Kevin,

You misunderstand atheism. Atheists are people who do not beleive in any religion. This is not the same as 'believing in atheism.'  Lack of beliefs does not equate to a positive belief... [people who say that are] as muddle-headed as those people who call atheism a religion...it is the lack of religion.  Is scientific terms, an atheist's position on religion would be: "I have not seen or reviewed any compelling evidence to support the hypothesis of the existence of a higher power, supernatural biengs, God, Gods, Angels, Devils, and so forth. The lack of compelling evidence, combined with the lack of any logical necessity, leads me not accept the hypothesis of the existence of supernautral deities."  That is it in a nutshell:  Atheists are inclined not to believe in fairies, Santa Claus, Unicorns, or flying spagetti monsters either.  To more fully understand the logical fallacies of any and all religious beliefs, read 'Natural Atheism'.  One more thing:  Atheists do not belong to a movement, a club, a scociety, or anything like that...we are just people who are trying to make the best of our lives in the here and now in the real world.  

I find absolutely no issue or need to reconcile my Christian beliefs with the discoveries of science. I find great joy in both areas, learning more about the actual composition of the universe and its evolution and delving at the same time into the spiritual life.

Faith deals with the "why?" - science gives me a glimpse of the "how." Much of the scriptures have to do with allegory and story - care must be taken to study all background: language, practices of the period, history and archeology, the authors, etc.

For a unique treatise on the probability of God from a scientist's perspective, Stephen Unwin's "The Probability of God" makes for interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_D._Unwin

This blog seems sorely lacking in female posters!  I suppose I might remedy that.  I was intrigued by the title considering the "future of faith".  It would seem we are at some type of a turning point, having suffered through the last several years of Bushdom. Maybe it's just political backlash or discontent, but I do hope the country is able to embrace science again, and not be afraid (as it were) to question the faithful. Kudos to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for their timely and brave books.

For me, I remain agnostic.  I see God as an invention of man put to use to answer the unanswerable.  However, I do not claim to know any truths; rather to read and learn all I can and find ways best to serve my world and my family.

I don't, a la Sam Harris, find religion to always be dangerous. I read in Newsweek today about a diocese in Chicago that has partnered with the private sector to establish a very successful high school for inner-city kids.  I love this kind of work!  I don't care who does it, whether religious or not.  When someone like Rick Warren influences people to do good works and make a difference in the world, I say "Bravo", even though I may not buy their version of the ultimate payoff (heaven).
But science and our public learning institutions should not be influenced by religious faith.  Funny how we vote in a President and reps who vow to "uphold the Faith", though huh?

Anyway, just want to say to Jim that I am so sorry for your loss.  I can't imagine how heart-wrenching your decision would be.  For me, I think of all life as swirling, pulsing, masses of energy (electrons, protons, and neutrons) organized briefly into coherent systems.  I feel you helped release the energy, that was your wife, from it's broken system into the swirling, vibrant universe. Wishing you comfort,
Wendy

An interesting debate, religion vs science.  I noticed most of the debate centered around Christianity and Science,  what about the other religions?  Islam, Judiaism, Hinduism?  Or even ancient mythological beliefs.   There are so many more interesting and self explanatory reasons why science and religion could be complementary and not pitted against one another.  Why are we restricting this debate to such a limited scope?

Another thing, knowledge is very dynamic,  it is changing every day, every year, and who knows what truth we will find in another 10 or 20 or 100 years from now? Possibly God may exist,  or that many more gods may exist who each have a couple of Solar system under their " Faith Jurisdiction" and they are all fighting for either Galactical or Universal supremacy.   Remember your old Mythology books?
Bible is a story book full of metaphores, and alagories,  it was written as much for entertainment as for a guidance tool for a newly converted group of people.  If you really read the bible, it has more soap opera than most soap operas on television.   A more interesting reading is Bhagwat Gita from India which is actually one of the oldest text in the world,  and it does try to explain the Universe in more complex manners.  Under Hindu Mythology our universe is nothing but a dream by god Brahama,  which runs it cycle for many billions of years.  Hindu mythology actually puts the formation earth close to what now the science think it is.  And if you read the Quran,  you will find out that it has passages which tells you the the ultimate reason that Humans were created is to find the truth,  it says that God is a hidden treasure,  and we must find him/her/it.   It also says that Life actually evolved from water and dirt around the sea,  " primordial soup"?.

You see if we expand our discussion and start thinking outside the conventional box,  we can actually come up with a lot of reasons and or ideas about the existence of gods as well the progression of science.  If we were to say Universe was created 15 billions years ago,  and there are billions of stars with billions of solar systems,  and life started at these solar system at roughly around the same time,  there could be millions of different species at different levels of evolutions in this Universe.  Now let your imagination flow.  Just as to a person in middle ages 21st century would seem like a miracle or some what outwordly,  what if??  some species which were more advanced than us appear on planet earth in the middle ages, and intervene in our evolutionary process?   That could explain the mythology surrounding Jesus' ascent to Heaven ( or Mohammad's ascent under Muslim beliefs) or even his rise from death.

How do we really know that he was dead,  he may have been just left for dead, by the romans, and after a couple of days when his wounds healed,  he got up.  

You see whether you believe in organised religions as Christianity, Islam or Hinduism,  or you are just a skeptic,  it does not matter.  What matters that we as a species are dynamic, and have a yearning for learning,  Whether we fill in the gaps with faith based stories to feed our curiousity as in the middle ages,  or start questioning the wisdom of our fore fathers, and coming up with new knowledge through scientific means,  it all leads to more answers, and better world for our children.   I have faith that eventually with more knowledge will come more tolarance of ideas and faith,  and respect.  Science will actually provide the frame work to explain the mythologies of religion, embrace the morality, erase the dogma, and develop a more "humane society" for our future.

God isn't found in "the gaps" of science. He/she/it is whatever entity ordered the universe in a way that it _can_ be explained by science. A prominent scientist once said that the greatest mystery of the universe is that it can be explained in the language of mathematics. And that mystery will never be solved _by_ science.

Gaps? Science equals religion and vice versa? God "created the universe on a whim"? We as a human race will eventually learn all there is to know of the universe? Since so many scientists do not believe God exists, then they themselves are not superstitious even though they entertain the superstitious philosophy that everything occurs as a product of 'probability'?

Why not leave science and religion as the separate entities that they are? Nobody knows evrything, and it can never be 'proven' even by the best mathematical
'proofs', 'models', 'laws', etc. that anything is absolutely so. There are and can always be other models for representing how light and the universe behave. Are we not being closed-minded, rather than open-minded in assuming that all that exists in the uuniverse is relativity, quantum physics, and string theory? How does this close-mindedness differ from the closemindedness of astrology and later the assumption that perfect circular orbits could only describe the motion of the solar system planets because God's perfection had to be reflected in the 'perfect' motion of heavenly bodies?

Whether anyone believes in God or not, that is a personal conviction, never a 'proof' of the existence or non-existence of God.

It is an old saying never to discuss religion or polotics among friends. Obviously there would be a disagrement sooner or later, and your friendship would be damaged or even lost.

I find it interesting that the oldest book in the bible, Job, God used science to silence Job's complaining.

No matter how deep scientist's dig they will forever continue to come up with more and more unanswerable questions.

To me science clearly proves the existence of God. No matter how arrogant some scientists are, for the most part, the accepted beliefs sooner or later are challanged and changed. The scientific community is as closed minded as the most stubborn religious fanatic.

You will find it said in the Scripture to "seek the face of God"

I also say keep looking for all the answers and at the end you will find God already there waiting for you.

Thomas Ashby ~ Your argument begins with "Science is tangible. God is not." I do not think that this is a valid argument against the existence of God. Humans believe in many intangible concepts that even you might agree exist - take love for instance (or any emotion for that matter). Your thoughts, whether they only think in scientific terms, are another example.

Next, I tire of the argument that humans created supreme beings out of an "imagined" need. Whatever drove our ancestors to find answers to their questions is the same force that drives you today - curiosity, the drive to learn more and explore, investigate. There is something inside us all that drives us to find answers. Who is to say that your beliefs are just there to fulfill your specific ("imagined") needs? Maybe you do not want to believe in religion. Religious people can dismiss your beliefs with that argument just as easily as you dismiss their beliefs.

Finally, you argue that an eternal life does not exist. I assume that you doubt this "fantastic notion" because you have no proof of its existence. Yet, are there not many notions that circulate the scientific community that we not yet have solid evidence to support? How about black holes? There are phenomena that point to the existence of black holes, mind you. But we have yet to directly observed one. The same can be said about eternal life. There are people who claim to have near-death experiences. There are others whose time of death were officially clocked, but they "came back" to speak of their experience. But again, we have yet to directly observe this for ourselves.

Personally, I am a person of both religion and science - I suppose you can file me under "intelligent design." I believe that science is a tool to explore God's creations. The more science uncovers, the more I believe in God, actually. Plus there are my own personal experiences... if you are interested, I might even share them.

It comes down to - we all have our personal beliefs. We argue this way or that way. In truth, we do throw around a bunch of theories from both sides of the arena. In the end, who knows for sure? Skeptical people will always question... people of faith live in certainity.

To a very Wise person: Hurra Naneki from California.

I believe that, part of the "problem" is in the perception "we" (or someone else) give, of God within and onto ourselves. It comes from a little bit back, like it is mentioned in Ezekiel 13:3, all the way up to, John 5:39 for instance. This my friend, has created it in us, mankind, the desperate need to "uncover the truth" by revealing the lie, (the deception you've mentioned which is the same as it was in the garden with Adam and Eve, issue there: questioning the reality of God.) Our motivation is a pure resentment and fear of been lie to. So, "it is safe" to "become skeptic" and This is the result Satan wants from everyboby. (divide and conquer).

I believe everyboby wants basically, the same things but we have lost the art of speaking the same language. so we're, at the famous tower Babel, high in the clouds and confused just about everything.

So the following deserves repeating:

   There is a spirit of deception in our midst. Nothing new under the sun, just stronger in these times. Those who are deceived do not know they are deceived, that's why they call it deception. The Word of God says "an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and none shall be given it, except the sign of Jonah, etc". Matthew 12:38-41. He also said He chooses us, we don't choose Him. There's the seed of satan and the seed of God. He's the one that gives any one of us any understanding regarding Himself. You must be born again of His spirit to know Him, understand the things of Him, to enter the Kingdom or see It. He through His disciple, also said "they will heap up teachers for themselves, they will have itching ears" mankind will also twist His Words to their own destruction." He said the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one. Our wisdom is nothing. He said man would consider themselves little gods. A hardened heart doesn't listen. Humble our hearts, seek truth, from the one and only living God. nia.

Friend, Foe, or Stranger,

Again we celebrate the victory of Light over Darkness, of the God of day over the hosts of night. Again Samson is victorious over Delilah, and Hercules triumphs once more over Omphale. In the embrace of Isis, Osiris rises from the dead, and the scowling Typhon is defeated once more. Again Apollo, with unerring aim, with his arrow from the quiver of light, destroys the serpent of shadow. This is the festival of Thor, of Baldur and of Prometheus. Again Buddha by a miracle escapes from the tyrant of Madura, Zoroaster foils the King, Bacchus laughs at the rage of Cadmus, and Chrishna eludes the tyrant.

This is the festival of the sun-god, and as such let its observance be universal. This is the great day of the first religion, the mother of all religions -- the worship of the sun. Sun worship is not only the first, but the most natural and most reasonable of all. And not only the most natural and the most reasonable, but by far the most poetic, the most beautiful.

The sun is the god of benefits, of growth, of life, of warmth, of happiness, of joy. The sun is the all-seeing, the all-pitying, and the all-loving. This bright God knew no hatred, no malice, never sought for revenge. All evil qualities were in the breast of the God of darkness, of shadow, of night.

And so I say again, this is the festival of Light.

This is the anniversary of the triumph of the Sun over the hosts of Darkness.

Let us all hope for the triumph of Light -- of Right and Reason -- for the victory of Fact over Falsehood, of Science over Superstition.

And so hoping, let us celebrate the venerable festival of the Sun

Written December 25, 1892 by Robert G.Ingersoll

Happy Holidays

Alan! (Merry Christmas, by the way)

My little rant .....

Science and religion have always been at odds with one another because there is only so-much-money that can be bilked from the public.

Actually, Science and Religion (in the West) have a great deal in common. The scientific paradigm can be summarized by concluding that "White guys discovered everything" and the prevailing religious paradigm is that God is a white guy because God's ONLY SON is depicted as a white guy. No need to mention cultural 'brainwashing'.

Ah yes, science! It is remarkable how the Darwinian 'unselected' can take Viagra so after they hobble down the handicapped ramp they can engage in an act of biological reproduction, thanks to chemicals! Let's not forget the eradication of thousands of species because of chemical inundation including toxic carbon emissions! Not to mention the overall erosion of the quality of life due to chemical pollution.

From the box seats in "The Forbidden Zone" it appears that the Earth has become a toxic clown car. Most of you still wear dead animal skins (leather) on your feet and measure your locomotion in horsepower. You have a dysfunctional spiritual cosmology coupled with a consuming passion for material goods (shopping bag ladies) that are manufactured using substances that will take a thousand years to fully disintegrate. The divorce rate is approaching 50% and the other 50% are scared.
The only genuine spiritual cosmology is shared in secret in the hallowed halls of the Freemason or in the inner circle of the Roman Catholic Church or in the Kabbalah of Jewish mysticism.

The public are suckers whose pockets are being picked by both the scientific (medication and technology) and spiritual (TV evangelists with God as an additional consumer fascination) communities.

Rest assured that there is, in fact, a magical realm of eternal life and enduring perfection. In this transcendental (beyond the senses) realm the human animal-based ego has been transformed into its original condition of creative power and joy. There are many paths to this realm and the commonality among all of the paths is the dissolution of the self-infatuated ego (Herod, as one symbol) and the subsequent birth of the divine consciousness as that ego is devoured (The Last Supper as a metaphor) by the indwelling spirit.

There is, in fact, a 'science' related to this spiritual transformation. The 'science' is metaphysics and it appears as nonsense to the rational mind that obstinately refuses to release its suffocating grip, base animal passions and addictions. It is in this virtual 'stable' of corrupted consciousness that Christ (the spirit or soul) is (must be) 'born'.

The paradox of the Western spiritual cosmology is that we are 'looking for' what it is that we are 'looking with"! The key to all of it lies buried deeply within the mind and can be accessed only by going within. It requires the redirection of the consciousness from outside to inside. One must 'let go of the world' and journey within in order to find the true and eternal self.  

This is basically the Cliff Notes relating to any search for God. "you are searching for what it is that you are searching with".

Merry Christmas and a most Happy New Year!

No matter what Carl Sagan and the rest of the Atheists believe, God exists and now even Carl knows it.

@Tony Gutierrez

I have no need whatever for a belief. What I do is search for inklings of the truth. I was a Christian once, until I found that I was much happier without it. I've not gone out on a life of debauchery, thievery or murder, and I've been married to the same woman for nearly 47 years. Now tell me why I need religion or "spirituality"? To get to heaven? I couldn't care less about that! I don't need enlightment nor Nirvana. I am happy and content the way I am. I am inspired by the Universe because science has given me an inkling of its workings and magnificence. Along with Steven Weinberg, I get the feeling more an more that the whole thing is meaningless. I don't need for there to be a deity behind it all. And what hope does religion really offer? It's very good at promises after death, but not very good at life before death (in several cases making life before worse--think about the Inquisition).

I find that there is no other reason for believing than belief itself. In other words, you can't give me a reason for believing that doesn't already entail that belief a priori. It's not a matter of science or proof or evidence--it's a matter of self-reference, a paradox. (You can say, yes, but God can a paradox. How do you know?)

Science tells us there are no absolutes in the physical and logical world--Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. I suspect there are no absolute truths in the spriritual world, either. If can name one, I will tell you that it is not absolute because 1) is is the product of a given belief or societal norm and 2) not everyone in the world accepts it as absolute. If there were absolute truths, we would have uncovered them by now and everyone would have accepted them as such. If you clain that we are being deceived, you are only parroting what you have been taught, within your particular belief system.

@Keith Lee

Scientists don't assume the universe is explained by relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc. They base their work on careful observation, and what they assume is that the observations reflect reality--how else are they to interpret it? Why is this narrow-minded? The scientist I know are open to other explanations--but you'd better be able to back them up with HARD evidence and no contradictions of fundamental principles (as with perpetual motion vs. thermodynamics). Scientists try all kinds of weird ideas--M-theory reads like science fiction, for example--and there is a "war" among physicists on theory versus empiricism. And, no, evolution is not "just a theory." There is a huge body of emprical evidence for it. The theory is an explanation for the mechanism that accounts for the observations. The close-minded people are the ones who claim their religion as expressed in their holy books is the only resource of truth, and whatever contradicts that belief is thereby false.

MIKEEG:
No intentions of arguing here.  Whatever any of their ages were is irrelevant.  Mary was chosen by God as the vessel to bring forth His son, Jesus.  He can choose who He wants, how He wants. He's God, the Almighty, the Great I Am, Lord, our Savior.  Mary had a humble heart. See Luke 1:38-55.  She said, "behold the maidservant of the Lord!  Let it be to me according to your word." (in part).  Nothing is impossible for God.  He is far above our thoughts and ways.  God also isn't a "religion".  He is spirit.  He's as real as any of us, and more so.  I merely wanted to answer your questions.  True understanding can only come from God.  I didn't understand anything myself until He taught me through His word, Himself.  This miracle, which it was, bothers you or you wouldn't have asked whether it was true & the why's of it.  God gave us truth, grace/favor and salvation through His only begotten Son, Jesus.  Jesus interceded for us.  Not saying yours isn't but for all of us we must humble our hearts, so we can receive the truth.    

Jay, Birmingham, AL
You kept it simple - good:  As His word says, there's the seed of satan and the seed of God.  The tares and the wheat, all grow up together until the end of these ages.  So, He knows those that are His, and as the good Shepherd, He goes after even the one that strays.  He's the savior not us.  He doesn't need any of us.  But HE is glorified in What HE does, so that we can't pat ourselves on our backs.

In my very humble opinion, I believe the direction of science is to reveal the face of God. From the cosmic to the subatomic, the more we discover, the more evident it becomes how much we still don't know. This desire to know and to seek the "truth" seems to be innate in mankind. Perhaps that search is the path to God. I like to think so.

You can never know everything. Some things are just outside our known realm and are simply unreachable by us. We only see our world in so many dimensions, and we can never leave these dimensions to see the whole universe and beyond. Science is merely understanding a small portion of what faith tells us is there.

Do we all bother to ask ourselves how every single piece of a computer works? No! We just accept that it works and use it. Faith is the same way. We can accept things are true without knowing how they work, but the wisest try to accept and understand at the same time.

Our knowledge so far is minuscule, and any knowledge we get comes from facts previously accepted in faith. Without faith, there is no science.

Why is this discussion only between Christianity and Science? Has any one ever wondered what Buddhism and Hinduism have to say on the matter? They also have faith.

No doubt we, as a contemplative species, have always feared death - the end of life. I believe we have, over the ages, instituted a vast variety of belief systems that would, if we had our druthers, in some way (60 virgins, a welcome lei from St. Peter himself, etc) save us from the inescapable "end".

Considering the unimaginable complexity of the universe, and the admittedly equally unimaginable functional mechanism that we exist within, there may well be some initial or ongoing monitoring force.  I can't help but suspect this force, if it does indeed exist, has no similarity whatever with the 'institutionalized superstitions' that we have, over the ages, called religion.  

Despite my best efforts, I cannot see that the religious right (or whatever they call themselves this week), the 'fundamental Islamics' or any of the other self-absorbed, intolerant, hypocritical organizations on our planet provide a net positive influence on our global society.  I don't agree that looking up the answers to qualitative dilemmas in a 2000 year old novel is the the most effective way of resolving the goal of universal quality of life that some of us believe to be our ultimate goal as humans.    

Bruce, I would dearly love to hear what Buddhist and Hindu believers think about the future of their faith. Are the tenets of their faith immune to this "science vs. religion" dilemma? Are they thinking to themselves, "been there, done that ... 2,500 years ago"?

Buddhism is a religion of self-realization that has nothing to do with deity. The Dalai Lama is a proponent of science. Many Buddhists of the Western Buddhist Order are scientists who dismiss any thoughts of a god or creator. The arguments of Christians are seen by them as silly.

Alan, you wished us a fantastic Festivus but failed to mention Kwanzaa??? It doesn't look good, man...

Funny, just to throw a wrench into the machine....

I saw an interesting animal show the other day in which it was stated that it took a certain animals thousands of years to evolve to its current state, I believe it was the platypus and echidna, that lays an egg and the young platypus has to get out by using a small tooth that miraculously evolved on it so it could get out of the egg and not die in it.

Funny because at least the echidna only gets that one tooth but the platypus gets a few small baby teeth that never become functional. So I guess evolution messed up, huh.

Oh wait, it couldn't have possibly evolved to have that tooth to begin with if there's never been proof of another species of platypus before this one, a few hoaxes and a few "real" ones but no links to the current platypus, so there goes all proof of it evolving. Had to have been made.

Yeah theres probably a couple hundred scientists trying to come up with a legitimate sounding (or a "real" ancestor) reason why this is so.

We should continually be reminded that any scientist  (all others as well) who says "everything is relative" or "there is nothing absolute"
is making a self-contraictory statement. Self-contradictory statements are antithetical to acceptable scientific statements and call into question the scientific credentials of the scientist supporting them, insisting on making them, or claimig their truth. The self-contradiction of "there is nothing absolute" comes in its inherent absolutism. Also, scientists who claim that there are no fundamental truths seem in danger of being called "fools" or trying to have scientists classified as such, because bona-fide scientists are following the prime directive (search) of science to search out fundamental truths. After all, what is T.O.E. (The Theory of Everything) all about, for example. The title of "fool" does seem appropriate for those who spend their life searching for that which they claim to know does not exist.

 Maybe scientists are searching in vain, but there are a lot of fringe benefits along the way that may justify any "foolishness" of the ultimate goal. The suggested "fringe benefits", however, do nothing to remove the self-contraciction of "there is nothing absolute" (or the equivalent "everything is relative") and its being antithetical to bona-fide science. Of course, there are those who don't care that they are using a self-contradiction and some revel in it because they know that anyrhing, true or false, can be logically derived therefrom.

 Please, also, let us remember that "absolutes exist" has the advantage of not being self-contradictory and may be seen as a faith that leads to many "fringe benefits".
 Finally, all our words are undefined in the ultimate sense; that is, words are defined in terms of other words until they get to things of common or expected experience. The philosopher's "God" may be taken as "undefined" (like physics takes time as undefined, something with which one is expected to have had experience or a feeling for). Mathematics provides humans experience with and a "feeling for" infinity. Such experience may, therefore, be able to provide some with a definition for God that comes close to what those who may have had a direct experience with or feeling for what they mean when using the word God. We all should be tolerant with those who have experiences that we have not had. As scientists (or fellow humans), we may, also, probe their experiences for fantasies, fallacies, and self-contradictions, however, without invoking self-contradictions of our own.

In part, I have to agree with Wayne.  I don't necessarily think of Buddhism as a religion but MUCH more of a psychology.  It is a way to see through our conditioning to our real self by watching how the mind reacts and worries constantly. Finding the seed of a single thought is like the equivalent of going to church everyday for a year.

That being said, there are aspects of Buddhism that are religions, such as the belief in Karma and reincarnation.  There are also ceremonial songs etc. that are very reminiscent of a religion.  The Dalai Lama is very active in learning physics and wanting to help physicists understand the true nature of reality - which he says is best described like a dream.  In his response to Carl Sagan when asked about reincarnation, he said if science is able to prove the idea wrong, it would be dropped accordingly.

If you replace G_D for science, then all you're doing is swapping out one brand of faith for another.

"We are not earthly beings having a spiritual experience -- we are spiritual beings having an earthly experience." -- Bishop Gavillan

If you believe in God, then you must believe in the Devil because God said there must be opposition in all things. Even the Devil can quote scripture. This allows us to exercise our gift of free will and thus gives purpose to the short time we have as mortals.  Time to choose.

Jim C. -- You will see your wife again and there is a way to keep that wonderful love you have together for all time and eternity. You have time to seek it.

And lastly, science, as grand as it is, is limited by our observations. Sometimes that observation will change when we view from a higher place. Religions' laws, regardless of the denomination, are about getting farther away from the mere mortal view and seeking the higher (God's) view. Time to get climbing.

I suffer from chronic depression as the result of the events of my life. Science (medication, think positive, get counseling) and religion (pray, follow the rules, have faith) have both failed to help me. I have tried to follow the advice of both perspectives for decades and life still sucks. Science versus religion isn't the proper question as neither of them has all the answers. There must be another option we haven't thought of yet.

Unfortunately the Evangelical Christians are by design anti-science. Perhaps after the Rapture happens and they all get beamed up into Heaven, maybe then the rest of us will be able to inquire about the mysteries of the universe via rational thought. Until then, we will have to keep hearing how the universe is 5000 years old and dinosaurs used to walk with Noah until the flood.

Anyone who asserts that science and faith are the same things or are in any way compatible is very confused. Faith means to believe what you are told and science, being the search for truth, is the exact opposite. Too many people confuse religion and faith with the search for spiritual understanding and wisdom. Christianity has always sought to impose *OPINION* and orthodoxy, hence dogma, and opposing any true search for truth about its canons. Anyone who thinks Christianity and science are compatible was asleep during history classes. Did you ever hear of the Inquisition and the Dark Ages? Ever wonder why the Vatican has refused to eliminate the office of the Inquisition, so loong after every one ellse determined it was a great evil? You do understand that the current Pope was the Grand Inquisitor under John Paul II, dont you? You do understand that Rome created Christianity and ordered the deaths and torture of millions over the centuries? Notice that GW Bush, an avowed Christian, has legalized torture? The time is long overdue to get a clue that all religion is error and purposeful deception to varying degrees and has very little to do with true spirituality, wisdom, or the truth.

As far as I am concerned, the "uncaused cause," an Aristotelian proposition, is the only :scientific" argument for God, and it results in an eternal universe, since God is defined as eternal.

The concept of a personal God involved in the day-to-day affairs of human beings is so egocentric it is laughable. If you assume rational life exists only on Earth, it may work, but if intelligent life existed and exists in the universe, such a personal God becomes unlikely.

A God that forbids abortion but terminates many unborn and just-born tetuses "naturally" is logically and morally inconsistent. "Thou shall not kill" is a bizarre rule in a culture where an eye for an eye is viewed as insufficiently just; wiping out an entire clan or tribe is required for any slight. In our legal system, God would not fare well as a criminal defendant.

Yikes! So sorry about the oversight, John, good thing we caught it in time. Here's wishing all of you a totally cool Kwanzaa. Light a candle for me....

http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/

 

As a Buddhist I see no conflict between science and religion. For example, Darwin's Origin of Species is completely conversant with Buddhism. You might think of "The Species" as God's way of working things out. Shortly, in Switzerland, a gigantic centrifuge is being built to confirm "the God particle." What God means in this context is the same thing as Buddhists mean when they speak of the Buddha Nature.

Two brief observations: God is the sum total of all physical laws in the universe. No more, no less. The soul is the sum total of all electro-chemical reactions in the brain. When those reactions cease, the soul ceases.

If there is no science without faith, then the opposite position must also be true: There is no faith without science. True, we cannot know everything. I posit that it also true as a matter of "faith", we cannot believe everything. I have to give some weight to the words of Huck Finn: "Faith is belivin' what you know ain't so."

As an aside, especially at this time of the year (peace on earh, goodwill to man), I have to pause as a Christian. To paraphrase Gandhi: If Christians were more like their Christ, the world would be a better place.

Recently, my ten year old son made up a joke about ants arguing in the carpet. Sam comes along, sucking them up in the sweeper while they continue to argue. Finally, one notices the change in their environment and says, "Hey guys, we're debating in a vacuum." I've enjoyed all the commentary, but in reality all I know is that I find more connection to the infinite mystery in a telescope than I've ever felt in church. Like Robert Frost states in his famuos poem, does it really matter whether its fire or ice? My born again friend is agast that I am okay with the concept of "nothingness" at the end of my days and even more so that I don't mind coming from organisms in muck and ooze. I love that we have the same elements as the stars. That connection alone fills me with more hope and joy than any sermon I've ever heard. But what angers my dear friend most is that I'm okay with "somethingness," too. Whatever follows after this moment, I'm grateful to be part of the ride.

To Wayne McCoy:
From Keith Lee (re: @Keith Lee)

Sir,

I gather from your brief discussions that you are a scientist. I believe in one note, you mentioned your conviction for 47 years now of not believing in God?

I may not have the details exactly right, but I hope I understand your general position correctly at least.

I respect your accomplishments as a scientist. I even respect your opinion, although I do not share your convictions. In my note, I tried to explain how I believe that many scientisits think the only way to be scientific is by not only ignoring God, but also by making it a point to deny God (what I believe you would call superstition) publicly, in these and even scientific papers. I am dismayed that this 'no credo' credo should have to be a qualification to be a scientist.

In a short note, I attempted to express how I believe religion can be left out of science, yet science can still be open to those who believe in God. Today, and for some time now, it seems that the only way scientists will accept anything 'new' is when a 'new' concept is predicated on  the 'no credo' credo. To be genuinely objective, why not leave out not only the 'credo' credo, but also the 'no credo' credo?

I read a few years ago a 'thesis' (no math, no physics in depth, if at all),that questioned quantum mechanics, at least in the sense of 'positivist' theorist doctrine. The book had a preface written by de Broglie (Yes, the biologist who dropped what he was doing in biology to take up revamping the mathematics of physics in the first half of the 20th century). The author felt as did de Broglie, that the probabilities of quantum mechanics may give way some day to a better understanding, a better science, of the physical world as atom smashing techniques improved and in tandem, the math and science to describe the events improved as well. Atom smashing and observation - HARD EVIDENCE.

After all the excitement I felt, after the adrenaline surge wore off (it did not take long with the treatment and discussion or lack thereof THAT FOLLOWED), I sat in dismay as I read how the author offered no means to improve observation and science, but rather only used the situation to opine for pages and  pages how he did not believe in God, that he upheld the 'no credo' credo. Why is it so necessary to make it a blatant point to deny God as a pretext to being a scientist?

How can anyone scientifically 'observe' evidence of the non-existence of God any more than anyone can directly observe the existence of God? If you object to interjections of God into what you perceive as scientific method, in the name of OBJECTIVITY, why are you unable to leave out your personal convictions of your disbelief in God when you undertake scientific endeavors and discussions?

I do believe your 'fanaticism' for 'no credo' could easily be as large as those who insist on 'credo' and credo their way only. I do not believe in perpetual motion, I believe M-theory and string theory, quantum mechanics and relativity have their weaknesses, let alone the theories of those who would still defend ether drag theory, or even science fiction. Just because I believe in God does not mean I embrace pseudoscience and fantasy.

What of the Constitution? Must freedom of religion be only narrowly defined to freedom of speech? Do you really believe the only way to obtain HARD EVIDENCE is through the destruction of religion? Again, why not leave science and religion as the separate entities that they are?

A scientist of the Manhattan Project once opined (not a scientific observation) as he held his newborn baby up in the air in admiration: "How can anyone 'observe' the miracle of life as this, and still not believe in God?" The quotes around 'observe' are mine. Oh, and I may not have the quotation exactly right, as in word-for-word, but the context should be awfully close.

Some of the current 'scientific thinking' that 'fills gaps' with its own conjectures and presumptions about explanations for Black Holes, four-dimensional or other multi-dimensional space, and different and separate 'Laws' for subatomic, gravitational, astronomical scales, near-light speeds, etc. may in fact one day be explained simply and elegantly in one theory, and still be in compliance with inertial and energy conservation principles. That is open-mindedness.

Please consider for a moment: instead of four-dimensional, independent INERTIAL FRAMES, how about interdependent acceleration frames within each other much as nesting dolls. Try to apply the approach to the n-body problem of gravitation and then consider the application as an approach to the 'uncertainty' of the subatomic 'perturbations.' Also apply the concept to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. With good, honest math and sound logic, it can be done. Certainly more observations with more powerful scientific tools will be needed to try to support the 'theory'.

I believe if you do answer, you will say the last approach I mentioned has already been done and it does not work. However, I put it to you: in mathematical and hard physical application, the acceleration frame approach is new, and can be used RELIABLY (legitimate math) to explain the physical world. IS IT VALID? It is as yet only one OPEN-MINDED approach that should warrant a further, SCIENTIFIC, and truly objective (strict adherence to scientific method) look with respect to reliability and validity. (Please leave out your prejudices of religion/no religion quandaries and please do not scoff and say it has already been done or it is only another perpetual motion notion or science fiction quackery). I hope you are a scientist of the HARD sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) and not one of the SOFT sciences (anthropology, sociology, etc,) so that you may consider the physics rather than the philosophy.

I appreciate your opinion (it is not science) with respect to discussions of religion, and I do respect your intelligence and your abilities as an observer of scientific principles. I thank you for your discussions, especially under the freedoms of the Constitution.

If God doesn't exist and you believe he does, you have lost nothing. If God does exist and you believe he doesn't, you've lost everything.

In my opinion there is no God.

Science is NOT a false faith written in stone that people kill and die for.  It is what has been observed.  When new observeable facts surface science changes.
Magic and religion are fun, comforting, provide all answers and requires no thought.  

Santa Claus the tooth fairy and God provide comfort for millions but that doesn't make them real.  However, If your belief in 'whatever' comforts you and  gets you through the night then it's alright. If your belief in a 'universal plan' or 'intelegent design ' make you feel that you are living with purpose in a safe and rational world then go for it. It'll help you sleep. Most importantly if your beleif in a 'Hell' or some sort of eternal punishment keeps you from hurting your self, or others, and most importantly me, then I will contribute to your church.

You believe what you wish and I will too.  You have the freedom in this country to handle snakes, sacrifice chickens, stroke beads, bow on a rug to the east, panhandle in an airport or just quietly hope for redemption at night when its quiet and the doubts creep in. You can do this on a public street, in your home or in your church.  My problem is that you want everyone to beleive as you do.  My problem is that you want to cram your fantasy down my kids throat at school.  My problem is that you want the USA to become a Christian theocracy, a Christian Iran.  For the record, I will not live peaceully in anyone's theocracy. You need to leave me alone.

Merry Christmas

naneki i did not ask if immaculate conception was true i asked about significance of young barely teen girl being used. you keep telling me nice stories that in no way address tne question and you say the conception bothers me and that is wrong. i was actually hoping someone would say something along the lines of in this way jesus grew up poor and new the problems associated with being poor and young mother and was part of his reason for helping the poorer among the folks of that time. so hopefully this will throw new light on the subject for you.

Wars are fought over religion but not over spirituality. Religion is based on belief and beliefs are often based on little more than handed down stories.

When one's beliefs disagree with someone else's, the potential for conflict exists. So I choose spirituality instead of religion. This allows me to explore life and the universe with an open mind and come to my own conclusions.

It's only when someone writes down what a spiritual person says about their own personal experiences and then proclaims that it's universal truth for everyone that problems develop.

I feel that if humanity is fortunate enough to survive these still arguably dark ages into the future, what we call religion today will someday more closely resemble the inner quest commonly known as spirituality.  

True Science and True Religion are one and the same. Science has been able to falsify numerous false religious beliefs some religious groups still adhere to.

In the future there will be no religion as we now know it. Quarks form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form polymers (like RNA), and so on until one day the molecules wake up and look back at themselves. This self-organization is a mystery, but can be left as such without invoking any new and mythic realities. We will probably never really understand this, but will learn to live with it. Something odd and improbable, but beyond us - as Alan Watts said, like trying to see your own eye.

In this holiday season, let us all pray that religion goes away. That single occurrence would usher in an era of more peace than this old earth has ever seen. For instance: if you removed religion from Middle Eastern conflicts, there wouldn't be any Middle Eastern conflicts. Or in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Somalia, Indonesia, nor anywhere else where people justify their atrocities by invoking this or that 'god'. Not to overstate this, but religion is the bane of our existence. What a wonderful, peaceful, tolerant, compassionate world it would be without it.

Some of you try so hard to convince yourselves and others that God doesn't exist. Why? If it wasn't an emotional and meaningful issue for you than you would simply state 'oh, he might exist...I really don't know whether he does or doesn't...i just haven't seen enough evidence of that', but you actually try to convince people that He doesn't...as if you knew!! It really shows that He is very significant! On the one hand, you actually try to suggest that bad religion, or human superstition shows that an actual God does not exist...and after that ridiculous argument, pretend that you are logical and scientific. If it was just man-made religion that bothered you, then you would focus on the problems you had with that man-made religion, you wouldn't attack the question of His existence..not if you were objective like you claim. I think you do believe He exists and just choose to reject Him because you want to be your own little god.

To the person who believes in human beings/humanity:  Bad track record to believe in.

Interesting that Jim inherently has these questions regarding his wife.  And Jim, I too feel your pain..my hero, my dad, died awhile back from melanoma and anyone who has been where you are can empathize.

When my dad died, the women from the hospice were amazed at his dying beauty; one said most people don't die like he did.  He knew where he was going and he was completely peaceful and looking forward to leaving this world and leaving behind the pain he had lived with.

In the marketing world, where I 'live', there are fads and trends.  Fads are huge and then disappear quickly.  Trends are ongoing, building and long-term.
Belief in a Creator/God would be a trend rather than a fad.  It seems man cannot shake himself loose from wanting to know about God, although some claim no desire or interest.

As a Christian, it has been a horrendous 4-5 years of watching people who take that name support a warmongering administration, with seemingly no regard for the lives of innocent Iraqis.  Not only that, I have seen so-called 'christian leaders' as promoters of this President and this war.  Disgusting and shameful.

God is not hard to find if you seek Him.  If you don't, He isn't pushy but He is very obvious.

Science has made one correction after another to cover its' mistakes over the years.  It will finally, possibly, prove God's existence but it doesn't matter if it achieves that level of sophistication or not.  God's existence is not dependent on scientific evidence.  

Anyone who could even begin to believe that what they see around them every day came into being and still survives in the kind of order it does started as a Bang or a single cell they can't explain the origin of is either very naive or doesn't want to think straight.

Let them be.  They are a fad.  Go with the trend.  The trend is your friend.

Bob, "Thou art God" The Martian Chronicles Check it out.

@Cliff Jennings

What you have stated is a form of Pascal's Wager. This argument has some problems. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

for a discussion of some weaknesses of the argument.

@Carleton Lane

You'll notice in my statements regarding absolutes that I didn't make an absolute statement by claiming there are no absolutes. I said that I *suspect* there are no absolutes because no one has ever found one which is not specific to a particular belief system or culture, that is, one that the whole world can accept. Not even the Ten Commandments are absolute, as is proven time and again in the Old Testament. I left open the possibility that someone will find an absolute truth, but I'm skeptical that any exist. I challenge readers to state an absolute truth.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):