As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Thank God for lol s.

He's simply using your own logic against you. Theists tend to say that complexity requires a cause, and then provide their own complex cause as a "solution", yet they forget that they simply provided another agent where we'll have to ask what caused it. If complexity requires a designer, then a complex cause must have a complex cause must have a complex cause etc.

An analogy is a math problem where students are trying to figure out what X is. The theists rush in to say X=Y, convinced that they have provided the definite solution. Ok, what is Y then? Doesn't take long before everyone in the class realizes that they haven't moved an inch closer to a solution.




You're presenting a false dichotomy. Fact is that we don't know what was before the Big Bang (or if "before" is even appropriate to use). You can't say "it's either this or that" when no being on this planet have the foggiest idea about what was "before" the singularity.

Peter

I thought Steven said that we would have "no pussyfooting around this issue"

While I've considered participating more lively in the debate, I think I'd just be making a lot of points which have already been made. And I'm sure I will, in the following, which is also why this post is going to be my first, last and only post in this topic.

Firstly, just to set the record straight, I'd be in the Thor-category (as in the Thor who's posting on this board, not as in "I worship ancient Norse gods"). That is: I consider myself a liberal Christian. Some would say a very liberal Christian, since I have premarital sex, smoke, drink and curse. I also support the right to abortion and advocate stem cell research.

Secondly, I believe that if there is a God (which I can neither prove nor disprove), my personal belief if that he or she is rather more forgiving and tolerant than the men who wrote down the Bible would have him or her be (speaking of the men who wrote down The Bible, the misogynist Paul is a good example of a man I wouldn't like to meet). Of course, I can't prove or disprove that either which means that if there is a God, and I'm wrong, I'm fucked. (Which reminds me of the hilarious Rowan Atkinson-sketch where he portrays the Devil: "Atheists, atheists overhere. Yes, this must be a nasty surprise for you" - or something along those lines.

Thirdly, while I have great respect for religious people in general (several of my very good friends are theologians, and one is even a priest (and by the way my priest friend is a SHE), I do not respect religious people who read The Bible (or other religious texts) literally. As in "Earth is only 6000 years old". PLEASE, people. Pretty please with sugar on top. Science clearly says that isn't the case.

One creationist reply, which had me rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off, was that God had put dinosaur fossils where they are (i.e. in geological strata which are millions of years old) in order to confuse us. Can't see much sense in that. If you're God and you want people to believe in you, why give them extra reason to doubt. Even politicians wouldn't be this stupid. So please, people. Science tells us that Earth is billions of years old, and - as has been said earlier - The Bible's contention that it is not, and that Earth was created in 6 days can safely be read as metaphor.

Fourthly, I'm struck by the irony that seriously religious people reap the benefits of science on a daily basis, but when it comes to evolution or other scientific facts which put their religion in doubt, they go completely apes****. I just can't take that seriously, folks. Sorry. Just can't.

Being a scientist myself (and an archaeologist, so I know for a fact there were people in what is now Denmark 12,000 years ago), what I respect are serious discussions based on theories that are continually renegotiated and adjusted, proved or refuted.

Since I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God (or a God), I'm not going to argue that he doesn't exist, because I simply can't prove that. But I can prove that some of the things that The Bible says are plainly wrong. Which suggests to me that if you want to believe, and not fall into the group of people who put their hands over their ears and go "la-la-la-la-la-I-don't-wan't-to-hear-this" every time real science, e.g. evolution, comes up, then The Bible should be read metaphorically.

Do I believe Jesus lived. Sure do. Do I believe he was the son of God. I don't know. Can't do a DNA test can we? So we're back to the impossibility of proving or disproving. Sort of like with a good conspiracy theory.

So believe all that you want, that's fine by me. But do not state as fact that God exists or that Earth is only 6,000 years old or that evolution is a lie. The first cannot be known as fact. The two latter statements are not true.

Sorry if my tone is somewhat harsh, but I just needed to get this out. As liberal a country as Denmark is, we have our nutcases here, too, and as a scientist it is my obligation to speak out against what I plainly and seriously believe is ignorance. (And no, please, (and to reiterate) by calling some people ignorant I'm not targeting religion or the belief in God - I'm targeting those who read The Bible or other religious texts literally).

If only all Christians and religious people thought like you Mogens! Nice to hear your views on all of this.

I did not read through all these posts after all, but I'll say this (and may repeat someone else's words) :

I never understand discussions about science versus religion. They are not opposites. Both science and religion are limited when it comes to explaining life and existence and all. And they can go hand in hand as well.

Philosophy (whether it is considered part of science, inferior or superior to science) is limited, simply because human experience and understanding are limited. And that's all we have.

And therefore I remain agnostic, always curious but focussing on what we have here.

Oh, and people who believe a 100% in science are religious too in my opinion!!
Yes, you believe.

I actually meant science as a form of religion. People who rely 100% on science as truth revealing (as opposed to religion) have in fact a very religious view on life.

Bregje, Ravi, I understand what you mean, but for the sake of clarity in the discussion I would argue against employing the term 'religion' to anything that is NOT connected to the belief in the sacred and divine.

I agree that there are zealots connected to every single cognitive, spriritual or physical aspect of life (including, obviously, science), but to equate zealousness to religion does a disservice to both.

I'm not asking you to change your words!
I'm just slightly worried that the discussion may become confused, as Ravi's "humanity as religion" remark may indicate. When we are arguing against religion but appreciate faith (though abhor zealousness), it is pretty imperative that we use a same frame of mind and the same definitions, otherwise the discussion is moot'!
Science as religion is a concept that is completely incompatible with the points Steven, I and Peter are trying to make, hence me trying to put this into perspective.
No offense was intended.

No no no!
Please contribute!!!
The more points of view the better, and I KNOW this subject must be of interest to you in your profession!!! I am sure you must have some points to make!!

I fully appreciate that you are merely putting forward your own point of view here, Ravi, rather than make Huge Theosophical Points Of Order.
For my part, I just try to understand: could you maybe elaborate on what the idea of "humanity as religion" should entail?

I would find myself in agreement with the definition of religion as "the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the relations between human being and divinity or that what is (held to be) sacred".

That obviously wouldn't work in an equation such as you just employed, so maybe you could elaborate on what you meant?
(I think we actually may be more or less in agreement here, but I wouldn't want to presume so I'd rather I heard it from you)

QFT

I've always found it curious that people tend to use religious thinking as an insult. If a behaviour is deemed extreme and closeminded, people call it a religion. It's even more curious when religious people do it (which happens surprisingly often), as if they are subconsciously aware that they are at a disadvantage and want to bring the other side down to their own level. We see the same with the word "faith". Religious people tend to consider faith a virtue on one hand, yet they also use it as an insult towards their opponents.

Sometimes I wish I had chosen to study psychology, as I'd love to understand how people can hold such opposite beliefs, yet somehow seem blissfully unaware of it.

Peter

You did. I read your post, and although we may not hold the same beliefs (or dis-beliefs?), I can but stand in admiration and respect for the way you approach/follow your religion.

I'll come back to this thread after I've chilled a bit... long weekend in Portsmouth!

Oh I did, but I probably should have made it more clear that I've actually just came back!

Needs sleeps.