because the voice tells him they are evil, and the voice knows everything and is good, because the voice tells him so.

I think the man making statement #1 would have to provide proof before he could be released from the asylum. But if he says that the voice speaking to him is God, people send him money instead.

[denuseri]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

[Thorne]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.
The fact that the story is centuries old has no bearing on the fact that there is no evidence for its validity! Whether it's one person, or a thousand people, or a million people saying it has no bearing because there is no evidence for its validity! Billions of people, both living and dead have believed in gods primarily because they have been taught since infancy to believe in the gods of their parents/culture! They are taught from infancy that it is a sin to doubt the existence of gods and that they will go to hell if they don't believe as the parents believe!

And why do these people believe it? Because there is a man who stands up in the church or temple or mosque or wherever and tells them that the man in the attic is real! And if you don't believe that he's real, aside from the spiritual price you will pay, you will be cast out of the community, or executed, depending on the religion. In some cases you will be shunned by your own family, just for not believing in the man in the attic! Of course so many people profess belief. The price for not doing so may be too high for them to bear.

Some people will tell me that they have turned away from their birth religion and found something else to replace it. I applaud them for exhibiting the strength to rebel against the status quo. I could wish that they had exhibited more critical thinking and spurned superstition altogether, but at least they have thought about their beliefs.

And for the umpteenth time, I have no problem with people who wish to believe in gods. Faith is not necessarily a bad thing, unless it is blind faith. If you have studied your religion, and have really looked at the arguments both for and against belief and still believe, then you have done all that can be asked of you. I have turned away from religion and superstition, finding their arguments false and borderline insane at best. I have chosen to not believe.

But when you parrot the comments of church leaders without really trying to understand what they are telling you, and then have the gall to state that what you believe is absolutely true just because you've been told it is so, then I will argue against you. Why? Because blind, unreasoning faith kills people!

So believe what you will, there is no man in the attic. The emperor has no clothes!

[leo9]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

Any smart Pagan knows that "my tradition is older than yours" is a dangerous game. My Scandinavian relatives follow Norse gods whose legends are certainly older than the legend about the revived rabbi, though probably about of an age with the legends about the burning bush and the stone law books. I know people who follow the gods the Egyptians had been worshipping for a thousand years before Moses proclaimed a new one. If ancient tradition were the test of truth, we should all worship the Great Mother depicted in Stone Age idols - which sounds good to me, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

As for preserving traditions, the same people whose folk wisdom you invoke also passed down a tradition that a fat man in a sleigh drawn by reindeer would bring gifts at Xmas...

[MMI]

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.


What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.


First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

In this discussion we are nbot only limited by our own powers of expression, but by language itself. I am certain you understood me, just as I understood you.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

[MMI]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

[Thorne]

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."
I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.


Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?
Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

[MMI]

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

I am by no means competent to criticise Descartes's Cogito, however it does puzzle me why it is felt to be so conclusive. I cannot think things into existence: that would be magic, or a divine act of creation. How, then can I think myself into existence? Surely, Descates should have said, I am, therefore I can think. Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).



Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

What's hard to reconcile about, "God made all that there is"? If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin. Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too: if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ... and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

[Thorne]

Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).
I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.


If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin.
Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.


Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too:
A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.


if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ...
These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.


and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?
I don't have the knowledge to deal with this except to say that, under the accepted laws of physics as we understand them there can be no uncaused effect. However, there are places where these laws of physics no longer apply, such as within the event horizon of a black hole, or at the precise moment of the Big Bang. So who knows? Maybe there can be uncaused effects in those areas.


But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.
An incomplete phrase. You should believe it probably happened that way because that's what my hypothesis holds to be true, and here is the evidence to support the hypothesis!

[MMI]

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

OK - I think I can concede that. But with that argument, Descartes only proved that he existed because he was a thinker. Ergo, only thinking things can prove they exist that way. But, fortunateley, it's not just thinking that proves existence, being red proves the existence of red objects, being dead proves the existence of dead things, being a scold proves the existence of my wife, and so on ad infinitum.

But we aren't actually concerned with existence, are we? We've sidetracked ourselves: what we want to find out is how things came to be in the first place.

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Cogito has nothing to say about this (so far as I am aware). Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?



Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it. Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else. It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.



A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

I won't dispute your distinctions.

It is religious dogma that Yaweh(for example) is perfect, and that leads to inconsistencies that make faith look ridiculous. Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.



These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.

[denuseri]

That was pure poetry MMI...sighs wistfully and fans myself.

[Thorne]

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?
The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.


Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it.
How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?


Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else.
That's perfectly true. But they don't require the existence of any supernatural beings.


It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.
I don't find it hard at all. I find it harder the see how the existence of supernatural beings can be so widely believed without evidence. But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.


Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?
I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.


And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.
Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.


I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.
And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

[Thorne]

That was pure poetry MMI...sighs wistfully and fans myself.

But... but... Aw, shucks. It's always the kooks that get the girls. :icon277:

[leo9]

"(P)roving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists"

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.


So you'd be just as happy praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so long as it's some kind of Supreme Being?

Tell you what, archaeological evidence suggests that the Great Mother and the Horned God were the first deities worshipped by men. (Certainly, the first they made lasting images of.) So would you be happy to accept that your god, and all these other JHVH-come-latelies, are just other, later names for those original True Gods?

No, I thought not.

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect illustration of the fundamental difference between science and religion. (The orthodox kind of religion, anyway.) The contradictions in the Bible are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (or to be more accurate, an apparently absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since.

This is why religious fundamentalists (and political fanatics, but that's another thread) cannot get their heads around scientific argument. They live in a world-view where dogmas must be perfect and unquestioned or they are nothing. Whereas any living scientific principle is always being questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And the religious see this as weakness and failure, and cannot understand why anyone should hold to creeds that are so impermanent when they could have one that hasn't changed in two thousand years.

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[leo9]

Sorry about the repeat, I thought the system had eaten it so I rewrote it. Then it popped up. Computers are a mystery.

[MMI]

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?


But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.


How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps. I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.



But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

This can be said of religious faith, too



I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.

God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.



Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development. Religion supplied answers science could not. As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work. Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.



And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.

[MMI]

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.

I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind, or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.

[Thorne]

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?
It's the difference between a truth that you have sought out evidence for, studied and deduced for yourself, versus "truth" which springs into being at the whim of superstition. If you were an investigator and found substantial and compelling evidence that a criminal had murdered someone, only to have someone proclaim that they learned in a dream that your suspect was innocent, which "truth" would you believe?


That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.
That's my whole point! One can dream up all kinds of possibilities about what came before. None of them have any more validity than the others.


I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps.
That depends on the religion. There are fundamentalist Christians here in the US, and elsewhere around the world, who proudly proclaim that their beliefs are based upon the reality of the Bible, which they proclaim to be the divine word of God. Anything which contradicts their Bible is therefore untrue. Evidence means nothing to them.


I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.
As an article of faith I have no quarrel with that statement. The problem I have is that, should science some day be able to peer through the veil of the big bang and find out exactly what came before, the religious will change their image of God, redefining his existence, rather than giving up. It's basically the same battle that religion and science always have.


You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.
I suppose there's some merit in this statement. Because I certainly do think that science can eventually learn just about anything. And I also know that science does not know everything yet. But if we are ever going to find the gods, it will be science which does it, not superstition.


God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.
And how do we know that these beings are imperfect? How do we know that Satan is not the True God and Yahweh is his imbecilic brother? Yeah, that's right. Faith. We just know. Because God tells us so.


Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development.
Quite true. But you neglect to point out that one of the biggest blocks to science was in trying to rationalize the physical with the supernatural. It's only with the gradual development of the scientific method that we've managed to throw out the supernatural and advance the world's knowledge of the natural. And we went from the first powered heavier-than-air flight to putting a man on the moon within a person's lifetime, less than 60 years.


Religion supplied answers science could not.
What answers did religion provide, other than "god did it"?


As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work.
Religion was able to withdraw? Rather they were forced to withdraw, and they are going down fighting. And what makes you think there is a reason we are here? Just asking the question, "Why are we here?" assumes a creator with a purpose. If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why.


Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.
And again you make the assumption that there is some ephemeral "Truth" which transcends the natural world based upon nothing but your need for such a truth to exist.


I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.
And I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good children every Christmas. And I have evidence for mine! NORAD tracks his sleigh on radar!
I wouldn't lie to you.

[Thorne]

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.
I will join you in refuting those charges. (Try not to faint.) There have been many great philosophers in many different religions throughout the history of mankind. But ultimately the entire foundation foundation of any religion is built upon little more than speculation and wishful thinking. And when someone comes along and states, "I don't like your interpretations of dogma, so I'm going to create my own interpretations," that new religion has no more firm foundation than the previous one.


I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind
Yes, the comparison is quite appropriate. (You're getting woozy again, aren't you?) There were (and are) scientific fundamentalists who scoffed at Copernicus. After all, simple naked-eye observation says that the sky revolves around the Earth. There is also the problem of the Church declaring scientific "truth" based upon revelation rather than facts. And those who disagreed with the Church risked excommunication or even execution. But the real question is, how many scientists still believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe? In science the truth eventually wins out. In religion the truth is whatever the priests say it is.


or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

Einstein was commenting on the "new" idea of quantum mechanics, which he felt was not yet shown to be valid. There have been changes in the theory since then, of course, as new data emerged. I have little doubt that, were he alive today, he would be among the first to laugh at his own quote. Probably on a computer which relies on quantum theory to operate.

But being a scientist does not require someone to be an atheist. There have been, and are, many scientists who are believers. But they choose to separate their beliefs from their science. And there's nothing wrong with that
as long as they don't allow their religious beliefs to dictate their scientific work.

[denuseri]

As if the only good or pure scientist was the ungodly one?

Attention! All scientists out there turn off all your own spirituality and moral compassess they are interfearing with "production" like it's no bodies business.

Oh thats right, quite a few allready did.

In reality those same scientists who shut out their spritualism allow their non-religion orientated beliefs, their political dogmas, their financial intrests, their need for posterity, their greed, ambition etc to dominante such endeavors instead, filling the hole of the phyche.

Is that really such a good thing?

Spiritualy detached is what is good for us?

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.

Is that the kool-aide you are sugesting we keep drinking?

[MMI]

It's the difference between a truth that you have sought out evidence for, studied and deduced for yourself, versus "truth" which springs into being at the whim of superstition. If you were an investigator and found substantial and compelling evidence that a criminal had murdered someone, only to have someone proclaim that they learned in a dream that your suspect was innocent, which "truth" would you believe?

In answer to your question, I don't know: clearly either the "evidence" or the "dream" is wrong. Who is to say which?

What I asked was, what's the difference between a truth you discover through research and the very same truth if you are told about it?


That's my whole point! One can dream up all kinds of possibilities about what came before. None of them have any more validity than the others.

Then you agree that both science and religion rest on similar, if not the same, foundations, and therefore deserve each other's respect?



That depends on the religion. There are fundamentalist Christians here in the US, and elsewhere around the world, who proudly proclaim that their beliefs are based upon the reality of the Bible, which they proclaim to be the divine word of God. Anything which contradicts their Bible is therefore untrue. Evidence means nothing to them.

While I sympathise with your assertion wholeheartedly, doesn't that mean that science has so far failed to make its case in the Southern States. Take evolution, for example. It is a scientific theory, not an absolute fact. Intelligent Design is an equivalent theory which finds support among those fundamentalists and which does take account of the evidence.

As one fundamentalist says, if you cleared a space in your garage, how long would you have to wait until a Mercedes materialised out of nothing in that place? A day? A year? A thousand or a billion? What about "googol" years (not sure if I have used that correctly). Surely there's a chance that something, even if not a Mercedes, will materialise out of nothing in that time, isn't there?

Or is it more likely that, if, at any time a Mercedes does appear in your garage, someone with the powers to do so put it there?



As an article of faith I have no quarrel with that statement. The problem I have is that, should science some day be able to peer through the veil of the big bang and find out exactly what came before, the religious will change their image of God, redefining his existence, rather than giving up. It's basically the same battle that religion and science always have.

And why should that be a problem for you? You clearly expect religions to accept scientific proofs when they are discovered - as do I - but if that still leaves areas where science has no answer, and religion does, then it remains possible that the answer is right.

Likewise if one day, science peels back the veil between the Big Bang and the Before, and find a little old man with a long beard and sparks coming out of his fingers, while over in the corner hangs a red suit he only wears once a year, then I expect the atheists and agnostics who base their denials and doubts on the absence of proof to immediately recant, and crawl on their hands and knees to the Vatican City where they can confess the error of their ways and surrender themselves into the loving arms of Mother Church (or if it's a Hindu, Farsi, Norse or other god, to do whatever is appropriate in that case).



I suppose there's some merit in this statement. Because I certainly do think that science can eventually learn just about anything. And I also know that science does not know everything yet. But if we are ever going to find the gods, it will be science which does it, not superstition.

Let's at least recognise that religions are not superstitions. We all know that black cats don't bring good luck (or bad luck, depending on where you live), and we also know there aren't pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. Religions offer an explanation about life that superstitions don't even consider. Science may not like those explanations, but they are not to be contemned as trivial fairy stories that have no meaning at all.



And how do we know that these beings are imperfect? How do we know that Satan is not the True God and Yahweh is his imbecilic brother? Yeah, that's right. Faith. We just know. Because God tells us so.[/i]

<sigh> Quite so. But the point is the same: just read Satan for God and God for Satan.



Quite true. But you neglect to point out that one of the biggest blocks to science was in trying to rationalize the physical with the supernatural. It's only with the gradual development of the scientific method that we've managed to throw out the supernatural and advance the world's knowledge of the natural. And we went from the first powered heavier-than-air flight to putting a man on the moon within a person's lifetime, less than 60 years.

I see no reason why religion should welcome a scientific proposition that contradicts a religious belief until it has thoroughly demonstrated itself to be true - I'm thinking of evolution here as an example. Likewise, I see no reason for relgions to deny a scientific truth once it has been conclusively demonstrated - choose your own example.




What answers did religion provide, other than "god did it"?

What more do you need? Apart from, What is the purpose ... Which, of course, science doesn't address at all.



Religion was able to withdraw? Rather they were forced to withdraw, and they are going down fighting. And what makes you think there is a reason we are here? Just asking the question, "Why are we here?" assumes a creator with a purpose. If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why.

That is an absolute statement of faith, Thorne, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. From a religious perspective, it is also wrong.



And again you make the assumption that there is some ephemeral "Truth" which transcends the natural world based upon nothing but your need for such a truth to exist.

Just as science "assumes" factual evidence provides a true explanation of how the physical universe works. It has to assume that its goal is to discover the truth, that it is completely unbiased and wholly objective, and that the march of science is resolutely forward and unrelenting, but in real life it promotes truths that are convenient (often for the sponsor - like tobacco firms or oil companies) - such as, there is/is no significant human cause to global warming, and in any case we will/will not enter an ice age before too long (look at the debates we've had here, both sides spouting scientific data to support our views). Why can we not find a way to create cold fusion? We've been trying long enough, but we're getting nowhere fast. And who will suggest that science searches for the truth? what about eugenics ...

Or is it the case that we actually can improve humankind by selective breeding? In which case, the orthodox scientific position is covering up the truth.


And I cannot rule out the possibility that there is a jolly old elf living at the North Pole who delivers toys to good children every Christmas. And I have evidence for mine! NORAD tracks his sleigh on radar!
I wouldn't lie to you.

I can beat that ... he left me toys when I was young.

[Thorne]

As if the only good or pure scientist was the ungodly one?

Attention! All scientists out there turn off all your own spirituality and moral compassess they are interfearing with "production" like it's no bodies business.
That's not at all what I said. I said they can't let it interfere with their science. If the evidence points to something which contradicts their religious beliefs it would be absolutely wrong of them to toss aside the evidence in favor of those beliefs. On the other hand, if the evidence points to confirmation of those beliefs, it would be just as wrong for an atheist to throw out the evidence because of it.


In reality those same scientists who shut out their spritualism allow their non-religion orientated beliefs, their political dogmas, their financial intrests, their need for posterity, their greed, ambition etc to dominante such endeavors instead, filling the hole of the phyche.
So basically you're saying that scientists are human. And I agree. There are some who let their greed and ambition sway their judgment. That's why science requires peer review to verify results and not just take one person's word on things. It's a self correcting mechanism. Not always fast and mistakes can be made, but eventually the science wins out.


Spiritualy detached is what is good for us?
I can't see where spirituality, as practiced by religions, has done us a hell of a lot of good.


News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.
I suggest you take a look at the people who deny the fact that we are killing ourselves and our ecosystem. They tend to be the same people who promote fundamentalist beliefs. Their god gave them the world and everything in it, and their god will save them if something goes wrong.

[Thorne]

In answer to your question, I don't know: clearly either the "evidence" or the "dream" is wrong. Who is to say which?
My money's on the evidence. There's no evidence that the dreamers even have a clue.


What I asked was, what's the difference between a truth you discover through research and the very same truth if you are told about it?
The difference is that a discovered truth is one you've learned for yourself. You know it's true. A truth you are told about, even if it's the same truth, requires you to have faith in who is telling it. I prefer to trust myself.


Then you agree that both science and religion rest on similar, if not the same, foundations, and therefore deserve each other's respect?
I do not! The foundation for science is always, "We don't know! Let's find out." The foundation for religion is always, "God(s) did it, so shut up and accept it." Religion is not interested in the truth and, in the more conservative sects, actively discourages the search for truth.


Take evolution, for example. It is a scientific theory, not an absolute fact.
Evolution is a fact. It has been proven in numerous species. The mechanisms of evolution are theories, describing how we think evolution works. It's like gravity. We know it's there. Gravitational theory explains how we think it works.


Intelligent Design is an equivalent theory which finds support among those fundamentalists and which does take account of the evidence.
No, it denies the evidence in favor of the God hypothesis. ID is just whitewashed creationism, as was shown in the Dover, PA case.


As one fundamentalist says, if you cleared a space in your garage, how long would you have to wait until a Mercedes materialised out of nothing in that place? A day? A year? A thousand or a billion? What about "googol" years (not sure if I have used that correctly). Surely there's a chance that something, even if not a Mercedes, will materialise out of nothing in that time, isn't there?
Well, you're going to need one hell of a big garage. Packed to the rafters with hydrogen. Then compress that hydrogen to form stars. Lots and lots of stars. The stars will form elements heavier than hydrogen in their cores and, when they "die" will scatter that material all over the garage floor. Do that enough and you'll build up enough chemicals to form the building blocks of life and, eventually, life itself. I estimate it will take about 13 billion years before you get your Mercedes.


Or is it more likely that, if, at any time a Mercedes does appear in your garage, someone with the powers to do so put it there?
Yeah, they're called "used car dealers" and they're less trustworthy than gods.


And why should that be a problem for you? You clearly expect religions to accept scientific proofs when they are discovered - as do I - but if that still leaves areas where science has no answer, and religion does, then it remains possible that the answer is right.
The problem is that religion doesn't claim that the answer is POSSIBLY right, but that it is ABSOLUTELY right.


Likewise if one day, science peels back the veil between the Big Bang and the Before, and find a little old man with a long beard and sparks coming out of his fingers, while over in the corner hangs a red suit he only wears once a year, then I expect the atheists and agnostics who base their denials and doubts on the absence of proof to immediately recant, and crawl on their hands and knees to the Vatican City where they can confess the error of their ways and surrender themselves into the loving arms of Mother Church (or if it's a Hindu, Farsi, Norse or other god, to do whatever is appropriate in that case).
But again, you're assuming that the little old man is divine, even supernatural. The "fact" that he has fingers and a beard and wears a red suit tells me he's not.

[Thorne]

Let's at least recognise that religions are not superstitions. We all know that black cats don't bring good luck (or bad luck, depending on where you live), and we also know there aren't pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
But if you pray hard enough good things happen to you? IF there is a dividing line between superstition and religion it is a very tenuous one.


Religions offer an explanation about life that superstitions don't even consider. Science may not like those explanations, but they are not to be contemned as trivial fairy stories that have no meaning at all.
I never said that their fairy stories are trivial and have no meaning. We can learn a lot about the human condition from parables and stories. But putting the story of David and Goliath into religious terms doesn't make it any less fictitious than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.


<sigh> Quite so. But the point is the same: just read Satan for God and God for Satan.
Yes, the point is the same. There is no evidence for either of them.


I see no reason why religion should welcome a scientific proposition that contradicts a religious belief until it has thoroughly demonstrated itself to be true - I'm thinking of evolution here as an example. Likewise, I see no reason for relgions to deny a scientific truth once it has been conclusively demonstrated - choose your own example.
I don't expect them to welcome truths which contradict their beliefs. And evolution is a perfect example. As I stated above, evolution is a demonstrable fact. We see it happening all around us, and find conclusive evidence for it throughout the fossil record. The mechanisms are still being debated, but the fact remains. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges this. I don't think they welcome it, but they acknowledge it. Creationists, on the other hand.... Look up "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)" if you aren't already familiar with the term. You may also want to look at this site, (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)


What more do you need? Apart from, What is the purpose ... Which, of course, science doesn't address at all.
What do I need besides "god did it"? How about evidence?
Science doesn't address that question because it is still trying to answer the question, "IS there a purpose?" So far, at least, the answer is, "Not as far as we can tell."


"If you remove the concept of a designed universe, the question is meaningless. We are here. Period. There is no why."
That is an absolute statement of faith, Thorne, without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. From a religious perspective, it is also wrong.
I said IF you remove the concept of a designed universe.


Just as science "assumes" factual evidence provides a true explanation of how the physical universe works. It has to assume that its goal is to discover the truth, that it is completely unbiased and wholly objective, and that the march of science is resolutely forward and unrelenting, but in real life it promotes truths that are convenient (often for the sponsor - like tobacco firms or oil companies) - such as, there is/is no significant human cause to global warming, and in any case we will/will not enter an ice age before too long (look at the debates we've had here, both sides spouting scientific data to support our views).
Please see my response to denuseri, above.


Why can we not find a way to create cold fusion? We've been trying long enough, but we're getting nowhere fast.
Probably because the laws of nature, as we understand them, do not allow cold fusion to occur. It requires tremendous amounts of heat and pressure. That doesn't mean scientists have given up. Just that the likelihood of developing it is growing more remote.


what about eugenics ...

Or is it the case that we actually can improve humankind by selective breeding? In which case, the orthodox scientific position is covering up the truth.
"Improvement" is a subjective term, or course. But if we assume that we can all agree on what such an "improvement" might be, yes it should be possible to selectively breed humanity to achieve it.

That doesn't mean that we should, however. Aside from the risks of interfering with the natural path of evolution and "improving" ourselves into extinction, there are moral considerations to consider. Morals having nothing to do with religion.


I can beat that ... he left me toys when I was young.
OH! You were one of those GOOD kids! That explains it.

[denuseri]

I suggest you take a look at the people who deny the fact that we are killing ourselves and our ecosystem. They tend to be the same people who promote fundamentalist beliefs. Their god gave them the world and everything in it, and their god will save them if something goes wrong.

Perhaps I/m not the only one who needs to take that closer look, becuase the people conserned with the planet and being good stewards of it are most certianly also and primaraly composed of spiritual people, (the "pure scientiests are in no way the majority) some of them are even what you try to dimminish as "fudamentalists" who believe that if we dont change what we are doing God is going to hammer us with a natural catastorphe of some kind or a war etc or simpley sit and watch us mess it up and start over when we are done.

[leo9]

News Flash: The focus on "pure" or godless science has allready got us on a path of self destruction and just in those same short years where we went from flying to the moon and back until today. Those years where we were so busy consuming the benfits of our new god "our science" that we spent those years living in such a fashion that our collective arvice and gluttony are likely now going to kill us all off in the near future.


If you check the credentials of the politicians and CEOs who took the decisions to use damaging rather than beneficial technologies, you will find, firstly, very few science graduates, and secondly, very very few atheists. (I may be wrong, but my impression is that it's not possible to get to high office in the US as a professing atheist.) So it's not exactly fair to blame godless scientists for the mess we are in. So far as I can see, it was the new god Mammon that did most of the harm.

In any case, this whole godless-scientist stereotype is about as far from the truth as most stereotypes. You will find as many believers in the average science faculty as in the arts departments next door; all Thorne was saying is that if you're a believer and a scientist (like me), you believe the facts first, and if the facts disagree with your religion, you accept that your religion needs to be adapted.

Richard Dawkins has attracted a fair amount of criticism from scientists for promoting the idea that atheism is the only "scientific" viewpoint. There are plenty of us who find the world all the more spiritually awe-inspiring because we believe in all the fabulous scientific story of its creation from nothing in a cloud of fire, and the growth of living things from primal molecules to glorious complexity by their own simple efforts to survive better than the next being. As far as I can see, most Pagans are scientifically educated: perhaps that's why we're drawn to creeds that value matter as well as spirit.

But like it or not, Thorne was right: one of the main strands of resistance to conservation comes from fundamentalists who say that (a) God made the world for Man (sic) to use, so nobody should tell us not to, and (b) the Rapture is due any time now, so there is no future to conserve resources for. You couldn't make these people up.

[Thorne]

You couldn't make these people up.
It's too bad you can't make them up, because then you could make up a way to give up their 2000 year old (or 6000 year old for the YEC's) nomadic religion and step up to the 21st century.

[MMI]

But if you pray hard enough good things happen to you? IF there is a dividing line between superstition and religion it is a very tenuous one.

Agreed



I never said that their fairy stories are trivial and have no meaning. We can learn a lot about the human condition from parables and stories. But putting the story of David and Goliath into religious terms doesn't make it any less fictitious than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk.

The story of David and Goliath is a religious tale, and is much more meaningful than Jack and the Beanstalk.



Yes, the point is the same. There is no evidence for either of them.

... apart from the fact that we know them by name and have detailed accounts of their activities.



I don't expect them to welcome truths which contradict their beliefs. And evolution is a perfect example. As I stated above, evolution is a demonstrable fact. We see it happening all around us, and find conclusive evidence for it throughout the fossil record. The mechanisms are still being debated, but the fact remains. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges this. I don't think they welcome it, but they acknowledge it. Creationists, on the other hand.... Look up "God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)" if you aren't already familiar with the term. You may also want to look at this site, (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

Why wouldn't they welcome it, if it's true? I've said before, religions must accept scientific proofs if they cannot refute them, and I believe science should not scoff at religious truth simply because it is inadequate to prove/disprove them. It is science that is falls short in these cases.

Of course, pursuing this argument enables you to say I am using the "God of the gaps" argument. But just because you can put a disparaging lable on my argument doesn't mean it is wrong. As I said, science falls short here, not religion

As for the other site ... I looked at it and it smacks of the same kind of obsessive fanaticism that you see on the Christian fundamentalist sites and the militant atheist sites of people like Dworkin. It just cannot accept the idea that religions might have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything long before they do.


What do I need besides "god did it"? How about evidence?

It's all around you. It's exactly the same evidence that you cite to prove the validity of science.


Science doesn't address that question because it is still trying to answer the question, "IS there a purpose?" So far, at least, the answer is, "Not as far as we can tell."[/i]

I'm not aware of any scientific enquiries into the purpose of existence, so I think that answer is one you have drummed up yourself. Science, in fact, restricts itself to a lower order of question, the "how" rather than the "why" and this is because it focuses exclusively on the natural, whereas religion's focus is on the supernatural. It is perfectly possible, Thorne, for science and religion to co-exist until one of them tries to deny the other.


I said IF you remove the concept of a designed universe.

What would be the point of that?

I still consider your words, We are here. Period. There is no why to be nothing less than an assertion based on faith.



Please see my response to denuseri, above.

Having looked at that response, I conclude that you consider scientists to be as capable of corruption and as flawed as ministers of religion. The existence of corrupt practitioners does not prove that what they practice is false, whether that be science or religion.


Probably because the laws of nature, as we understand them, do not allow cold fusion to occur. It requires tremendous amounts of heat and pressure. That doesn't mean scientists have given up. Just that the likelihood of developing it is growing more remote.

I think this demonstrates that science has its holy grails, where it pursues enquiries into things it believes to be so, yet cannot prove. Acts of faith.



"Improvement" is a subjective term, or course. But if we assume that we can all agree on what such an "improvement" might be, yes it should be possible to selectively breed humanity to achieve it.

That doesn't mean that we should, however. Aside from the risks of interfering with the natural path of evolution and "improving" ourselves into extinction, there are moral considerations to consider. Morals having nothing to do with religion.

And morals have never held science back for long.



OH! You were one of those GOOD kids! That explains it.

I suppose I must have been, although I wouldn't want to make a big thing about it.

[Thorne]

The story of David and Goliath is a religious tale, and is much more meaningful than Jack and the Beanstalk.
I agree, but that doesn't make it any less fictitious.


... apart from the fact that we know them [God & Satan] by name and have detailed accounts of their activities.
I have read a dozen books about a man named Dirk Pitt. There are detailed accounts of his activities. That doesn't make him a real person.


Why wouldn't they welcome it, if it's true? I've said before, religions must accept scientific proofs if they cannot refute them, and I believe science should not scoff at religious truth simply because it is inadequate to prove/disprove them. It is science that is falls short in these cases.
Just why is it that science has to prove its case to the religious, but the reverse is not true? I'm sure scientists (well, most of them, anyway) would be happy to accept the findings of the religious, if they would only provide PROOF!


Of course, pursuing this argument enables you to say I am using the "God of the gaps" argument. But just because you can put a disparaging lable on my argument doesn't mean it is wrong. As I said, science falls short here, not religion
I did not mean that label to be disparaging, but descriptive. Scientists sees any gaps as a challenge to be overcome, searching for more evidence to support, or refute, their claims. The religious see those gaps as proof of their god, despite lacking any evidence to support that claim.


As for the other site ... I looked at it and it smacks of the same kind of obsessive fanaticism that you see on the Christian fundamentalist sites and the militant atheist sites of people like Dworkin. It just cannot accept the idea that religions might have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything long before they do.
But the WOULD accept it, if there were any evidence to prove the assertions.


It's all around you. It's exactly the same evidence that you cite to prove the validity of science.
So, the evidence which tells us that the Solar System is made from the congealed detritus of long-dead stars is exactly the same evidence that tells us that God wished the world together from nothing? The very same evidence that tells us humanity is descended from other primates and, ultimately, from even lower forms of mammals is exactly the same as the evidence for man being cobbled together from a lump of mud, and woman being an afterthought made from an extra rib? Nah, I ain't buying it.


I'm not aware of any scientific enquiries into the purpose of existence, so I think that answer is one you have drummed up yourself. Science, in fact, restricts itself to a lower order of question, the "how" rather than the "why" and this is because it focuses exclusively on the natural, whereas religion's focus is on the supernatural. It is perfectly possible, Thorne, for science and religion to co-exist until one of them tries to deny the other.
This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life#Scientific_inquiry_and_perspective s) explains things a lot better than I can. But it all boils down to what I've already stated. In order to determine WHY we are here, one has to assume that there is a purpose in our creation, which presupposes a creator with such a purpose. With no evidence of that creator there is no way to scientifically determine the WHY.


What would be the point of that?

I still consider your words, We are here. Period. There is no why to be nothing less than an assertion based on faith.
Those words apply ONLY if you assume a natural universe without a designer. If you assume a designer, or creator, than presumably it had some purpose in creating the universe, and ultimately us. ("Ultimately" is, of course, a relative term. There will almost certainly be creatures around a million years from now who are as different from us as we are from our evolutionary ancestors.) However, even assuming that there was a designer/creator it is dangerous, and vain, to assume that WE are its desired end point. We may be only a minor step to achieving that end, expendable cogs in the universal machine. Paraphrasing George Carlin, maybe the Earth brought us into existence because it wanted plastic. Now that it has plastic, it doesn't need us anymore.


Having looked at that response, I conclude that you consider scientists to be as capable of corruption and as flawed as ministers of religion. The existence of corrupt practitioners does not prove that what they practice is false, whether that be science or religion.
Individuals, whether scientists or ministers, can be corrupt, yes. But the systems in which they serve are quite different. The scientific method is designed to root out the corruption, bring it out into the daylight and toss it out with the trash. It can be a slow process but it works.

Religions, on the other hand, seem to be more concerned with saving face than in exposing corruption. The ongoing troubles of the Catholic Church is a perfect example. Despite massive testimony and evidence of priests abusing children, and others, the Church still tries to hide the wrongdoing, punishing the victims rather than the criminals. And we are talking about crimes which go back to the very beginnings of the church!

And the Catholic Church is not alone. More and more reports are coming out of the abuses and outright crimes committed by those who claim to hold moral authority over others, crimes which their leaders knew about and tried to hide. Everything I've seen and learned about religious organizations points to the same thing: protecting the image of the church is far more important than punishing the perpetrators, or protecting the victims.

Now, on the science front, we have a man like Andrew Wakefield, basically the "father" of the anti-vaccination movement. His supposed research has been discredited, his license to practice medicine has been revoked, other research he has reported on has been brought into question and, just recently, a second paper of his has been discredited. Based upon the reports I've seen, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if criminal charges were brought for some of his actions in the name of his "research". But you don't see other scientists trying to bury the dirt, cover up his crimes and blame it all on the victims, do you? That's because the scientific method works!


I think this demonstrates that science has its holy grails, where it pursues enquiries into things it believes to be so, yet cannot prove. Acts of faith.
That is typical of the religious viewpoint. I see it as scientists being willing to study even those things which might not be possible if only because of that one-in-a-million chance that they may be.


And morals have never held science back for long.
Nor religions. Morality is, after all, a human construct, and therefor fallible.

[denuseri]

And if you check the demographic religious afiliations of the people involved in taking good care of the planet you will also find the same people.

My only issue with Thone's aproach is his use of stereotypes and insults to attempt to make his point, my little godless pure science thing was manily to show him how it looks when the shoe is on the other foot, if he didnt use sophism in his argument...I wouldnt eaither.

In any case, this whole godless-scientist stereotype is about as far from the truth as most stereotypes. You will find as many believers in the average science faculty as in the arts departments next door; all Thorne was saying is that if you're a believer and a scientist (like me), you believe the facts first, and if the facts disagree with your religion, you accept that your religion needs to be adapted.

That is how it should be in my opinion as well. I think both types of stereotypes are bull. Not all "christians are fundamentaly fundamentalist in their fundamentals" as some people apear to liken them to.

Richard Dawkins has attracted a fair amount of criticism from scientists for promoting the idea that atheism is the only "scientific" viewpoint.

I can't help it if Mr. Dawkins is an asshole.

I wish him the best of luck, but I think he is missing a large part of the "human" equation by denial or by ignorance when he attempts to promote such viewpoints as vampantly as he does.

There are plenty of us who find the world all the more spiritually awe-inspiring because we believe in all the fabulous scientific story of its creation from nothing in a cloud of fire, and the growth of living things from primal molecules to glorious complexity by their own simple efforts to survive better than the next being. As far as I can see, most Pagans are scientifically educated: perhaps that's why we're drawn to creeds that value matter as well as spirit.

Yesh...we have achieved agreement of sorts (does a lil dance) As I pointed out previously in this very thread earlier and in every other thread started to bash on religion in the past that Ive seen. (except I dont believe the "pagans" have a monopoly on anything when it comes to scientificly orientated educations)

But like it or not, Thorne was right: one of the main strands of resistance to conservation comes from fundamentalists who say that (a) God made the world for Man (sic) to use, so nobody should tell us not to, and (b) the Rapture is due any time now, so there is no future to conserve resources for. You couldn't make these people up.

There is a big difference between the greedy scumbags in charge of multinational corperations and other "a" holes who twists the dogma of a religion or takes it out of context for the purpose of finacial gain and the common believer who was tuaght that God wants makind to not only hold dominion, but wise dominion and be good stewards of and live in fellowship with the earth.

[Thorne]

Not all "christians are fundamentaly fundamentalist in their fundamentals" as some people apear to liken them to.
I agree with you, and I've said so many times. Though there are times when I would like to give some of them a good swift kick in the 'fundament.' :eek:


I can't help it if Mr. Dawkins is an asshole.

I wish him the best of luck, but I think he is missing a large part of the "human" equation by denial or by ignorance when he attempts to promote such viewpoints as vampantly as he does.
It might surprise you to know that I feel the same way about him. I think what he's doing is important, but I'm not too fond of the way he goes about it.


There is a big difference between the greedy scumbags in charge of multinational corperations and other "a" holes who twists the dogma of a religion or takes it out of context for the purpose of finacial gain and the common believer who was tuaght that God wants makind to not only hold dominion, but wise dominion and be good stewards of and live in fellowship with the earth.
Once again I have to agree with you, to a point. But despite not having any financial interest, some of those "common believers" can be just as rabid and "a-hole-ish" as the religious leaders and corporate officers. (Interestingly, now that you've brought them together in this context, it's surprising how often religious leaders behave in exactly the same manner as the heads of multinational corporations!) Over the past few years there has been a campaign around the world to promote atheism by placing signs on buses and billboards. The same places you would see signs promoting Christianity. Guess which signs get defaced or destroyed? And by those same "common believers" who want to "live in fellowship with the earth."

[denuseri]

Yep! We have firmly established that both Christans and atheists are human beings now and being human are both quite capable of defing stereotypes and both quite capable of not living up to ethical standards they expouse, making both of them quite capable of hipocracy.

As for only aethiest propaganda being the target of vandelism...smh..nice try but you will have to take a look at how there were at least 1,237 crimes committed against Christian churches and ministries in the U.S. alone this past year ranging in severity from vandalism to violent crimes with 98 of the casesinvolving arson resulting in an estimated $24 million in property loss.

I think the whole ceo (tyrant what have you) mentality results within the phycology of any single person or small group of people who come to power in any large orginizational scocial construct or stand alone complex.

After all...doth not absolute power corrupt...absolutely.

[Thorne]

Yep! We have firmly established that both Christans and atheists are human beings now and being human are both quite capable of defing stereotypes and both quite capable of not living up to ethical standards they expouse, making both of them quite capable of hipocracy.
Agreed. As individuals we are all fallible human beings. The differing institutions, however, are quite different.


As for only aethiest propaganda being the target of vandelism...smh..nice try but you will have to take a look at how there were at least 1,237 crimes committed against Christian churches and ministries in the U.S. alone this past year ranging in severity from vandalism to violent crimes with 98 of the casesinvolving arson resulting in an estimated $24 million in property loss.
I'm not denying that churches and Christians themselves are attacked. But how many of the perpetrators were atheists attacking them because they were churches. Probably no way to know that, but in this case (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7459955) for example, it sounds like the vandals were probably kids who were trying to make themselves look like satanists, or a remote possibility that they were real satanists, but I wouldn't expect atheists to try to point the finger at a being they don't even believe in. Here's another case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/10239799.stm) which was apparently caused by teenagers being teenagers. My feeling (yeah, I know, no evidence) is that the vast majority of these acts, especially here in the US, are done by kids or by common thieves. Vandalism like this (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/03/pro-atheist_ads_on_smart_buses.html) on the other hand, while not nearly as vicious as that done to churches, was clearly done by someone with a religious motivation. One of the supposed "moral majority" in other words.


After all...doth not absolute power corrupt...absolutely.
And one more thing we can agree on. :)