Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

As to the burnt bush, there might be some ashes to sift through, but what would science learn from it? Anyway, when God left, he might not leave any traces behind, and because you weren't there, you would say, it didn't happen because there's no evidence.

So you're saying I should accept some lunatic's word that he spoke with God? Why should I? At least if there were ashes I would know that there was a burning bush. Wouldn't mean God did it, though.

You seem to find it interesting that I placed faith and belief above science. We are discussing something science cannot contribute to, so, so far as I can see, science has no place in the debate.

But if a god were to intervene in the natural world, science DOES become involved. That would be something we could measure, classify, study. And if the gods do NOT intervene in the natural world, then their existence doesn't matter to us anyway, does it?

You ask how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith because it is neither. I know you are discussing this point with den, so I'll just say here, it is perfectly possible to hold negative beliefs: there are no honest politicians, for example. How is that different from, there are no supernatural beings?

Yes, you can hold negative beliefs. The question then becomes, is NOT believing something the same as believing something is NOT? I contend (though denuseri denies it) that claiming, "I do NOT believe in gods" is very different from saying "I believe there are no gods."

In your description of the development of science, you allow scientists to invent explanations of how things are, yet you say religion is baloney because it is invented. I'm confused.

Scientists invent explanations to describe how things work, then search for evidence to support those explanations. If they find evidence against the explanations then they have to either change or scrap the explanations. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations. Religions provide explanations, yes. But where is the evidence? And how many of those explanations have been shown to be false? (Hint: Damned near all of them!)

Finally, you suggest that someone could make up a much more believable story which would convince me, even without proof. I guess that's true, if convinced, I would believe and have faith, and the absence of proof would not signify at all. That's yet to happen, though.

I was saying that your comment implied that, yes. And that's where we differ. I can accept that someone could make up a more believable story, but without proof, or at least confirming evidence, it's just another fiction.

Maybe, as a start, we could ask God to heal a couple amputees?

[MMI]

Moses and the Burning Bush

You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith? Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

Try a little harder.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Actually, according to the story, the bush was unharmed, so they would not be able to say why the bush burned at all. Likewise, scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?


Is Not Believing Something the Same as Believing Something is Not?

An interesting question, and I'm not sure I know. My instinct tells me it's a distinction without a difference.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

What I think you are trying to suggest is a difference between someone who has an opinion, and someone who has not formulated one. That is an easy distinction to make, however. The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."


Evolving Science: Evolving Religion

You say scientists invent explanations to describe how things work. If they find no evidence to support the explanations, they have to change or scrap the explanations.

I don't believe that is quite accurate. Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one. How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception. Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

[thir]

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

However, there are scientists -believers as well as non-believers - searching for proof of what is said in the bible. Mostly, I think, archeologists, but also other kinds.

If I believe something is, that is surely the same as my believing in it. Therefore if I believe something is not, how is that different from my not believing in it?

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.

Religions are not generally 'shown to be false'. This is not possible, as you pointed out earlier.

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

What has that got to do with evolution?

[MMI]

@ thir

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source. Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.

I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can. Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

What has [tossing virgins into volcanoes] got to do with evolution?

I simply meant that religions change. Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.

[Thorne]

The Bible is an important historical record, but it is just one source.

The problem is that it is also a religious document, and it has been shown that sometimes the history has been skewed to agree with the religion.

Archaeologists are always looking for ways to verify biblical texts, but I doubt they are looking to prove that God revealed himself to someone at any particular time or place.

Depends on the archaeologist. Certainly up until the last hundred years or so they were almost universally trying to reconcile the Bible with history. Not so much anymore, but there are some who still try.

I agree that I maintain religions cannot be proved or disproved, but what they teach can.

But what they teach can be taught without the religious trappings far more effectively.

Thus the Catholic Church no longer holds that the Earth is at the centre of the universe.

At least not physically. Theologically? I think that might be a different story.

Once we might have thought the only way to placate the god of the volcano was to offer him brides, but now we know better.

And science, not religion, is the reason we know better.

[Thorne]

The word 'belief' may be used about a religious feeling as well as a conviction based on facts or logic.

Exactly! And in these kinds of discussions it always seems to lean far more heavily to the side or religion than logic. Which is why I try to avoid using it in that manner.

[Thorne]

Moses and the Burning Bush
You consider Moses was a lunatic? Because of his faith?

Not because of his faith, but because of his claims. Outside of the Bible there is no historical evidence that Moses even existed. All the evidence shows that the Jews were NOT slaves in Egypt, and that there was no Biblical Exodus. As far as I can tell, Moses was a fiction. And if he were alive today and claimed to be speaking with God, who took the form of a burning bush, where do you think he would end up?

Where's this liberal-minded Thorne who claims to respect other people's beliefs, even nonsensical ones? Let me quote, "... I'm trying really, really hard not to make disparaging remarks about people."

I don't think a fictional character would be upset by being called a lunatic.

I repeat, science has no place in any discussion about the existence of god. Science is nothing more than mankind's observations about the natural world. Whether or not god "exists" (in a supernatural sense) is so far beyond the scope of scientific enquiry as to be forever out of reach. Therefore to demand scientific proof is pointless.

Then by the same token, religious belief has no business in science classrooms. But look into what they are doing, and trying to do, in the Texas school system.

Suppose the burning bush's ashes had been scientifically studied. What would the scientists have found but carbon compounds in the form of ash? They would not be able to examine the gases burnt off, and they would not be able to examine any supernatural residue, because they simply would not recognise it.

Who knows what they might have found, if indeed it had been God. If nothing else, as I said, you have the ashes, which at least tells you that Moses saw SOMETHING. Doesn't necessarily mean God, of course, but at least it is something. Even if this event had taken place, however, there were no witnesses except Moses! And we are to accept his word, without reservation? Why?

scientists would have nothing to say about the other signs God gave Moses - the leprous hand, the staff turned into a snake, the water turned into blood - other than, "We can't explain it; it's not natural." So what use is science, and how could it become involved?

But also according to the story, the pharaohs priests were able to duplicate at least some of Moses' "tricks", which doesn't say much for the power of God.

The person with an opinion can say, "I believe it is not so," but the person who has no opinion can only say, "I don't know if it is so, or not. I haven't decided."

And what of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so." Not a matter of indecision, but a statement of fact.

Science allows the current explanation (or explanations) to persist until it is/they are disproved or replaced by a better one.

Only if the current explanation successfully explained observed phenomena.

How many scientific theories have been formulated, adopted, then replaced by another? Quite a few, but sometimes only after overcoming the most obstinate resistance of other scientists.

If a theory has withstood the test of time, because it explained observations and made predictions which were shown to be accurate, it would naturally take a lot of pressure to have scientists just toss it aside. They would want proof that the new theory is better at explaining reality than the old one did. And sometimes, the old one is not tossed aside but only modified.

A good example is Newton's laws of gravity. For a long time these laws were accepted by scientists because they worked. They described the motions of the planets almost perfectly, and at least one planet (Neptune) was discovered because of discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus. But some perturbations in the orbit of Mercury could NOT be explained by Newton's laws, and scientist were going absolutely nuts over it! Until Einstein put forth his theory of relativity, which accounted for Mercury's perturbations. So instead of scrapping Newton's laws, which worked perfectly well in almost all circumstances, it was modified to exclude its use in high gravity/high energy areas, such as near a star!

Religions also offer explanations through faith and belief. Where they are shown to be false, the explanation is changed to accord with general perception.

The difference is that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. They are handed down as dogma, something you MUST believe in, and questioning that dogma is a religious crime. It's only when change is FORCED upon them, from the outside, that they reluctantly change. And historically, they were far more likely to suppress the reality in favor of the fantasy.

Thus, religions develop their faith and add greater meaning to their beliefs.

But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!

Evolution. The reason we no longer toss virgins into volcanoes.

I don't get this one. Geology is why we don't toss virgins into volcanoes.

[MMI]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction. Clearly, he feels that is a stronger line of attack against believers. I do agree with his contention that religion has no place in science classes, however. Religion should be taught in religious education classes - which should be compulsory - as it is here (or was when I went to school).

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.


You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other

I enjoyed you explanation of how Newton's laws have been replaced to some extent by the Relativity Theories. And these in turn are under critical scrutiny now . You make the point that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. Yet there have been countless of conversions - both individual and en masse People believed in other gods before they began to worship Jehovah. Christianity started out among Jews who felt that their old religion has been superseded by the new one, and millions of pagans of different hues embraced it too. Mithraism is said by some to have been a "rehearsal" for Christianity. Islam also grew up from Judaism, Christianity and sundry pagan beliefs. Religions evolved and changed to reflect changing beliefs. Human sacrifice, for example, no longer occurs, because volcanoes no longer hold gods who need to be bought off. The Mormons represent a more recent evolution; Scientology another.

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.

And finally,

But still, it's all based on a foundation of nothing!

... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang, a supremely massive singularity came into existence from nowhere by bursting into equally massive amounts of matter and anti-matter (and, presumably, energy and an equivalent amount of anti-energy). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a magician's conjuring trick - there would have had to be a magician and an anti-magician, of course) lots of the anti-matter disappeared so that, after it had all been annihilated again by collisions with matter, there was still enough matter and energy left behind to form the universe.

What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found. It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own. That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.

[Thorne]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.

Have no fear, my friend. One reason I started this thread, which I stated at the first, was so no one could claim thread drift or relevance. It's all relevant as long as it deals with religion or atheism, preferably both in comparison.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction.

If you were describing the novel, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and talked about Randle Patrick McMurphy, the lead character, would you need to tell anyone that he was a fiction? No, because most people would know that the book was fiction. You would, however, describe him as some sort of lunatic or other.

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.

Assuming that they WERE marvels and not a story made up to illustrate a point of religious belief. One would expect that, if all of the miracles and plagues which were inflicted upon Egypt by Moses had truly occurred there would be SOME mention of SOME of them at the appropriate time. Yet, despite fanatical searching by religious archeologists, not ONE of these has been confirmed.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.

I do understand that, MMI, believe me. Where I have difficulty is understanding why people, even some scientists, would accept these things purely on faith. To me it makes no sense.

You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other

I agree completely, unless you are asking for absolute proof. In science there are no absolute proofs, only evidence compounded upon evidence which all points to a probable truth.

And I think you mean scientific theories, not postulates. A postulate is a proposal which is assumed to be true as a basis for the formation of a logical chain of events. These usually occur in mathematics, such as in geometry. Euclid proposed five postulates which he used as the foundation for geometry. All of the other rules of geometry must be proven in accordance with these postulates. (I don't think I'm explaining it well. It's been a long day.)

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.

The difference is that religious changes still involve invoking the untestable and unprovable. Scientific changes do not. Replacing the evil, death-dealing God of the Old Testament with the more loving God of the New Testament does nothing to prove the existence of either. In fact, if anything, it shows how man has made the gods in HIS image, rather than the reverse.

And finally,
... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang . . .
What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?

The point is that this is ONE explanation for what MIGHT have happened, based upon the observed results. No one claims that it is absolutely true, only that it is possible. WE DON'T KNOW. We may never know. How does one see beyond the beginning of time?

With the religious creation myths, whichever brand you prefer, the only answer for how did it start is, God did it! And they KNOW! They aren't searching for evidence to prove it, they aren't trying to devise other theories, they simply accept God without reservation.

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found.

You make the same mistake here that I've been fighting all along: you assert, or at least imply, that atheism is a religious idea. It's not. It's simply saying, "I do not believe."

It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own.

Not when those others are trying to force those opinions down your throat.

That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged.

In their proper places: religion in the churches, science in the schools.

Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.

I agree, there can be no natural proof of the supernatural. And there can be no interaction between the supernatural and the natural, because once that happens, the supernatural becomes natural! It leaves a mark on the real world, one which can be seen, studied, learned from. Or, as is almost always the case, shown to be not supernatural at all, but only an unexpected natural phenomenon. (I say "almost" because there are, occasionally, some things which might not be explainable with the scientific understanding at the time. But there is also nothing that shows these things to be supernatural in origin.)

What theists need to understand is that science regards supernatural explanations as extraordinary claims, and thus they require extraordinary evidence. God did it just doesn't work.

[denuseri]

This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction. Clearly, he feels that is a stronger line of attack against believers. I do agree with his contention that religion has no place in science classes, however. Religion should be taught in religious education classes - which should be compulsory - as it is here (or was when I went to school).

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.


You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other

I enjoyed you explanation of how Newton's laws have been replaced to some extent by the Relativity Theories. And these in turn are under critical scrutiny now . You make the point that religions do nothing to test their faiths and beliefs. Yet there have been countless of conversions - both individual and en masse People believed in other gods before they began to worship Jehovah. Christianity started out among Jews who felt that their old religion has been superseded by the new one, and millions of pagans of different hues embraced it too. Mithraism is said by some to have been a "rehearsal" for Christianity. Islam also grew up from Judaism, Christianity and sundry pagan beliefs. Religions evolved and changed to reflect changing beliefs. Human sacrifice, for example, no longer occurs, because volcanoes no longer hold gods who need to be bought off. The Mormons represent a more recent evolution; Scientology another.

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.

And finally,



... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang, a supremely massive singularity came into existence from nowhere by bursting into equally massive amounts of matter and anti-matter (and, presumably, energy and an equivalent amount of anti-energy). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a magician's conjuring trick - there would have had to be a magician and an anti-magician, of course) lots of the anti-matter disappeared so that, after it had all been annihilated again by collisions with matter, there was still enough matter and energy left behind to form the universe.

What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found. It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own. That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.

I couldnt have said it better myself MMI thank you for this wonderful post...especially the last part!