State Your Religion

[Bond]

Ironically I got the idea of a revival of the religion debate from Angrist "leaving."

I consider myself Christain these days, but I don't go to chruch and am not associated with any specific denomination of Christainity. I pretty much subscribe to everything C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060652926/ref=pd_bbs_null_1/104-1578197-1068752?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).

[KillerGremlin]

I don't know what I am these days. I do know that I don't prescribe to organized religion. I've been brought up Christian, have sat through more church than 90% of the people I know and associate with, spent at least 10 years in religious education, and am a firm believer of science. I believe that personal faith is a great thing to have. On a whole scale level, religion can be a devastating thing. Recently, I've considered myself to be more agnostic than Christian, just based on some recent personal preferences.

Hardcore religious people are annoying, and hardcore atheists can be equally as annoying. Like many things, I think faith should be an individual experience. So if you're not a believer in abortion, don’t get an abortion. But leave people alone. The greatest irony is that if you subscribe to a religion, that religion dictates what the rules are. Unless that religion dictates that you are God, and that you are the one who gets to judge people, shut up about other people's personal preferences. Let them get what they have coming on the day of their judgment.


I hope this thread spirals into a crazy religious debate. ;)

[Typhoid]

I'm nothing.
Not agnostic, not athiest.
I dont think there is a god, I dont think there isnt one.


One day, I shall start praying to Zeus, however.

Nobody prays to Zeus anymore.

What if Zues is the god? Wouldn't he be pissed off that nobody worships him anymore?

I plan on it.

[KillerGremlin]

Zeus was the man, he had sex with everybody.

[Dyne]

I'm United (It's like, Christianity-Lite) but I was baptized Lutheran.

[GameMaster]

Can we get a poll?

Christian- Disciples of Christ

I'm one of those people who only attends at Easter and Christmas, and even that has been neglected.

[BlueFire]

Ironically I got the idea of a revival of the religion debate from Angrist "leaving."[/url].

*ahem* ;)

I'm nothing.
Not agnostic, not athiest.
I dont think there is a god, I dont think there isnt one.
Wouldn't that put you under being an agnostic? You know.. the whole apathetic agnostic... Yeah, I think so. O.o



As for me, I have a weird set of beliefs. I was raised Catholic and I wasn't very fond of it. I believe that there is a god. Sometimes it just seems undeniable that he exists. I think humans have a spiritual nature and decide whether they want to keep it or not.. blah blah. I think Jesus was an amazing man but I can't really decide if he's the son of God.
I think Buddhism makes a lot of sense.. but to me it's more of a way of life than a religion. I'm not very decisive about religion.. but I doubt many people are. But I think religion/spirituality is amazing and I love reading about it.

PS: I abhor church.

[Teuthida]

Er, hmm. Jewish I suppose, though I don't practice or pray or celebrate any holidays. One parent was Protestant but lucky me wasn't brought up with any knowledge of that and completely missed out on Christmas. I've studied Zen Buddhism a good deal and probably more knowledgable in that than anything else. Pretty much examined all faiths and I pick and choose whatever sounds good to my ears. I refuse to pray to any higher power though. I'm with KillerGremlin on the hardcore people. No matter the faith I cannot stand those who blindly follow their sect, and especially those who impose it on others.

[KillerGremlin]

The Bible is a sweet book. It's up there with Tolkien's world. Fantastic literature, everyone should read it. Religious or not.

[Typhoid]

Wouldn't that put you under being an agnostic? You know.. the whole apathetic agnostic... Yeah, I think so. O.o


I meant in the sense that religion takes up none of my life whatsoever, so it holds no merit to me. I dont like labels as it is, I think they're tacky, and just demean the majority of society, however since religion is nothing to me, I give myself no title.

I dont see why religious folk give non-religious folk a catagory. Can we not just be ourselves? Why catagorize us for demeaning by other groups, just because some groups are in bad light from others?


So I dont believe in your imagionary friend. Whoop-de-doo. There are tons of religions. Why not pick on the ones that are stating other giant imagionary people exist and are better than yours, other than harping the people who believe there arent any.

And none of that was personal towards you, except the first chunk. Sorry if you took it that way.

[Jonbo298]

I have no set religion. I don't want to conform myself around something that isn't proven legitimate. I have my own little bits and pieces I believe in but there's no way you'll get me to conform my life and my beliefs around something else that I don't feel is even remotely right.

[BlueFire]

I meant in the sense that religion takes up none of my life whatsoever, so it holds no merit to me. I dont like labels as it is, I think they're tacky, and just demean the majority of society, however since religion is nothing to me, I give myself no title.

Heh, I was just naming what I thought I saw. I'm very lax about religion and I don't ever push my beliefs (whatever they tend to be) on anyone. However, the funny thing about your comment is the fact that the "non-religious" people tend to label themselves.
When I visited Seattle last month, there was a fair going on. Seattle Atheists had a booth up and I was kinda dumbfounded. I mean.. They had a newsletter and brochures. I just didn't get it. What are they advertising? The fact they don't believe in anything.. It just sounded dumb.
Their motto was: "SEATTLE ATHEISTS: A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION". It was odd. Wouldn't atheists not want to parade around like that?

[manasecret]

Heh, I was just naming what I thought I saw. I'm very lax about religion and I don't ever push my beliefs (whatever they tend to be) on anyone. However, the funny thing about your comment is the fact that the "non-religious" people tend to label themselves.
When I visited Seattle last month, there was a fair going on. Seattle Atheists had a booth up and I was kinda dumbfounded. I mean.. They had a newsletter and brochures. I just didn't get it. What are they advertising? The fact they don't believe in anything.. It just sounded dumb.
Their motto was: "SEATTLE ATHEISTS: A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION". It was odd. Wouldn't atheists not want to parade around like that?

The way I see it, until the world has no religion (which I think is never), then atheism might as well be a religion, too. It's the religion of believing in the greatness of mankind by itself, without any heavenly help or non-help.

[Typhoid]

Heh, I was just naming what I thought I saw. I'm very lax about religion and I don't ever push my beliefs (whatever they tend to be) on anyone. However, the funny thing about your comment is the fact that the "non-religious" people tend to label themselves.
When I visited Seattle last month, there was a fair going on. Seattle Atheists had a booth up and I was kinda dumbfounded. I mean.. They had a newsletter and brochures. I just didn't get it. What are they advertising? The fact they don't believe in anything.. It just sounded dumb.
Their motto was: "SEATTLE ATHEISTS: A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION". It was odd. Wouldn't atheists not want to parade around like that?


I think that would just be to piss off the religious people.

I dont think anyone is that stupid.

[Jason1]

I was raised Catholic, although very loosely, as I never went to Cathloic school or anything like that. I very seldom go to Church anymore, and I cant say I really agree with a lot about the Cathloic religion. But if anyone asks, I still say im Catholic.

[BlueFire]

I think that would just be to piss off the religious people.


lmao, I don't think so. Seattle is liberal city. The booth wasn't really popular.. because.. well, I guess it was kind of boring. Really plain looking.

The other funny sight was the pro-life booth which was virtually empty and the Planned Parenthood booth (which was 2 booths away) with a heavy crowd. :D

[Bond]

I picked up this book today:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/074324785X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Of course we can never really answer the question of whether God exists. And of course it would have been highly unlikely for Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis to discuss this question in person, considering that they were born in different countries and a generation apart. Nonetheless, The Question of God allows readers to listen in on one of the most articulate debates possible by creating a virtual meeting of Freud and Lewis. For the past 25 years, Armand M. Nicholi has taught a similar course at Harvard, where he compares Freud’s atheist-based reasoning against the atheist-turned-believer C.S. Lewis. Both men were considered brilliant, highly educated thinkers who profoundly influenced 20th-century thought. And both men presented compelling arguments for and against the existence of God.

At the core is Freud’s assertion that God is a figment of the imagination (more accurately, God is an outcome of our deep-seated need for protection, stemming from the helplessness of early childhood). Lewis, on the other hand, did not see the belief in a higher power as a childish need for comfort. In fact, he wrote, "rendering back one's will which we have so long claimed for our own, is, in itself, extremely painful. To surrender a self-will inflamed and swollen with years of usurpation is a kind of death." Nicholi never take sides. Instead he gives both men a chance to eloquently answer the big questions of humanity: why is there suffering? What should be our guiding belief? How do we form a moral compass? Surprisingly, this debate turns out to be a fascinating page-turner, with most of the credit going to Nicholi. Because he understands these men's arguments so well and respects their beliefs so thoroughly, believers could begin to have doubts and atheists could start to wonder. Regardless of where you ultimately land on the question of God, this stellar book will deeply enrich your understanding of humanity.

[Neo]

Just for fun allow me to summarize the Religion v Science debate.


Originally, religion told us the Bible was the literal truth and that we were at the center of the universe. The first two humans, Adam and Eve, were materialized out of thin air.

Then came Galileo who theorized that the sun was at the center of the solar system, and the earth revolved around it. Oops! Bad choice. The church quickly put him to death.

After the evidence finally became too great the church caved and said "okay okay, earth isn't at the center. But God still created man and the stars are tiny lights hanging from the ceiling of heaven." Of course they eventually lost the star debate as well.

Then came evolution which the church also denounced. But eventually after overwhelming evidence they said "okay okay, evolution exists but it was guided by God." Okay....

Then came near death experiences. Finally! Evidence of the afterlife! Ah but then scientists were able to reproduce this effect in the lab, showing it to be biological in origin. "okay okay", said the church, "maybe it's not a mystical experience. Though what you've found is simply the the physical mechanism though which God works." Wholly unecessary, but whatever...

Then the church said "many people can FEEL God inside them, we know God exists because we can tell the spirit is in us." Oops, wrong again. Turns out those are hormones. New studies show that a person's tendency to be religious is linked to a certain area of the brain. The more developed is this area of the brain, the more likely the person is to have a sense of a higher power or a belief in a supreme being. It's a survival characteristic. "Okay okay" says the church, "maybe it's not the spirit in us. But it is the physical mechanism that God uses to let us know his presence."

Do you see a pattern here? Religion has been on a constant retreat from science and will continue to be in the future. The fact is that science doesn't need God to explain the existence of this universe or anything in it. There are even theories about why there is something (anything at all) rather than nothing. No they are not complete, but they give a glimpse into the kind of understanding that is possible through science (specifically physics). God is continually being pushed to the side and is becoming less and less necessary for explaining this world.

I maintain that if you put a universe with God (as the Christians personify him) next to a universe without God, you would not be able to tell the difference between the two.

Now before you label me as an atheist or an agnostic, know that I'm not saying God does not exist (I have my own beliefs in this area). I actually hope that a personal God does exist. Afterall who wouldn't want that? Nobody wants to die. We all want to live forever and be reunited with our loved ones. Unfortunately wishing for something doesn't make it so, and we must guard against our desire to believe in something just because it is comforting to us. I am desperately looking for a way to make it true.

[Professor S]

I am a Deist, meaining I believe in one God, not unlike many of my nation's founding fathers.

Now as we see this topic wildly turning off course into a pro-religion vs. anti-religion slime fest (yet again, I swear Bond makes these just to rile people up), I will simply broach one question: Why do science and religion have to be separate and divisive? I mean, they are really alike in most ways.

Most of science's facts are in actuality theories, which we accept on faith. Yes, it is faith in man's empirical knowledge of the subject, but it still unproven. Just like religion.

Many of science's real facts and "rules" have been disproven on numerous occassions, yet we don't throw them out. EX. Electrons jump levels at times and places where it defies the laws of physics... the laws of physics... yet we still recognize them even though they are not absolute.

Personally, I think it is the peak of arrogance to just throw away one theory of the univers that has been tested by faith and number over thousands of years for science that is both young and constantly correcting itself for its constant errors. But then again, I guess that requires a different kind of faith, so its all the same really.

[Typhoid]

Yes, it is faith in man's empirical knowledge of the subject, but it still unproven. Just like religion.


I dont know about you, but I've seen the chain of evolution. I can piece it together, I can see how it works and how it makes sense. I've never seen two people materialize out of thin air.



And I've never understood why there are so many religions. Surely, each God is the god, so why does the rest of the world not worship him/her/it/them as well?

Can a god not just "rule" a certain section of the planet? Much like a president.

In a sense what I'm trying to get across here would be like telling an army of ants that we cut the world up into sections and let a handful of people dictate that region, if you get what I'm saying.

[Neo]

You're definitely right about science. Physics will tell you nothing about truth - Instead it provides models to describe and predict the behavior of the world. Occasionally new evidence will emerge which will make us alter or discard certain theories. That is the beauty of science and what sets it apart from religion. Science changes as our understanding of the world increases, whereas religion remains static. Scientists are often accused of being closed-minded, but I maintain that they are the most open-minded of individuals because they are willing to change their beliefs and alter their theories based on new evidence. Religious people tend to hold on to their beliefs and rationalize away any evidence to the contrary.

While there of course scientists who are close-minded, a true scientist is one who is willing to grow. For example, while they may be 99% sure that Relativity is a valid description of reality since it has agreed perfectly with every test ever conceived, there is still that 1% room for doubt.

Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of nature, only in contradiction to what we know of them.

[Professor S]

I dont know about you, but I've seen the chain of evolution. I can piece it together, I can see how it works and how it makes sense. I've never seen two people materialize out of thin air.

And I've never understood why there are so many religions. Surely, each God is the god, so why does the rest of the world not worship him/her/it/them as well?

Can a god not just "rule" a certain section of the planet? Much like a president.

In a sense what I'm trying to get across here would be like telling an army of ants that we cut the world up into sections and let a handful of people dictate that region, if you get what I'm saying.

You raise some important issues and good questions. Questions are always good, especially when it comes to religion. Afterall, how deep can one's faith be if it cannot withstand an objective analysis.

1) Evolution - Yes, it is accepted to be the leading theory, but it is still a theory, regardless of common sense related observation. The "missing link", as in man's missing link in the evolutionary chain, is not the only questionable area of evolution. The most controversial area in evolution is one of the earliest in the fossil record: The jump from bacteria and virulent organisms to that of single celled. Now that might not sound like a big jump, but in terms of bio-engineering they are worlds apart in both size and complexity. There is also no evidence of a beginning of evolution. Once again, it is accepted and probably theory, but still theory. Not fact and probably never will be.

2) Number fo Religions - Yes, there are many religions, but most of them are pretty similar. Even the religions that do not prescribe to a single god have other areas in common. EX. Many theologists separate modern religions from paganism is one important area: morals are not separate from the religion. Most early "pagan" belief structures treated morals independently from the religion. To give some kind of frame of reference let me say this: If Christianity was structured like a "pagan" religion, it would be possible to murder someone, cheat on your wife, etc. and still be considered a "good Christian" as long as you loved Christ above all others. Now Catholocism technically has the "get out of jail free card" of confession, I still doubt any Catholic would consider a murderer to be a good Christian regardless of confessional visits. Catholicism also had the habit of assimillating pagan rituals into their dogma and confession may have been a moral compromise to attract converts that had trouble living up to a Christian code of morals.

3) God as Governor - This one is easy to address. Any Christian would say that God gave man free will along with the teachings of the bible. It is up to man to live up to those teachings, not up to God to impose those teachings on them. Treating God as a parent who must eventually allow his children to make their own decisions/mistakes is a common theme that goes back to Adam and Eve. And as illustrated by Adam and Eve, there are consequences when man fails to live up to God's teachings. This all harkens back to the incorporation of morals into religion. I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to with you "ants" post, but its either this or a polytheist approach that is reminiscent of pagan views of multiple Gods that anyone can choose to prescribe to.

[Bond]

(yet again, I swear Bond makes these just to rile people up),
Shhhhhhh.

Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of nature, only in contradiction to what we know of them.
So then I can say this: Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of Christianity, only in contradiction to what we know of Christianity.

[Xantar]

I don't really understand why some Christians (note: I said some Christians) feel some kind of need to have their religion explain the physical facts of life. Why do the planets circle the sun? Is it because a big mass of cosmic dust had some kind of force acting on it before it all clumped together into the sun and the planets? Or is it because God made it that way? Who knows, but the problem with the debate is that both sides, with sufficient ingenuity, can make everything fit their theory. The fundamentalist says that there is a hole in the theory and that therefore God must be involved. The scientist says that there is a hole in the theory and therefore we need to figure out a new theory. It gets nowhere.

Besides, it never seemed to me that Abrahamic religions were really very concerned with explaining the ways of the world. By their very nature, science is concerned with explaining this world that we know and religion is concerned with the other world that we can never know. The two just have nothing to do with each other. Whenever a debate like this pops up, I always wonder What Would Jesus Do. In other words, if Jesus were to suddenly walk the earth again and look around, what would his sermon be?

Would it be something to the effect of, "We have too much cruelty and lack of compassion towards our fellow man. Our lives are made poor by our pursuit of material wealth. We need to discover our spirituality and humanity again."

Or would Jesus say, "Our world is a terrible place because we believe that the world is 6 billion years old instead of 10,000"?

Somehow, I just think Jesus would find better things to talk about.

[Professor S]

So then I can say this: Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of Christianity, only in contradiction to what we know of Christianity.

I find that the confusion that Neo has over religion is pretty common, especially in young people, and most of that is the fault of those that have the strongest voices in religion. It often see that idiots like Pat Robertson get all of the press because of the outlandish things that they say, while those like Billy Graham (while respected) tend to be ignored because of their tolerant speech and belief.

Neo, you seem to think that Religion is static, and its anything but. Christianity alone has changed untold times in its brief history, but change does not neccessarily equal invalidity. Some would lead you to believe that on both sides, but not those that understand what they are discussing. Religion is no more invalidated by change than science is, and in fact its even less likely to be invalidated by change because the only evidence that religion is beholden to is one's faith.

Religion is more powerful than just what someone is religious about. Its about faith and belief, not about what God is the right one or whether or not the earth was created in 7 days. A world without God is one in which the only in which its inhabitants believe in nothing but themselves, and eventually will believe in nothing at all.

[Neo]

Shhhhhhh.


So then I can say this: Nothing happens in contradiction to the laws of Christianity, only in contradiction to what we know of Christianity.

Different kinds of laws. Laws of physics describe and predict nature, laws of religion dicate personal behavior.

I don't really understand why some Christians (note: I said some Christians) feel some kind of need to have their religion explain the physical facts of life. Why do the planets circle the sun? Is it because a big mass of cosmic dust had some kind of force acting on it before it all clumped together into the sun and the planets? Or is it because God made it that way? Who knows, but the problem with the debate is that both sides, with sufficient ingenuity, can make everything fit their theory.

That's not true. A theory is based on observable evidence. Religious notions of the beginning of life aren't "theories" at all. They're based on wishful thinking and ancient contradictory texts. And scientists do not twist the facts to fit the theory, they alter the theory to fit the facts. Religious people do not do this. And yes there are scientists which will attempt to modify facts to fit their own pet theories but on the whole that is not what science is about.


Neo, you seem to think that Religion is static, and its anything but. Christianity alone has changed untold times in its brief history, but change does not neccessarily equal invalidity. Some would lead you to believe that on both sides, but not those that understand what they are discussing. Religion is no more invalidated by change than science is, and in fact its even less likely to be invalidated by change because the only evidence that religion is beholden to is one's faith.

Religion is more powerful than just what someone is religious about. Its about faith and belief, not about what God is the right one or whether or not the earth was created in 7 days.

Religion seems to be static on all the points of consequence. There are the 10 Commandments, the story of creation, the ark story, there is salvation through Christ, and so forth. Will Christianity ever turn around and alter or renounce any of these things? Not a chance. Christianity is based on Christ afterall, and if he was ever invalidated then the whole religion would collapse. Science is not dependent on any one person or theory. Newton, Einstein, Shroedinger, they've all made contributions. Scientists thought Newton was the God of physics until Einstein created a revolution. Did physics simply go away? Of course not. It grew and adapted to the new evidence, something religion is very uncomfortable with. The only time religion really changes is when it is giving way to science.


A world without God is one in which the only in which its inhabitants believe in nothing but themselves, and eventually will believe in nothing at all.

I couldn't disagree more. As I said before there are plenty of atheists who live happy, moral lives and are excited about the future. There is no sign that they are on a path to believing nothing at all. I believe the confusion lies in the notion that a God is necessary to have a meaningful life. Meaning is a concept and only exists if you convey it onto something.


Besides, it never seemed to me that Abrahamic religions were really very concerned with explaining the ways of the world. By their very nature, science is concerned with explaining this world that we know and religion is concerned with the other world that we can never know. The two just have nothing to do with each other.


I actually disagree with this to, though I'm mainly alone with this position even among scientists. I don't believe that religion is immune to the reach of science. For example, if souls exist then they can be explained in terms of some yet undiscovered "soul particles" which can be measured and predicted. There is nothing truly paranormal or supernatural; Everything is normal and natural once we understand how it works. This is what I meant by my comment about things happening in contradiction to what we know of natural laws. Nothing is beyond the reach of physics, not even God.

/me activates heat shield

[Professor S]

I couldn't disagree more. As I said before there are plenty of atheists who live happy, moral lives and are excited about the future. There is no sign that they are on a path to believing nothing at all.

Exactly where do you think those morals came from? How bout those 10 Commandments? Your very being is ensconced in religion and you don't even realize it. Our greatest artistic achievements on the planet were born from man's love of God, not himself. We are at our best when we believe in more than ourselves. Love thy Neighbor was born from religion, not secular thought.

As for religin being static, that is up to interpretation and honestly your ideas about the modern state of religion and its arguments show a lack of knowledge on your side about what you are criticizing. EX. Creation: The Earth was Created in 7 Days. Well, how long is a day to God? If there were no days before the world was created, how were they measured? Most importantly, WHO CARES? You harp on the inconsequential and hand-picked specifics that have nothing to do with the modern religion. The 7 day adventist belief means almost noithing to the modern Christian who views the whole of the message and applies it to their belief.

By your logic the Mona Lisa is a horrible painting because the bitch ain't got no eyebrows.

You see the loud minority fringe of fundamentalists and then paint the entire religion that way because that is how you WANT to see religion, but you ignore the majority of Christian's beliefs and even the religions most ancient interpretations which saw the Bible a book of moral parables. I really recommend you do more research into an area that you feel so strongly about and try and look at it objectively. You are letting your dislike, and even anger at religion cloud your judgement. I'm not saying you convert to a believer of any religion, but to not see the value of religion is just absurd and shows a faulire to see the world through a large view.

FYI: I used Christianity as an example here because it is a great example of a large modern religion, not because it is my religion. It is not, I just think Jesus was a hell of a philospher.

[Neo]

Exactly where do you think those morals came from? How bout those 10 Commandments? Your very being is ensconced in religion and you don't even realize it.

No, morality is a survival characteristic which was created through evolution. It's in our best interest not to kill others so we don't have to worry about them killing or hurting us. The ten commandments were a result of these tendencies, not the other way around.


You see the loud minority fringe of fundamentalists and then paint the entire religion that way because that is how you WANT to see religion, but you ignore the majority of Christian's beliefs and even the religions most ancient interpretations which saw the Bible a book of moral parables. I really recommend you do more research into an area that you feel so strongly about and try and look at it objectively. You are letting your dislike, and even anger at religion cloud your judgement. I'm not saying you convert to a believer of any religion, but to not see the value of religion is just absurd and shows a faulire to see the world through a large view.


More people have died because of religious hatred than for any other reason. How's that for value? I agree it is a book of moral parables, but that doesn't change the static nature of religion. And how am I hand-picking specifics? The things I mentioned are all CRITICAL aspects of religion and have not changed. What important aspects of religion do you think have changed over the years, other than those that have changed due to the pressure of rational scientific thinking? I'm not taunting here, I genuinely would like to know. Maybe you're right and I'm not being objective. I can admit that.

Jesus was a hell of a philospher.

I agree with this too. He had several good ideas which I believe do have value. It's all the other things that go along with it that I have a problem with.

[Professor S]

No, morality is a survival characteristic which was created through evolution. It's in our best interest not to kill others so we don't have to worry about them killing or hurting us. The ten commandments were a result of these tendencies, not the other way around.

I do not agree at all and honestly history doesn;t agree with you either. Look up the history of religions and morality and how they relate to one another. Look up how advanced man was before they were combined and advanced through religion. This idea that the morals that we hold dear today would exist without religion is a complete fabrication.

More people have died because of religious hatred than for any other reason. How's that for value? I agree it is a book of moral parables, but that doesn't change the static nature of religion. And how am I hand-picking specifics? The things I mentioned are all CRITICAL aspects of religion and have not changed. What important aspects of religion do you think have changed over the years, other than those that have changed due to the pressure of rational scientific thinking? I'm not taunting here, I genuinely would like to know. Maybe you're right and I'm not being objective. I can admit that.

I think you aren't being objective and thats whats keeping you from seeing the big picture. I'm not here to absolve religion of any of its wrong-doings, but I'm not going to let those wrong-doings blind me the the mountain of benefits religion has blessed humanity with. And by benefits, I mean CIVILIZATION. Religion was the first ever tie that bound man together beyond family and immediate tribe. It allowed for people to relate to one another and create bonds. You claim how religion has killed so many people, I see how very likely most of us wouldn't be here without it. Also, your opinion that science has been the leading force in religious changes is rediculous. The leading force has always been assimillation. Catholics don't follow ritual because of physics. It was because they wanted to "save" other peoples.

I'm also shocked that you don't realize your own religious tendencies in your posts. Your absolute faith is science to answer all questions smacks more of religion that empiricism.

I'll leave you with this little idea. If you are going to continue with the argument that religion does not exist because of inconsistencies in its practice and dogma, then I'll make this absolute statement of fact:

Since the level changing of electrons in many atoms defies all scientific laws that we know, and those laws are considered hard facts and we base all of atomic theory on them, the fact that they defy those laws means that the atom doesn't exist. There are no atoms now. But wait, don't there have to be atoms? Then what are we touching? Well, who knows, but we do know since atoms don't make any sense anymore because of a minor contradiction. They don't exist anymore. We don't exist. I'm not writing this right now.

Chew on it, its delicious.

Neo, you do not understand faith and its immense power for good as well as evil. All you see is evil because you've never cared to examine the good. Until you do, you will never understand religion or really understand why you are so angry at it.

[Bond]

*cough*Mere Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060652926/qid=1152323408/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1578197-1068752?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)*cough*

[Neo]

then I'll make this absolute statement of fact:


If you think that is a fact then you need lessons in quantum physics.

Since the level changing of electrons in many atoms defies all scientific laws that we know,

Electrons change levels in all atoms, not just many. And they defy no scientific laws. Please name a single law you think is being violated. I have a degree in physics so I at least think I know what I'm talking about, but I would definitely like to know in case I was asleep in class that day.



and those laws are considered hard facts and we base all of atomic theory on them, the fact that they defy those laws means that the atom doesn't exist.

Are you kidding me?


There are no atoms now. But wait, don't there have to be atoms? Then what are we touching? Well, who knows, but we do know since atoms don't make any sense anymore because of a minor contradiction. They don't exist anymore. We don't exist. I'm not writing this right now.

I never said religion doesn't exist. Of course it exists. It's ridiculous to say that a lack of understanding = nonexistence. And no that is not the same thing as saying God doesn't exist because we don't understand him. We don't understand God because it's completely illogical and unnecessary. And even though the exact mechanism of quantum leaping may not be completely understood, that doesn't mean it never will be understood. There are quantum physical theories dealing with this anyway. And science is NOT a faith. To say so means you don't understand how science works at all. Science is means of objectively gathering evidence and then generating models based on those theories. Religion is about blind adherence to an invisible man who lives in the sky for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

You need to do some research yourself before you start claiming things as absolute fact.

Science is also about repeatibility. If we get the same result over and over then we conclude that our current models seem to provide an accurate description of reality. We believe the results but that's not the same thing as faith. Faith is belief without rational thought or evidence. And even if a model is supported by evidence, that doesn't mean that I have 100% "faith" in it. There is always room for doubt. In religion there is no doubt. You either believe or you disbelieve.


I do not agree at all and honestly history doesn;t agree with you either. Look up the history of religions and morality and how they relate to one another. Look up how advanced man was before they were combined and advanced through religion. This idea that the morals that we hold dear today would exist without religion is a complete fabrication.

Man truly started to advance with onset of science. I may concede to you though that religion jump-started man's interest in morality. It definitely had an impact on our society. But I also believe we will outgrow it eventually.


Neo, you do not understand faith and its immense power for good as well as evil. All you see is evil because you've never cared to examine the good. Until you do, you will never understand religion or really understand why you are so angry at it.

I understand it quite well, thank you. Of course religion has done some good. A thing is rarely wholly good or bad. What is sad is that people feel they need this emotional crutch to be happy. The truth is they don't. It's a psychological prison from which man needs to escape before they will be truly free. I'm not being angry, though I sense much anger from you. Everything you said about me I could easily say about yourself.

[Professor S]

I never said religion doesn't exist. Of course it exists. It's ridiculous to say that a lack of understanding = nonexistence. And no that is not the same thing as saying God doesn't exist because we don't understand him. We don't understand God because it's completely illogical and unnecessary. And even though the exact mechanism of quantum leaping may not be completely understood, that doesn't mean it never will be understood. There are quantum physical theories dealing with this anyway. And science is NOT a faith. To say so means you don't understand how science works at all. Science is means of objectively gathering evidence and then generating models based on those theories. Religion is about blind adherence to an invisible man who lives in the sky for which there is absolutely zero evidence.

This is where you lose me in your arguments. You are so convinced that science holds tha answers to everything you put all your faith in it, but cannot even imagine putting faith into God. Its just mindboggling that as a scientist you would completely disregard one thoery out of hand because you don't understand it.

You say there is no evidence of God's existence. I sa the proof is all around you and as a scientist you deal with His proof daily. You want evidence, when any proof of God would destroy him. Proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing. The fact you want empirical evidence shows that you don't enderstand the philisophical basics religion.

As for the example you wanted, you gave it to me. Electrons jump levels when according to the laws of science they can only exist on a level. So if they can only exist on a level, how do they move levels without ceasing to exist? Is there a finite time or space they travel through? There are theories and conjecture as to how this happens, but in the end there is no proof. You accept that there is a scientific explanation on faith. You accept that we will find the link between bacteria and single celled organisms on faith.

Why can't you just even consider God as an option? The more I've learned about science and physics the more my faith in God has beened re-affirmed. You can't explain religion, but you can't disprove it, just as the more scientific knowledge we gain, the more questions we discover on a daily basis. And even if science can discover more and more information, does that mean that God dosn't exist? How can you simply eliminate God out of hand? Its rediculous. And with that I bid this argument adeu, as I'm starting to repeat myself.

EDIT: Found this explanation Q&A about level jumping.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=18923

If this isn't close to being religious faith in something, I have no idea what is. One theory is that electrons cease to exist on one level and then just exist on another. If this is true, I see no better "proof" of the existence of God than that.

[Teuthida]

This reminds me of that vid where Kirk Cameron and another fellow disprove evolution by asking misinformed college students questions resulting in unsure answers and sitting down to dinner with an orangutan who's lack of table manners proved that humans never evolved from a lower primate.

Why can't everyone just believe what they want? You can't prove God exists to anyone but yourself. And what we know through science changes day by day. I doubt either of you are going to change the other's mind.

[Neo]

This is where you lose me in your arguments. You are so convinced that science holds tha answers to everything you put all your faith in it, but cannot even imagine putting faith into God. Its just mindboggling that as a scientist you would completely disregard one thoery out of hand because you don't understand it.

Strangely enough I do consider God to be an option, though I know no one would ever be able to tell that from what I said. You may not believe me when I say this but I really hope that you are right and there is a God of some kind. There are in fact a few quantum physical theories floating around which support the existence of a God or universal consciousness of some kind. They’re not completely fleshed out and aren’t backed yet by hard math, but the potential is there. See The Spiritual Universe (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966132718/sr=8-1/qid=1152336821/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9330198-0199309?ie=UTF8) by Fred Alan Wolf. Some reviewers feel the book is too technical, but I think it provides something religion is lacking in that it tries to provide a quantum physical basis for the soul and for the existence of God. I’m not saying I think he has everything completely figured out but it does demonstrate what a powerful tool physics can be.


This is the only way I know how to believe in God. I can’t just make myself do it out of faith. Every time I try I get these nagging doubts in the back of my mind like “that’s not evidence of design, that’s an example of a well-adapted DNA pattern” or “that’s not God I’m feeling, it’s a chemical reaction within my body.” Even if an angel materialized in front of me I would probably search around for a holographic projector. If there isn't one then I would notice that the angel is obviously emitting photons of light which my brain is interpreting as electrical signals, so the angel must be composed of electrons which generate the photons therefore it is physical in origin. You see what I mean?


The fact you want empirical evidence shows that you don't enderstand the philisophical basics religion.


Quite possible. I took a philosophy of religion course once but it was really a history class. I don't know how God would react to me asking for quantifiable evidence of existence. Would he be glad I am inquisitive, or would he be sad that I can't just have faith in him?


As for the example you wanted, you gave it to me. Electrons jump levels when according to the laws of science they can only exist on a level. So if they can only exist on a level, how do they move levels without ceasing to exist? Is there a finite time or space they travel through?


The honest answer is I don't know. My personal belief is that it is related to holographic models of existence based on new research which shows that the information contained within a black hole is proportional to its surface are, not its volume. That's a fancy way of saying the information of the 3D object (black hole) is contained on a 2D surface (event horizon), just like a hologram. Now holographic plates have the curious property that if you smash them into tiny bits, you can shine a laser though any fragment and reproduce the whole image. In other words the information of the whole object is contained within every point on the plate. We would never know that from looking at the hologram. To us it looks as though the hologram has height, width, and length, when in reality that's just an illusion. There are a few physicists who think our universe might operate in a similar fashion. So an electron doesn't really jump from level to level over a physical distance since on the holographic plate of reality the electron hasn't really moved at all.

Same would be true for the spooky "action at a distance" scenario where two particles created together and sent off in opposite directions always seem to know what each other is doing. If one particle is flipped to spin-up, then the other particle immediately becomes spin-down, though no information has passed between them (as this would violate relativity). This seems impossible unless you think of the world as a giant hologram. While to us it appears as though the particles are separated by a great distance, on a 2D holographic surface they're actually right on top of each other.


There are theories and conjecture as to how this happens, but in the end there is no proof. You accept that there is a scientific explanation on faith.

I suppose that's true depending on your definition of faith. I have faith an explanation will be found since physics has provided me with so many good explanations for other phenomena.


You accept that we will find the link between bacteria and single celled organisms on faith.


Biology was never my forte so I really can't comment on that. It would seem more logical to me that a physical rather than divine mechanism will eventually be found based on the past successes of evolutionary biology, but I am rather ignorant of how those things develop.


And even if science can discover more and more information, does that mean that God dosn't exist?


Not at all. I would say that more we learn about the world the less we need to fall back on the "well God made it that way" explanation but no it certainly doesn't prove God doesn't exist.


How can you simply eliminate God out of hand? Its rediculous.


As a scientist you're right I can't eliminate God. I can build a case for or against him, but I can never fully eliminate anything.


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=18923

If this isn't close to being religious faith in something, I have no idea what is. One theory is that electrons cease to exist on one level and then just exist on another. If this is true, I see no better "proof" of the existence of God than that.

Yeah that's probably more in line with the Copenhagen interpretation, which is really less of an interpretation and more of a "don't ask don't tell" policy. Physicists who subscribe to Copenhagen (and it is a majority of them) view these events purely in terms of statistical mathematics and say that it's meaningless to ask how for example a particle can be in two places at once. I think what happens is that students of physics study the philosophical implications until they get headaches at which time they simply stop thinking about as they're not able to get anywhere, save for the ones I mentioned doing the black hole research. There are tons of books on the metaphysical interpretations of quantum physics but that topic is beyond the scope of this post. In the world of quantum physics probability is treated as a real "thing" which can be described by equations. It really is quite bizarre but extremely interesting at the same time.

[KillerGremlin]

I was born and raised Catholic. I have been going to church for many, many years. And, as I child, I absorbed faith with little care. Eventually, I reached a point where I lost a lot of faith, I didn't feel that my life had any particular purpose and I didn't understand how faith or spirituality could possibly exist in a world so cruel and empty. Well, in the past 2 or 3 years I have slowly felt a gradual awakening to life and faith. I have met someone, and I have felt what I believe is true love and compassion. I have also gotten older, and in the past few months I have began to contemplate my mortality and my life.

I come from a fairly strong foundation in science. Based on what I have learned and have seen, it appears that things like evolution do hold truths. Also, it seems that the earth is easily older than 6000 years. However, as Xantar pointed out, I'm not sure how important these facts are in reference to the bible. Nowhere in the bible does it spell out that the earth is 6000 years old, it has just been conjectured based on the dates in the bible.

I've tried to incorporate some philosophies and thoughts into my search.

One philosophical path I am having trouble coping with is the purpose of life. Let's say the only purpose of life is to eat, sleep, reproduce and die. Then why do humans feel compassion and love? Why do we have the feelings that we have, why do we question life? Some argue that our fear of death is evolutions greatest defense mechanism against death, but I disagree. I feel that if our place in life was soley to eat, sleep, reproduce, die, and evolve; I feel that there would be no need for compassion, love, or any of that.

My biggest flaw is that much like Neo I feel that I need to find evidence. I guess that completely nullifies the point of faith. And, in my mind the evidence is there. We have historical figures and prophets; people like Moses, Abraham and Jesus. And that is a definitive start.

I don't buy into Near Death Experiences, as it has been hypothesized and will most likely be proven that right before death your penal gland secretes large amounts of DMT. DMT is a powerful psychoactive substance, and it has been suggested that it is responsible for the things people have seen during NDEs.

One thing is for certain however; I feel that modern science, and especially physicists are walking a fine line between knowledge and arrogance. I believe it is the height of human arrogance to assume any definitive answer as to why the universe is. Quantum mechanics has been offered as an explanation as to how we think and why a planet with life could exist amid such chaos. They even have theories as to what happened when Time < 0, or before the big bang. Apparently some scientists hypothesize that there are multiple universes, and that they collide, and that all sorts of zany shit happens ever few billions or trillions of years. And, to that I ask, "Why? How?"

Science is the study of how things work. With science, we can analyze systems and based on how that system behaves we can establish a set of rules for analyzes future systems. However, science has yet to answer the "why."

Either way, I won't know and you won't know until it happens. And when it happens we may or may not know. But for me, these past few years have been a sort of spiritual awakening, and I'm starting to find faith in God again.

Maybe my search will last me till my final days on earth, and maybe it will only last me for a few years. But I hope that I can make peace with life sooner than later.

[Renwood]

Something happened. More than that is loud conjecture.

[KillerGremlin]

Something happened. More than that is loud conjecture.

Care to elaborate? :p

[Combine 017]

I loathe Christianity, and I have no religion. I believe in evolution, not so much that humans came from a pile of goo in the ground, just that things evolve and adapt. Natural selection is the way to go, except I believe in that to harshly.

[KillerGremlin]

I loathe Christianity, and I have no religion. I believe in evolution, not so much that humans came from a pile of goo in the ground, just that things evolve and adapt. Natural selection is the way to go, except I believe in that to harshly.

What do you believe happens when you die? And, would you be content with "nothing." Although, the term "nothing" is in fact just a word used to describe a human perception that does not exist.

[Renwood]

Care to elaborate? :p

The living brain cannot comprehend the non-living brain, though it may think it can.

[BlueFire]

I loathe Christianity, and I have no religion. I believe in evolution, not so much that humans came from a pile of goo in the ground, just that things evolve and adapt. Natural selection is the way to go, except I believe in that to harshly.

Not to sound like I'm in the defense of Christianity here, but evolution isn't a religion and there are plenty of Christians who think evolution is correct, despite what is said in the Bible.


Since this topic has been revived, I find myself in the same situation (although maybe not. I just glanced at my old post). Maybe I put off examining faith.. I don't know. After I read "Fear and Trembling" by Kierkegaard, I was really influenced by some of the things that man said on faith. Of course, I don't hold such extreme views... however, I hope one day I'm able to make peace with life and with faith.

I feel my other yearning for faith and religion is really just a need for something after death. It's strange this topic has been revived at this time, because you could say I've been having an interesting couple of days. On Friday, my dog that I've had since I was 9 was put down in front of me. It was truly a painful experience and I'm not entirely over it yet. This pain of loss is just so unreal at times, I can't even believe it's actually happened. Also, a sort of friend/acquaintance of mine is going through a tough time. His brother committed suicide on Friday. Needless to say, my friends and I talk and death has been on our mind. The idea of everything just stopping... all loss of feeling, sensation, consciousness. This is something our minds cannot comprehend. As it stands, I really hope there is life after death. But do I believe it? I don't know... I just wish it exists. Life could seem bleak and almost pointless. Of course, people move past this, either by forgetting about one's mortality or accepting the notion of an afterlife. There are also people who just accept death as a part of life. Regardless, it's still a scary thought.

I have a hard time admitting it to myself, but I sort of believe there is a higher being. I just can't say much more than that.

[Combine 017]

What do you believe happens when you die? And, would you be content with "nothing." Although, the term "nothing" is in fact just a word used to describe a human perception that does not exist.

Yeah i'd be content with "nothing". None of that Heaven/Hell stuff. Or maybe something like; when you die you believe in what you want to happen and your put into that situation. Such as going to heaven, or in my case, going to the Half-Life universe. :D

[KillerGremlin]

Not to sound like I'm in the defense of Christianity here, but evolution isn't a religion and there are plenty of Christians who think evolution is correct, despite what is said in the Bible.


Since this topic has been revived, I find myself in the same situation (although maybe not. I just glanced at my old post). Maybe I put off examining faith.. I don't know. After I read "Fear and Trembling" by Kierkegaard, I was really influenced by some of the things that man said on faith. Of course, I don't hold such extreme views... however, I hope one day I'm able to make peace with life and with faith.

I feel my other yearning for faith and religion is really just a need for something after death. It's strange this topic has been revived at this time, because you could say I've been having an interesting couple of days. On Friday, my dog that I've had since I was 9 was put down in front of me. It was truly a painful experience and I'm not entirely over it yet. This pain of loss is just so unreal at times, I can't even believe it's actually happened. Also, a sort of friend/acquaintance of mine is going through a tough time. His brother committed suicide on Friday. Needless to say, my friends and I talk and death has been on our mind. The idea of everything just stopping... all loss of feeling, sensation, consciousness. This is something our minds cannot comprehend. As it stands, I really hope there is life after death. But do I believe it? I don't know... I just wish it exists. Life could seem bleak and almost pointless. Of course, people move past this, either by forgetting about one's mortality or accepting the notion of an afterlife. There are also people who just accept death as a part of life. Regardless, it's still a scary thought.

I have a hard time admitting it to myself, but I sort of believe there is a higher being. I just can't say much more than that.

To me, it seems odd that something as natural as death could be the subject of so much thought and conjecture. If anything, that seems to me to be an indication that we should give it some thought and that we should embrace it with some joy, and that it is part of this mystical journey through life. Maybe something wonderful awaits at the end of the tunnel, maybe our thoughts will span out infinitely and we will exist as memories, recalling past experiences and seeing loved ones. And maybe, we will not be aware as we were before we were born. Regardless, as someone who grew up reading the Bible and going to church, I feel that there are many good things to take from the Bible and the preachings of Jesus. Christianity may have been skewed over the past 2000 years, especially during the 1400 and 1500s, but I feel that by removing faith from my life I have bruised my soul. I'm still finding my footing with religion, I do not approve of a lot of things organized religion has done, but at it's root I feel the intentions are good. Or at least they were, until people started using religion to push their own motives and philosophies on people.

Anyway....good times, good times.