The future of faith

Rod — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:43:54 GMT

Will you please get off the religious kick? There is enough real science out there to deal with rather than pandering to the fantasy crowd.

The future of faith

Benjamin, Fort Thomas, KY — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:19:10 GMT

Assuming God is the creator of all science.. assuming we do ever get bright enough to get down to the deepest universal truths.. I have a sneaking suspicion all will find that the two are one. At least, according to the Christian incarnation of Faith, God is the origin of all knowledge.

The future of faith

Kevin Galligan, New York, NY — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:46:40 GMT

Just got into a little religious chat with my evangelical Christian family. I don't think science can ever really say that no universal power exists, but beyond that I have a hard time reconciling the idea that a creator simply existed, from all time, and created everything on a whim. Never mind a good, just, male God who is all powerful, yet tolerates the devil and hates gays. To choose a specific set of beliefs that cannot be proved, yet call others wrong, seems to me a ridiculous course. Confirmed atheists included.

I think, God or no God, there is a compulsion towards the spiritual that resides in many people. I think many of the extremes of belief arise because there's an all or nothing view of these "ultimate questions". Strangely enough, the religious see society becoming rapidly more secular, and the secular see quite the opposite (come on, people. I don't care who you are. Just go with evolution). I tend to agree with Sam Harris, that it should be ok to question belief, as it stifles a lot of progress and peace in the world. However, I don't think Paris Hilton should be a role model. In between there is a happy medium.

Some form of spirituality may not be a bad thing, even if it only fulfils an aquired desire, but any faith that excludes other is on the whole self-serving and dangerous.

The future of faith

Adam, Brisbane, Queensland — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 07:30:21 GMT

Hi Alan

God's fortunes as a subject of serious discussion would seriously improve if some decent evidence appeared for His/Her existence. Perhaps a new carbon-dating of Turin Shroud material might show it to be much older than the late Middle Ages - there's good evidence which indicates the region sampled for the 1988 testing was actually an "invisible patchwork" repair performed in the 14th century. Chemically and optically that patch is foreign to the rest of the Shroud.

Thus we might have a decent piece of evidence for the historical Jesus, his burial and his mysterious disinternment. But we'd need something more to believe that he was born of a Virgin, was the Incarnate God and that he rose bodily from the dead. The four Orthodox Gospels conflict on the details - was he seen after death in Galilee (Mark, Matthew), in Jerusalem (Luke) or in both (John)? And why is it that 'Matthew' tells us that the disciples saw him on a mountain in Galilee "but some doubted"?

Personally I can believe all the odd stories about his birth, having seen angels like the shepherds, and the morbidly paranoid nature of King Herod. I think both John and his cousion Jesus were marked from birth as special people - thus Mary could be called the "Mother of God" for her sheer determination -, but the crux of the matter is whether he walked or teleported out of that grave in 33 CE, or whether he was reburied and forgotten by the authorities the day before the Magdalene visited her Teacher's tomb. Paul the Apostle tells us in "Acts 13" that Jesus was buried by his enemies, and not the pious Joseph.

Unless some amazing evidence arises we may never know for sure and will have to settle for faith. Or otherwise, if you're a sceptic.

The future of faith

Jim,Sacramento,CA — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 07:43:59 GMT

Science cannot provide what man most wants,hope. He says he wants truth, but that is not true.

The future of faith

Ian Wishart — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 07:57:24 GMT

Alan, I love the use of "God of the Gaps". Flip the same coin and you get "Science of the Gaps", which roughly translated is simply this: "We don't have an explanation yet, but give us 150 years and a billion dollars in research funds and maybe we'll find one".

Then again, maybe they won't. Logically there can be no real conflict between science and the Christian faith because one realm deals with the "How?" of a matter whilst the other tackles the "Why?" of it.

If the Christian story is true, and having researched it thoroughly from both sides as a journalist I'm now utterly convinced it is, then science will eventually come to realise that only religion can really answer the "Why?" question.

The evidence against life spontaneously arising on earth is now so overwhelming that avowed atheist scientists like Francis Crick are already invoking "science of the gaps" in the form of panspermia (some are even invoking aliens as a causative factor).

So yeah, this Christmas I'll raise a toast to the Dawkins and Cricks of this world and pray that, for 48 hours at least, they cease tilting at windmills and enjoy a little more Christmas spirit and a little less humbug.

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 08:43:40 GMT

Sorry, Rod ... I do get on this kick sometimes, mostly twice a year (Christmas/Hanukkah and Easter/Passover). As they say, 'tis the season. We'll soon return to our regular programming. Thanks for hanging with it. By the way, I'm even now watching "Cosmos" on the Science Channel and really grooving on it.

The future of faith

Andrew O'Neill, Bozeman, MT — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:13:33 GMT

Another great post, Alan. You haven't heard of me, I've been a silent surfer for a long time.

I also like the word "God of the gaps", never really thought of it that way. Now that I think about it, even the smallest scientific advancements these days come hand-in-hand with a religious excuse.

So considering evolution exists, the more we think the smarter (in general) we get. Right? Makes sense to me. Time happens, we think, we get smarter. Scientific proof even backs it up a little. SO..., maybe in, say, 1960, when our world is overcome by nano-robots and knowledgeable people who have had a bad day and like to make nano-viruses to give Symantec a hard time (totally irrelevant), do you think our brains would have "evolved" (there, I said it) enough to comprehend the soul we now know is a mere word to express our brain itself? Maybe possibly enough to realize that religion itself could have been formed in a joint effort from a chemical in one's brain and a knack for writing?

I don't know. The "God of the gaps" word will definitely be added to my dictionary. Looking forward to more posts.

The future of faith

Elizabeth Petroski, Cranford, NJ — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:24:19 GMT

Dear Ian Wishart,

Loved what you had to say.

The future of faith

Brian, Farmington Hills Michigan — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:35:05 GMT

Science cannot co-exist with religion by its very nature. Science is the act of hypothesis, testing, and more hypothesis until an acceptable probability of certainty is acheived, regardless of what those conclusions may portend. Faith (religion) is the pre-acceptance of something with no proof or testing whatsoever. In today's political climate, anything not conforming to that pre-accepted belief is either fallaciously torn apart by psuedoscientific apologists or simply swept away by the evangelical executive/judicial/legislative branches of the government. This is oil and water. people. For those of you that did not get the gist, it means they cannot mix.

The President literally believes in, and looks forward to, the Rapture (a 19th century construct, not mentioned in the Bible) and the fulfillment of temple rebuilding in Jerusalem as signs of the apocalypse. And he appoints (anoints) like minded individuals to all seats of power where he can to hasten these events. And worse, sets official United States policy (foreign and domestic) based on his beliefs. The Christian faith has at its core a mantra of love for one's fellow man above all else. Period. Jesus said unto His disciples - I bring unto you a new commandment. Love your fellow man as I have loved you. No asterisks or provisions. Everything else should flow from this point of view.

I put it to you all that this current reign of evangelical nitwits have failed BOTH science and religion in the worst ways, and have brought this mighty nation down a notch or two in the process. I do not give them credit enough to say that they've destroyed this nation, for the system of our founders is far more robust than any one man-child's attempt at destroying it.

I pray for Peace for all Mankind, and the fulfillment of Jesus' real commandment, regardless of how it is mis-interpreted.

Merry Christmas to all, and may 2007 bring about truth and Peace.

The future of faith

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:39:51 GMT

In Author Tom Brown’s Native American school, I’ve ‘skeptically’ experienced some pretty strange stuff. I do feel (even from everyday experiences of dogs intuitively knowing when their master is coming home or from our own gut feelings we have) that there are things that science can’t explain. Even in science there are realms of supernatural-like concepts (the Hiesenburg principal of how conscious observation literally effects reality or the “instantaneous” knowing when another tied electron had been “viewed”) all seem to point to a much more tied and diverse reality than we are currently aware of. Are there future scientific explanations for such happenings? I’d certainly think so. Recent investigations into as many as 11 dimensions seem to hint that everything might actually be one in the same even though they appear as distance and substance none the less. In such a universe it would seem that our “intent” becomes the catalyst for certain events and that nothing happens by chance. I could even (just now) see how Karma might be a fundamental law in such a universe. In all, I think spiritual is a good term to label those of us who believe in something more than ‘current’ science understands, yet, who do not advocate the idea of a god directing all events. The idea that all living things have an “equal right” to be here (from an insect to man to a bear or whale) seems to be apropos as well.

Overall, I do see religion on the incline but not because of “intelligent design.” I think it’s actually being fueled by abortion and I can’t say I blame them. A late- or even mid-term abortion is just plain wrong. Such things have caused people to join organizations to try to stop this and ultimately this becomes the feeding spring for the right wing.

In the age of such international turmoil, I don’t see fundamentalism as the answer. Quite the opposite I’d think that it is incumbent upon the most spiritual people to give the most ground in order to bring some civility to the table.

The future of faith

Brian,Neenah,Wi — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:20:41 GMT

Alan,instead of the term "god of the gaps", I refer to it as the "shrinking god". A quick check of historical beliefs reveals how mankind has reduced the powers of "god" through time. Not so long ago we all prayed to the "volcano god" or the "flood god" when natural disasters hit. Now we wisely dismiss them as random occurring natural events. Not so long ago we all believed the cure for all illnesses where in the hands of "god" and that transplants and blood transfusions to name a few where sacrilege. Now we rightly prosecute parents who refuse medical treatment for children for religious reasons. Not so long ago we all believed that life on this planet was created 6000 years ago in a single poof. Now evolution is required teaching in all schools. The human intelligence has shrunk "god" back to the only remaining mysteries, how did the universe start and what happens when we die. Science is well on its way to solving these as well. I see a future without religion and I am thinking that may be a good thing.

The future of faith

Kris, Sierra Vista AZ — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:33:24 GMT

Here is another question, why mix the two? People will always look for answers to those questions of life. Faith and science are different sides of the same coin. In one hand you have people looking for answers that fill the heart, and in the other you have people looking to fill that "gap" in their mind. Everyone needs that filling that what they believe is true, and they will do what they can just to verify that it is so. So then it goes back to the question of "why”.

Did God really impregnate Mary? Or did Mary play on Joseph's beliefs just so she wouldn’t get caught cheating? We don't know what really happened. People have proven that over the years that we lie. Humanity lies to itself just to make it feel better, safe in knowing that we are better then animals. But are we better then them? If you look into they way animals interact with each other, you can see the same patterns in us, just in a more "intelligent" way.

But the future of Faith? Who’s to say what tomorrow will bring. For all we know, will God send his son back to us to help us again? Who's to say that tomorrow we will discover intelligent life, and that we are not the only intelligent creature in this universe? But no matter what, people will always hold on to a belief. No matter how radical that belief may be to others. It will bring that person some type of hope, and that what faith is: a hope; to have a feeling of peace. Science is the same way, a hope. A hope to discover what is out there to see, and to experience; ultimately, to be at peace with knowing the facts of either faith or science.

The future of faith

Anthony Cupo — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:49:03 GMT

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:1-3

Most are thinking in a flat world perspective, sometimes even the scientists who are very much valued by Christians that I know. There really is no divide except the ones created by modern devices of communication. Stop thinking God is some "guy" in the sky. The only way we can describe it is spirit. If you accept an absolute then there is only "one" God whice means "one" Holy Spirit. The vastness of creation spins expands and contracts , the scriptures merely help narrow your thoughts to the one true love , offers forgiveness for man's failures so generations can continue to seek answers and explore the ever creative caverns of our being.

They also verify that things of nature can be bad and dangerous , that when the celestial world was made (first) some of those creatures rebeled and became rulers of the earth. The ancients summed them up with one word or sound , translated we know it as satan. The darkness and the death which we all inherited from our ancestors is not of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not punishing of anyone. Created beings or things are given over to their free will. Your existence is enough evidence. And if you give in to darkness or temptations or experimenting with right and wrong, whether in thought or in the physical world you are given over to your desires.

Some complain about sin and question truth but the results are clear. You smoke you get sick, you cheat on your wife , you'll probably lose her, you put money before people well it will consume you. The church is quite unorganised so the media spatter out whatever its perspective is and tries to make it in a nutshell, but really the true freedom of God through the Holy Spirit is, is that selfishness cannot keep you down.

The result of sin was death. Eventually God with His ever natural compassion and love said "man, they still do not get it." He came down manifested and gave of us even more freedom from death, rose from the grave ,killed the tradition of sacrifice that was becoming an outer ritual instead of one from the heart so we would no longer die. God became the lamb, as an example in the smallest country on earth in its day, to prove His love , that is the final sign , so be free and seek the heavens and progress but also acknowledge and know the true God and stop listening to the tunnel vision entertainment media and know God can only speak to you the way He knows how because He did make all things and in great variety, and why would He not have made you so unique as to not be swayed so much by others , that protects your self worth and helps keep your freedom to decide on your matters in tact, consult the Great Commandments and fail without guilt, it is OK.

The others and their opinions are not what is important to how God uses human beings to transform and influence the world. When you dig deep into the history and the roots of the Jews and how it transforms into Christianity you will see that all the battles in the Middle East and the disagreements over religion have real differences, all religions are not the same and to me Christ is the only explanation of whjat inspires freedom and the continuation to discover and to not let a ritual keep us down and to not let man be subservient to other men who claim to know more about God than others.

Christ also protects our life and the unseen kingdom of purity and Christ protects us from putting God almighty on levels that we feel so not wothy that we do not look to help the societies and cultures we live in. Christians who surrender to Christ begin to live differently with more concern for people and individuals and less of the "system" and they begin to know that what is important is the heart and spending time with the matters of truth and they withdraw more and more from a world that takes away from them.

Satan or the world is the part of the weave of man that pulls us away from the beauty and sells us out to the temporary. What happens when large groups of people beleive in in only the world is emptiness and moral decay , which immediatly cannot be seen as a horrible thing, but over time it makes popualtions sick. The more satan breaks down, divide and conquers the compulsions to faith the more people that will not submit to the greater good of man.

I envy scientists because they choose an uncharted road and sacrifice a lot for it, i wish they knew it was not anti-God and just realized they may expose some wonderful new discoveries , yet they will discover what has already been there but many failed to look or were not capable of that oppurtunity.

The future of faith

Andy Vollmer , Goodyear , AZ — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:07:28 GMT

It appears to me that science and most religions (especially mono-thesim) are directly opposed since religious beliefs require faith (and generally do not tolerate dissention) and science requires the use of the scientific method (requiring rigorous testing) . A logical mind could say that there are things which cannot yet be described . This does not preclude the existance of a 'God' or 'Gods' but recognizes that we do not yet understand all that exists . Religion does play a beneficial role in many societies . It can be a stablizing force that allows people to manifest the qualities of compassion and helpfulness among the individuals in any culture . However , only the most naive person fails to recognize that religion is also corrupted on a regular basis with the result being persecution and violence . Science also has been beneficial to mankind in general , but is often corrupted , resulting in violence and persecution . The commonality here is that both are used by maniacal people hell-bent on domination of others by any and all means . Hopefully , one day science or religion will erradicate these violent tendancies of domination exhibited by a small sub-group of the population .

The future of faith

Ron Manroe, Woodland Park, Colorado — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:13:21 GMT

I think it would be beneficial at this time of year to disuss the real origins of not just Christianity but of all mythologies. Since ALL religions, mythologies and even folklore spring from the same human psychological needs wouldn't it help if we were able to identify those needs and address them with some type of framework that was actually relevant to our culture and new understanding of our universe. It is high time that we create a new paradigm on dealing with each other and our environment that is not based on 5,000 year old thoughts and understandings of the way things work.
I have faith in humanity. I have faith that man will be able to answer the deeper questions of existance. Both those that can be answered with science and those that cannot. We simply have to understand that the seeds of that understanding exist in ourselves and to stop looking outside for the answers. For anyone interested a good place to start would be anything written or any interview with Joseph Campbell.

A Festivus for the rest of us!!!! Happy Holidays!

The future of faith

Jim C — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:15:20 GMT

I like the discussions, I have no opinion on it, or should I say any answers. Sure I have thoughts but they are like a roller coaster ride.

This material was of no significance to me for many years, I am a degreed Engineer so evidence and proof are always a concern. It is difficult to make simple things work or behave properly day in and day out, so how could the sweep of God’s hand make all things so good, complicated and perfect – he or she seldom gets credit for any of the bad or evil in the world.

Then my wife of almost 28 years got unexpectedly ill, ended up on life support and later a feeding tube and I had to make that decision of living or dying. This was the person I loved so much , the mother of my kids, the young grandma of the grandchildren. I did all I could and extended her life for months. Was it for her or me? Finally I had to make the decision to let her go, each week she was worse and worse and any recovery was out of the question. Medical care really sucks, even the best of it, if you don’t believe me wait till your turn comes.

I was all alone, no one to turn to and I was the guy who decided whether she lives or dies. Losing your mate is pretty bad. I let her die rather than taking her to the ER to fight the infection, get transfusions which lasted a few weeks and all the pain she goes through with each trip to the ER.

Did I pray – hell yes? Did I think it would do any good? Well I thought it might not hurt. I feel people with faith use it like putty, it fills in the cracks of what they can’t explain. I let my wife die, I feel the pain every day. A person of faith can just pin the blame on God, “it was her time”. I feel faith is a means of shifting responsibility from your own self to this “God” so you can feel better about things.

You can justify anything if you can convince people it is God’s Will – look what Bush did. I feel faith and religion are like Santa Claus, “if you believe in him then he exists for you”!

When she died she took so much joy and happiness with her, everything from both of our lives. My life now hobbles along, it is s***. It puts new meaning to ‘Monk’ and ‘About Schmidt’ – two shows I enjoyed before her death and how I have a totally different view of after her death.

My friends have called me a “broken man”, they may be right, I don’t give a s***. I think about death a lot, I wonder how she felt at the end, was she warm, did she go somewhere where she feels my love every day? Does she know I did not want to harm her? Is all my suffering and pain mean she isn’t suffering any longer?

If I was religious I could just shift the burden on God and everyone in church would pat me on the back and tell me she is in a better place, I have experienced that. I must believe in religion somewhat – I struggle every day with “Thou shall not kill”! I live with that every day, 24 hours a day, every week, month and year. I want to believe she is better off.

The future of faith

Kevin, Harrisburg, NC — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:21:47 GMT

The fact is this, science cannot disprove the existence of a god any more than religion can prove it. Personally I believe in evolution, but im not an atheist. Since science cannot disprove god, then I cannot reject the possibility of his/her existence. However, in my opinion the "true" god cannot be defined by any one religion on this planet. Putting all the fantastic miraculous claims of christianity aside, Jesus had the right idea and probobly represents the closest image of god. A god of love, peace, and hope. Thats what I want to believe in today and tomorrow for all of humanity.

The future of faith

Laughing Skeptic, Austin, TX — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:13:25 GMT

Faith and science are defintion about as opposite as two terms can get. Faith is belief without question. Science is a mechanism for posing and evaluating questions.

When is everyone going to realize there is nothing to discuss on this topic?

The future of faith

Mike angove, Falls Church, VA — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:17:33 GMT

Dismiss the specifics of ID arguments if you like...but eventually...and I suspect within my lifetime...something will need to emerge to replace the carcass of grand neo-Darwinian story telling. Just as chemical evolution and spontaneous generation have failed so will the idea that time+rocks=intelligence. The logic assault on Dawkins-like strong materialism has only just begun (disagree? check out the virulent push-back of the scientific atheist crowd). That is not to say there are not elegant material explanations waiting to be uncovered...but unfortunately even that will not be allowed to happen till we ditch the untenable we've got.

The future of faith

Will E — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:30:39 GMT

I see no reason why it should be science vs. religion. It is said that we were never to know what God knows, but we were given the gift of curiosity and the ability to learn and discover. These gifts allow us to save lives, discover better ways to grow food and make our lives more comfortable and productive. As long as we use these gifts for good, then why should people go around trying to dispel other people's belief in God. Science is not God's enemy. Hate, bigotry and violence are. I know it sounds simple, but why can't we just enjoy the company of others, learn to accept people's shortcomings, embrace their greatness, punish their malevolence, forgive them of their mistakes and just have fun? Human beings tend to complicate their lives in the attempt to simplify it...

The future of faith

Patrick, Chicago — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:54:15 GMT

Science and religion are antithetical epistemological foundations. Any attempts to reconcile the two can only end in futility. Perhaps one day we'll shake off the superstitious vestiges of our early ancestors and learn to open our mind and truly explore the universe around us, but until then people like Sagan will be a marvelous anomaly in a sea of ignorance and fantasy seeking. Faith in a nuclear world is too dangerous to let pass without question and examination.

The future of faith

Pastor R. Kevin Kline — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:00:38 GMT

You will never catch me saying "I know" God exists, or "I know" Christ was raised from the dead. Now ask me if I believe these claims. If I "knew" it wouldn't be faith, now would it? As far as science and religion goes, I can live joyfully with both. My goodness, if you think some relgious claims are wonderful and awe inspiring, start looking into quantum physics. I mean wow! All in all both science and spirituality are very cool stuff, so why not just sit back and enjoy.

The future of faith

Chad Hensley, Moreno Valley, CA — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:22:52 GMT

Thoughts and ramblings.

Yes, it is cyclical. The concertive religous right seems to have peeked about 2 - 5 years ago. This cycle seems to play every 40 - 60 years approximately. The difference now is the intensity of this episode and the greater inclusion of politics both here and through out the world. It is also interesting that it does not limit itself to any one religion or political group but flows internationally across all borders.

My prediction - science will provide a way for religion to compromise on many issues (stem cell, use of embryos, definition of life to name a few) facing us today. Religion will encompass and allow scientific fact (good example was the earth being the center of the universe) and be able to point to specific chapter and verse in the various religious books and thought to justify their positions.

Further, we will be asking the same questions 60 years from now, but from the opposite point of view, but this is how we as a species progress over time.

The future of faith

John, Salisbury, NC — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:28:08 GMT

Humanity’s religious fervor has always been cyclical. But in the past 400 years, at least in Western culture, religion has steadily faded as scientific knowledge has increased. Even most of the so-called religious right would be considered heretics by 17th century standards. I don’t think that mankind is going to give up religion, even fundamentalism, anytime in the foreseeable future. For one thing, to really understand science and the way the universe works requires knowledge in math, physics, chemistry, biology, and other fields. And most devout people are unwilling and/or unable to exert the effort to acquire that knowledge. And given the poor quality of most public schools and the mind-rotting content of most mass media, I don’t think that is going to change. So while mankind’s knowledge of science will continue to expand, the percentage of the population who understand that science will continue to shrink. And that means that religion, and especially fundamentalism, will continue to thrive. Somebody once commented that if one doesn’t have faith, no proof of god is sufficient. If one does have faith, no proof is necessary. But I think Mark Twain made the best comment on religion when he said, “Man is the only animal with the one, true religion. Several of them.”

The future of faith

Eric Hedman, Pewaukee, WI — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:01:30 GMT

Somebody should tell Ian that Francis Crick died in 2004.

The future of faith

Brian Fraser — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:25:23 GMT

Faith ought to have quite a future in physics. Here is a thought from the article, One Christian's Perspective on Quantum Mechanics

(http://www.geocities.com/thirdgenerationphysics/):

***

Physicist Feynman says that we have to learn about the behavior of atoms "in a sort of abstract or imaginative fashion and not by connection with our direct experience." Christians have the same sort of problem when learning about God. Fortunately, the Bible offers an important principle about perceiving the invisible:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. . . . The things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:1-3, NKJ)

Biblically defined faith is clearly not just a belief based on blind credulity or trust in authority. It is based on evidence from actual, observable facts. The methodology used by Christians is thus very similar to that used by physicists.

***

Another site that will keep some of your readers awake at night in a hunt for practical applications is "Scriptural Physics" at:

http://members.andiamo-tel.com/~bfraser

The future of faith

Doug Peters, Montreal, Canada — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:26:42 GMT

As science progresses, we'll start needing to make the distinction between "supernatural" and "superscience": that is, we will find (as we are already starting to find) that there are plenty of natural phenomena that are actually beyond the power of the human mind to comprehend. Examples: what makes us human, meaning, language -- in short, everything that requires another level of recursion to "explain". This represents an insurmountable "gap" for science to fill. The fact that God will continue to invoked in this domain will be intolerable to some, justification to others, and truly amusing to yours truly.

The future of faith

Loren, Bay Area, California — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:36:24 GMT

Unless and until human nature changes, I'm not sure that our relationship with faith will change.

I read various bits of the discussion that ensued a week or so ago, when the issue of faith vs. science was raised. And quite frankly, I'm not sure that the level of discourse was much elevated over when Galileo was excommunicated for daring to theorize that the world was round rather than flat.

Now, as then, there are those who believe that science explains everything, those who put their fingers in their ears and sing "lalala" to keep from hearing any evidence that might contradict what they "know" is true because it's a tenet of their faith, and those who somehow manage to keep their eyes and ears open to new evidence that might change what they believe.

And just as the Pope was willing to excommunicate Galileo and as others were willing to put unbelievers to the sword or the fire, some folks are still willing to use force to coerce or eliminate the "unfaithful."

Given those data points, my theory is that we'll still be squabbling over the same types of issues, in many of the same ways, five hundred or a thousand years from now. Assuming our species is still around to do so.

The future of faith

Craig Remillard — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:00:33 GMT

Excellent topic of coverage. I think the real division isn't science v. religion, it's religion v. dogma. Religion's job is to force us to meditate and find our own explanations for the things that can never be explained. Why do I love my wife? What is this unbelievable sense of wonder I'm filled with at times? Why is there good and evil, and how do I tell which is which? When religious organizations force spiritual questions into testable hypotheses through obtuse reasoning and shortsighted heresay, they set themselves up for embarrassment and contradiction. Religious leaders would do well to remember that they are just as fallible as the rest of us.

The future of faith

naneki, CA — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:10:27 GMT

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 adultress 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.

The future of faith

Brad Harris — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:55:40 GMT

While looking at a picture of the Eagle nebula on 'Astronomy Picture of the day' the idea came that maybe the stars breaking away from the frozen hydrogen dust cloud have something in common with the unproven cold fusion theory. And as far as wasting time debating the existence of extraterrestrial gods, lets leave that in the dust bin of history.

The future of faith

J. Jordan, Illinois — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:33:43 GMT

I loved every one of these posts! How refreshing to see I'm not alone in the world with my thoughts and beliefs. That said, I 've pondered the debates between religion and science for a long time. I realized that, personally, I cannot and have never been able to accept "blind faith". I was not raised in a religious home, and I read and learned, went to college, and came to agree with most science based theories that were posed to me; therefore, I claimed myself an "evolutionist" while all my peers sported some other religious title behind their names. I often asked my religious friends about how they acquired their faith...was it reading the books associated with their religion? Learning from their home environment? Most faith-based believers said they don't question...it just is. At heart, I'm a skeptic...I cannot not believe blindly...I need data...research...proof. It was a confusing time for me spiritually as my husband was born and raised in a religious home--I wanted to share his "faith", but I felt I was untrue to myself, a hypocrite, to pretend and go through the motions of church.

A year ago, I came upon a new friend who had born and raised in a christian home her whole life. She has a Masters in Zoology and loves to talk about anything scientific. She left her church when she was just out of high school. When I asked her about her faith, she told me she never felt she acquired true faith like they wanted her to because she always questioned everything that she was told. She's an explorer, she has to find out the answers for herself with much time, research, and soul searching. Since then, she and I have had wonderful spiritual and scientific (among other intellectual) conversations, and I've come to realize that there are those who ask "why" and must have proof--and there are others satisfied with having one source to live by all their lives (and I'm sure there are all of those people in between shades of gray).

Geographically, I live in a very devout part of the country, and I have a few friends who think as I do; it is difficult to see how many of us there really are in the world. Traditionally, this has always been a difficult time of year for me. Thanks to all of you for sharing your messages during this holiday time; I feel as if I do belong somewhere in the universe :)

The future of faith

Rehan, Ypsilant, MI — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:15:58 GMT

I find evidence of God all around me. From the wind blowing in my face to the smile of my baby nephew. I also saw evidence in the closed eyes of my grandpa as his casket was closed in the funeral home.

I feel pity for those who don't believe in a higher power, how empty your lives must be.

What I hate is when people say they know the truth and only their interpretation of the truth is correct.

As for taking God out of school and government, I support that. This is something parents and churches should teach. They have alot more influence on kids then teachers.

Also, I saw too many Hindus and Jews being teased and bullied and bing told they would go to Hell if they did not find Jesus.

So don't reject the majority of americans who are believers, and believers--don't claim that you know the truth.

We will all see who is right once we die.

The future of faith

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:34:51 GMT

i saw a religious special that told a little about mary and that as was the times she was sold to her husband in an arranged marriage. her husband was about 25 and mary was very young early teens probably. my question is is this info accurate and if so what is the religious significance of impregnating(divine conception) a 13 or 14 year old slave?

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:01:17 GMT

I really feel a need to respond to Jim C., to say that there was clearly a bond of love there and that the angst and suffering you feel now are surely a natural follow-on. I'm glad to hear your friends are concerned about you and your brokenness, and I'm glad to hear that there are children and grandchildren who are part of your wife's legacy. ... I've not been in your position, but I think this is a pain that is perhaps dulled by throwing yourself into new pursuits but never goes away. I guess I'm on a strange Carl Sagan kick this week, but I'll just quote from "Carl Sagan: A Life" ... actually what Ann Druyan said about how she felt after her husband's death:

"I felt like I could hear the Furies calling in my ears. I felt I was participating in some Aztec ceremony in which my chest was being opened and my beating heart was being ripped out of my chest. And for weeks I could feel and hear this physiological thing, literally like the Furies 'calling' - I'm sure it was completely psychological or biological - this amazing sound I heard in my head. ... Since June 1, 1977, from that very moment that we told each other that we loved each other, I had been thinking about how the piper would have to be paid. I don't think you can be that lucky and that happy without paying a huge price for it."

Jim, know that my thoughts and prayers go out to you.

The future of faith

Bob, Seattle, WA — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:29:22 GMT

Promoters of the existence of god cannot effectively use logic or even effective analogy to prove or demonstrate their point of view. The reason is they have no objective evidence of god. To claim god exists is inherently an act of what they call faith.

“Faith” is a euphemism for hubris and fantasy and the abnegation of logic. The hubris is to imagine that we are important to, or have a connection with “the almighty”. It makes some folks feel good not to have to acknowledge our triviality in the vastness of the universe. The universe doesn’t care about us and that scares folks. So if they imagine they have a relation to the creator of the universe they feel (without reason of course) more important.

The fantasy is to imagine the universe as the creation of a supernatural entity. This is the typical meaning of god that is objectionable. The other versions of god as being the magnificence of everything tries to duck the issue with slippery semantics effectively denying the first typical meaning. Everyone can be awed at the almost everything in the universe: even more so as we gain understanding. That awe doesn’t count as god.

The abnegation of logic occurs when folks can’t accept that there is not a satisfactory explanation for all that happens in the world and the universe. Folks need a meta-explanation to blot out the fact that they (we all) don’t know all that much. It is simply not logical to insist something is true with absolutely no evidence of it. To base ones behavior on faith and worse, on texts that profess to be the word of god is dangerously illogical. People consistently misinterpret, and mis-translate those texts. Many folks are vulnerable to charlatan demagogues masquerading as interpreters of the word of god. The congregation may be sheep but the preachers are the wolves.

Some folks do feel “spiritual”. We may find out what that feeling actually means someday. In the mean time, those of faith would do well to drop the hubris, and do good works because it is good for humanity. That, by itself, is a good enough reason to behave decently.

The future of faith

wild-man of Borneo — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:13:10 GMT

At loss with loss sense of direction on the purpose of life in planet of apes.
At loss with the secrets of the pyramids in Egypt.
Try and read Nostradamus - THe final reckoning.
By Peter Lemesurier, Piatkus Book, 1995 Edition.
See the summary chart on page 13.
The secrets of the pyramids expose the purpose of life in planet of apes.
At loss on what the liberation of freedom back from world war two is all about in planet of apes.
At loss with the true meaning of X'mas in making a monkey out of ourselves in planet of apes.
Merry X'mas and a Happy New Year to all living human kind in planet of apes.
With the best is yet to come.
Once we hit the home-run in solving the misery of living human kind in planet of apes.

The future of faith

Terry, Winslow, AZ — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:29:31 GMT

An earlier poster said:

"Science cannot provide what man most wants, hope."

It is not science's purpose to offer hope.

Men and women provide hope and support to each other.

We sell ourselves short when we give the decent attributes human kind has developed for millennia to an invisible god.

The future of faith

Travis, Mullica Hill, NJ — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:38:52 GMT

I was baptized a Catholic, but then never forced to go to church after that. My mom used to read the Bible to me, and even at the age of 7, I would ask questions like, "How could they fit two of every animal on a single ark?" or, "How could Jesus raise people from the dead?", and she would respond, "It's just a miracle!" So I would counter, "How come these 'miracles' don't happen today?" No response. Now I know the answer-- Because they never did happen in the first place. Some clever folks put together a wonderful collection of literature about men who lived for 500 years and people parting seas, and used it to exploit groups of people. It doesn't surprise me that it worked then, but now-- in 2006 -- I can't believe people still believe this stuff! lol

I'm a non-believer so I am surely going to hell? I am a good person-- I am a teacher and enjoy helping people-- it just seems right! I don't need to give people money and dress up on Sunday mornings to feel good about myself! It's so much easier to just accept what they throw at you in the Bible to explain things -- no thinking=no headache. You get a headache when you try to imagine how this wonderful universe came into being 14.7 billion years ago and how human life forms evolved from elements that started in stars! That is truly amazing-- but it will give you a headache! Easy way out- just accept the Bible!

The future of faith

John Nelson — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 02:14:31 GMT

Carl Jung wrote an interesting book titled "Synchronicity". The fundamental idea of the book evolved from conversations Jung had with Albert Einstein while Einstein was developing the theory of relativity.

In the book, Jung refers to experiments in ESP conducted by J.B. Rhine. The experiments appear to show that people possess perceptive powers that are not bounded by the restraints of space or time. One young man actually managed to "guess" all the cards in a 25 card deck (Jung cites a probability of the happening at 1 : 298,023,223,876,953,125).

Whatever a person may think or feel about organized (or disorganized) religion, it might be well to keep an open mind about the question of whether we possess a spirit/soul which exists beyond the limitations of matter.

I like the attitude taken on the Stanford website in regards to "Conservation Laws" - "The risk in setting these laws is that there may be some very rare processes that we have not yet observed that may not respect the laws we state them today."

A person like Jesus might exemplify those "very rare processes" and be a sign pointing to possibilities we are too quick to dismiss.

The future of faith

naneki, CA — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 02:41:48 GMT

TO MIKEEG, ABDN, WA: THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE/ASKED:

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, BUY A NEW KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE (MY FAVORITE) AND READ THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK OF MATTHEW OR THE BOOK OF LUKE. BOTH OF THESE PERSONS WERE ACTUALLY DISCIPLES OR FOLLOWERS OF JESUS. WHAT THIS "SPECIAL" PORTRAYED IS NOT WHAT THE WORD OF GOD SAYS. SHE WAS NOT A SLAVE NOR SOLD (IT DOESN'T SAY THAT). GOD IS HOLY AND PURE, THEREFORE THE VESSEL HE CHOSE TO BRING FORTH HIS SON WAS A VIRGIN, NEVER TOUCHED BY A MAN. IT DOESN'T SAY HOW OLD ANYONE WAS. THAT WASN'T LEFT FOR US. IT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR US WHAT WAS LEFT FOR US IN THE WORD OF GOD. SEEK, DESIRE TRUTH. OPEN YOUR HEART TO TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING. ASK GOD FOR UNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU READ IT (IF YOU DO). HE'S THE ONE THAT GIVES ANY ONE OF US ANY UNDERSTANDING OF THE THINGS OF HIM. HE CREATED US, WE DIDN'T CREATE HIM.

The future of faith

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 04:50:38 GMT

There are fireworks aplenty in the collision between religion and science, but like those fireworks, they are mostly sound and light, disappearing into the darkness surrounding them. Science is so busy searching for reasons that it has no time for the "unexplainable" and reliigion is so self-absorbed in "saving souls" that it never looks beyond (or behind) the Bible.

But evolution is as real as dinosaurs and as a "theory" it applies both the evolution itself and to religion and "the ties that bind" equally. We mustn't ever forget that it was science that could prove Earth was flat, though not supported on the shoulders of Atlas, and religion (Christianity, specifically the neo-conservative variation) is mostly founded on the King James version of the Bible with its many errors of translation, omission and commission, outdated language, and sponsored by an institution, Royalty,utterly rejected by the American peoples otherwise.

The fireworks fade out, lost in translation, the confusion of words, and the preferential selections of memory.

The future of faith

Brent Evans, Hot Springs, AR — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 05:01:35 GMT

Would there be religion(s) if average humans were willing to think of death as -- the end?

The future of faith

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:32:55 GMT

Why do people have this need to have a God, faith and religion? Science is tangible. God is not. Humanity created God and Gods out of some imagined need. The whole of religion (and faith) revolves around and is summed up by an idea of eternal life. I profess that if not for this, religion would have died out long ago. The more we come to terms with the fact that eternal life, while a fantastic notion, just isn't the case, the future of faith is dismal.

If something remotely resembling a "God" indeed does exist, this God can't be anything like we humans want it to be.

The future of faith

Dan Cuny, Tucson, Arizona — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 08:20:41 GMT

Us Latter Day Saints (mormons) have far fewer problems with science. When you have 4 books (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), you have a scripture to cover nearly everything! Relativity? Book of Abraham. Quantum and particle physics? Doctrine and Covenants section 88. The purpose of and nature of our lives and existance? Moses chapters 1 and 5 (throw in the beginning of ch 3 too), as well as Alma 42 in the Book of Mormon.

(lds.org or mormon.com have them under "scriptures.")

Why do science and religion clash? Because information is missing, and in that unfortunate knowledge vacuum, theories and opinions are used to fill in the gaps. This is why there are so many different religons. This is also why there are different scientific theories.

By understanding that we are all missing information, and that most folks simply want to discover that missing knowledge, we can learn to become more patient with each other. Less contention and more progress can be made.

The future of faith

Brian in Farmington Hills (again) — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 08:56:01 GMT

This 'gap' people speak of between what can be scientifically verified and what must be ascribed to faith is a misnomer. Everything is known, just not to us at the present time. That being said, those who choose to exploit fears arising from this 'gap' are neither scientists nor holy men. They are charlatans with their own agendas of how to control people unto their own ends. Beware of them. Shun them. Vote them into office not!! Peace out!

The future of faith

John, Fremont, Ohio, U.S. — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:04:15 GMT

"Truth is one and the sages call it by different names." -- the Rig Veda (book 1, chapter 164, verse 46)

Science and religion are two different inquiries into the same truth. Science proceeds by reason, which is useful but limited, as illustrated by the liar's paradox and as demonstrated by Alan Turing. Religion proceeds by faith, which is also useful but limited, as demonstrated by many examples from life. Both lines of inquiry lead to direct personal experience of reality and lead to questions about its ultimate nature.

Whether this is just phenomenology or a door to reality itself is a decision that we all must make: directly and in our dealings with others.

Christ is born. May He lead us all to the knowledge of the Truth.

The future of faith

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:12:48 GMT

naneki nice story but seriously what is the religious significance of impregnating a young teenage slave, she was sold in an arranged marriage that makes her a slave. the bible also does not say what the weather was but i belive there was stll weather, so just becaus the bible does not give her age or status as a slave does not mean that she was not a slave or 13 or 14 year old. why not a 30 year old virgin?

The future of faith

Jay, Birmingham, AL — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:43:22 GMT

I think I'll pray for all of you that have doubts. And I'll pray for God to resolve those through his own plan and time so that He alone gets the glory. Some things that many of us don't "understand" may never be understood this side of Heaven.

The future of faith

DBowman — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:01:57 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Randall Rocke, Columbus, OH — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:07:41 GMT

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

The future of faith

Wendy, Rochester NY — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:39:57 GMT

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

The future of faith

Shane, Houston, Texas — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:41:47 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Houston — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:05:48 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Keith Lee — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:43:27 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Steven F. Durst — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:24:24 GMT

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.

The future of faith

D. Filler — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:27:29 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Tony Gutierrez, long Island, New York. — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:46:24 GMT

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.

The future of faith

I. Garrett, Springfield Missouri — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:18:14 GMT

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

The future of faith

John Charles Webb, Jr. Maui, Hawaii — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:41:14 GMT

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!

The future of faith

T Herrera Nahville Ga — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:00:38 GMT

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

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:21:47 GMT

@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.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:56:46 GMT

@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.

The future of faith

naneki, CA — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:16:36 GMT

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.

The future of faith

naneki, CA — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:28:11 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Tom M, Downey, CA — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:44:22 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Yegor Ludmilin, Vancouver, British Columbia — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:05:04 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Bruce Bourdeau, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:01:18 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Steve Nichols — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 06:34:24 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 07:33:12 GMT

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"?

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 07:55:20 GMT

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.

The future of faith

John S. Keller, Columbus, GA — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:28:00 GMT

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

The future of faith

E.G. New Orleans, LA — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:41:49 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:31:47 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 14:49:38 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Joseph Baneth Allen, Jacksonville, Florida — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:24:49 GMT

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

The future of faith

Beth Hays, Cocoa, FL — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:29:37 GMT

"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.

The future of faith

Julie, PA — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:39:35 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Jack — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:46:19 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Seven Star Hand (LW Page) — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:31:21 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Ray Bilodeau, Worcester, MA — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:48:49 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:28:30 GMT

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/

The future of faith

Dennis S. Rossner — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:06:46 GMT

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.

The future of faith

John, Salisbury, NC — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:53:52 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Tom M, Downey, CA — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:43:43 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Cynthia, Bullhead City, AZ — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:43:52 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Keith Lee — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:47:02 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Cliff Jennings Ste. Genevieve, Missouri — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:22:11 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Gary Schear, Bozeman, Montana — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:24:04 GMT

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

The future of faith

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:19:11 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Rick Fague, Carrollton, Texas — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:41:29 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Walter L. Wagner, Pepeekeo, HI — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 02:42:27 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Kevin, Rochester, NY — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 03:18:13 GMT

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.

The future of faith

rick freeman, louisville, ky — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 03:42:44 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Bob — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 04:36:47 GMT

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.

The future of faith

JaneDoe, Temecula, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:17:25 GMT

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.

The future of faith

Gary Schear, Bozeman, MT — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:48:29 GMT

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

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 07:44:32 GMT

@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.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 07:59:59 GMT

@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.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:08:23 GMT

@Bob

For me it's not a matter of convincing myself one way or another regarding the existence of God. To me it's totally irrelevant--I don't care! And no, I don't want to be my own little god. I have no need in my life for any such beliefs, but I don't deny the rights of others to believe what they want--just don't expect me to listen to what they have to say. The Constitution in this country guarantees the freedom of speech, but doesn't guarantee an audience. So believers should go peddle their wares somewhere else besides my space.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:36:17 GMT

@Keith Lee

Yes, some scientists do actively deny God, others do not. There are some solid reasons that "God is left out of science."

1) Whose God should be included? Just the Christian God? That's arrogance. Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Spinoza's God? Why should any one belief system be given preference over another? Incidentally, scientists of equal stature--Newton and Einstein, for example--often have very different views on God. Newton was a firm believer in the Prime Mover as defined in the Bible, but also dabbled in alchemy. Einstein, who was nominally Jewish in his upbringing, a "non-believer" in the usual sense, tending to follow Spinoza's thought, was nonetheless a committed Zionist who was proposed once as the Prime Minister of the newly formed state of Israel in 1948.

2) Occam's Razor. An assumption of God in an explanation often invokes additional, unwarranted assumptions. So it is simpler to leave God out of it and not have to explain observed phenomena as God working in mysterious ways when all other accounting fails.

3) God by definition is unpredictable, and unreliable when it comes to phenomena (if we could reliably predict God's actions, he would no longer be God, and prayer would be unnecessary). Science is predicated on prediction, based upon previous observation or deductions (e.g., theory). Most often this involves mathematical expressions. How does one write God into an equation? Do we make that a random variable? If so, with what distribution? If the factor is totally random, which in many physical situations would apparently be the case, then one can assume that for a sufficiently long period of time, the factor is not effective. But this is the same as not invoking God in the first place.

4) God is not a necessary nor sufficient condition for explanations (to state that he is necessary and sufficient is to prove that he exists). We apply F=ma without thought as to whether God is there or not. How do you determine which situations God acts in and which not? Would this not be tantamount to demonstrating that God exists?

5) Any new theory--whether of nested independent acceleration frames or strings--is subject to the condition that it must be consistent with previously demonstrated observations. New theories are presented all the time by scientists and by non-scientist to scientists. Many can be rejected outright, not because they are not well-argued, but because they are not consistent with previously established knowledge. In other words, the theory must be shown to work, reliably and repeatedly. This criterion is one reason that paranormal behavior is rejected as "non-scientific", because the phenomena cannot be reliably repeated. Note that this in no way denies that the phenomena exist--they just don't lend themselves to the kind of scrutiny science requires. The same applies to God--going back to point 3) above.

I don't think that the destruction of religion is necessary. Religion will destroy itself by blindly adhering to dogma that seem to be contradicted by science. The question is whether or not it can adapt, and to what extent it will. After all, it took the Catholic Church over 400 years to admit it was wrong about Galileo. The problem is that many people need the certainty provided by religion, and they feel that science erodes their faith. But this need not be the case if they can give up some of their insistence on literality of scripture. That is, open their minds.

I'm puzzled by your statement "good honest math and logic." Are you implying that somehow the mathematics used in physics is not honest? On what basis?

The reference to the "thesis" with the preface by de Broglie would seem to be irrelevant, given the tremendous success of quantum mechanics in the intervening years. We might not understand why quantum mechanics is as it is, but we know the theory works exceedingly well, in both practical and theoretical applications. There don't seem to be any significant weaknesses to the theory--perhaps the most accurate theory ever conceived. As to the interpretation, the jury is still out on that, though the Copenhagen interpretation is hanging in there.

As far as religion "in" science, we can look back to Georges LeMaitre, a Belgian priest, who first conceived the idea of the Big Bang, nearly 80 years ago. He was roundly criticized at the time for trying to inject religion into science. But the Big Bang is standard cosmology today.

We know there are some weaknesses in physical theories. For example, the Standard Model of particle physics is quite comprehensive and successful in its explanations of quarks. etc. But it's a hodge-podge theory, a patch-work quilt fraught with difficulties like the hierarchy problem (fundamental couplings of masses expressed in theory are vastly different than empirical measurements). The hierarchy problem also has implications for the fine-tuning problem and the problem of naturalness, closely related to the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle gets right down to the appearance of design in the universe. The various string theories try to address this, and one promising version, by Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum (as expressed in her book "Warped Passages") claims to have solved the problem. She will get a chance to prove that when the Large Hadron Collider commences operation in 2007. Leonard Susskind, the father of string theory, has discussed the illusion of design in the universe in his book "The Cosmic Landscape."

The future of faith

Casey Chapple, Colchester, VT — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 10:02:21 GMT

Jim C's is the most amazing post here. He is at THE place where life is. He is by himself, alone, and still standing. We don't need god. We just need strong knees and a willingness to take a step toward the next moment in time. Jim is absolutely full of love, all the way to the stars. It can hold him up if he can put a surface on it. It's possible. And he could share some of it - caring for others can cancel pain. I lost someone in intolerable circumstances. It allowed me to detect and sweep out all the dust bunnies of my catholic upbringing. It opened a huge space crammed with pain, but now the space is still there, I have more room to move and can see further. Take care of yourself, Jim C.

The future of faith

DAN — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:30:51 GMT

RELIGION IS FOUND WITHIN YOURSELF AND ANYTHING ELSE IS ONLY LEADING YOU DOWN SOMEONE ELSE'S PATH. SCIENCE IS THE HOPE OF FINDING MORE.

The future of faith

Gary Hamilton, Bloomfield, NJ — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:36:05 GMT

The religion vs. science debate is a great piece of fiction. Great scientists like Newton and Einstein were religious, and religious leaders understand the value of science. Dawkins does not seem to understand that religion is more than just "God" and theism - how do you explain all those Unitarians and Asian religions that bring people together without requiring belief in a diety? Could it be that religion has other "dimensions" such as community, shared values, discussion, and spirituality centered on what is the best way to live? And fundamentalists don't seem to understand that science doesn't care if the world was created by a supernatural event, only in understanding how things work and what that infers about the past - which keeps changing as science changes.

Once you see that the debate about theism is only about one aspect of religion it becomes clear that the debate is baloney.

The future of faith

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:06:38 GMT

Whew! What a bunch of confused people, for the most part. I hope this will help. You do not approach God with YOUR conditions attached. Conditions such as 'proofs', 'evidence', and the like are akin to asking for a 'sign' and will not elicit a response. He is GOD. He created you and He Loves you. But He has conditions for YOU which He made known through Jesus of Gallilee. These can be understood by the great as well as the lowly ( He has a decided preference for the lowly). These can be understood by the brainy as well as those not so well-endowed. And these are- that you approach Him with all humility, as a humble servant would, with a contrite heart. If I may borrow a line from Indiana Jones, "Only the penitent man will pass". You will not be turned away because He cannot be untrue or unfaithful, like we can. He will come into you, in spirit, and transform your heart. You will be a new person, born again. It happened to me.

The proud and haughty will not be received. Satan was cast out of heaven for that very reason, and for the effrontery of saying," I will not serve", which also means," I will not submit".

We all must make one of those two choices. There is no third choice, no in-between. We are only servants, of either Good or evil. Do not think that doing good things will put you on God's side. It won't. He'll view it as your own puffed-up pride. You must be baptized for the remission of sins, for starters. It's all in your Gospel. After your baptism, with your new-found faith, THEN you can begin storing up riches in heaven.

If this upsets the high priests of the scientific and intellectual community, so be it. But I very much hope that you will also 'tune in' to the Gospel message. Because it contains exceedingly good news for you too.

The future of faith

Robert Nachtegall, Grand Rapids, MIchigan — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:46:05 GMT

Interesting that many of the comments circle around the cruelty and inhumanity perpetrated by religion with absolutely no explanation about the origin of the construct. If people want to discuss how "bad" religion has been for humanity, I'd first suggest a clarification of the concept of bad versus good.

The future of faith

Doug Pruett, Pikeville Tn. — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:53:57 GMT

Believers will never be discouraged about the ignorance of unbelievers in this world, God said it would remain this way until the day of His declarative judgment, when He will open their eyes and understanding to their evil and pernicious ways.

Not only will God be vindicated, but, He will also reveal that there is but one faith, and this lone faith submits to one thing: the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel. This is the standard He has inviolably connected with the Gospel, which unregenerate man will always profane.

There are no "faiths," only "faith'" and it assents to one lone doctrine. The Gospel, with all urgency, presses upon men the vital issues of life and death, the difference between heaven and hell, between salvation and damnation: "You are unrighteous before God, according to His Law, and His Justice demands that you die for your crime against heaven; however, you require the righteousness of a God-ordained Substitute, if you will escape God's wrath upon and penalty for your sin and require to be reconciled to God on His terms, to which terms, because these have been revealed to all by God in His Word, you, as a sinful creature, are duty-bound to comply. God promises to deliver you if you submit to this righteousness and believe His promise that He willing to save you for Christ's sake alone, apart from your works as forming any part of the ground of salvation, and to impute the righteousness of His Son to your person, upon believing. Therefore (with the command attached in light of the absolute promise to save all who believe), God commands you to believe this promise and repent of your former religion."

The future of faith

Shane, Pennslobovia — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:04:12 GMT

Two possible outcomes...

a. God does not exist, the universe doesn't care that you exist, and there's no point to nothin.

b. God does exist, He did create it all and we might benefit from finding out why.

The future of faith

Wayne Mims — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:43:08 GMT

I think taking a scientific approach to the question about whether we are created, or not, is the right approach. Let's see; all that we see and know points to the fact that everthing in our universe is getting more chaotic. Does that show a lack of intellegent design? I don't think so. It just shows that nothing is synergizing to become more complex. So why do so many people believe in a theory where billions and billions of complex change reactions and connections had to take place in order for even a simple form of life on this planet to exist (not to mention a life form as complex as a human being)? For me, I choose to let simple mathematical odds determine the question about intelligent design. Scientist agree that the odds of evolution determining how we got here are 1 over some number with so many zeros in it that no one can fathom the number. Yet, the chance of there being a God is 50/50, either he exists or he doesn't. As for me, I'll let my understanding of a simple math problem answer the question for me. He exists, and logic, backed by science, proves it.

The future of faith

Nate, Woodbridge, VA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:03:43 GMT

It is amazing to me how many comment on what 'Christians' are and what we believe in when the only source of their information is what they see in the news or hear from their favorite leftist celeb or Dem. They also claim they know our religion without ever having read the Bible to understand what it really says. Why can you read endless pages of - admit it - hard to read scientific language but can't read seemingly endless pages of learn-who-God-is talk?

On the flip side, we have too many people claiming to be Christian, doing some really stupid stuff and driving the masses away from God because they haven't read it either and are doing more damage than good. I am a Christian, I believe in God - Good, the demons also believe and tremble, but there is more to it than that. We have to learn to turn from being the awful people we were born to be and love one another as we were commanded.

Stop trying to push our beliefs on people like Wayne and show him our love - give him a reason to believe. Stop saying science is wrong - so far it (especially in forms like archeology) has only proved what the Bible has to say.

On a side note, my Bible says the earth was created in ages, not 24 hour days if you look at the meanings of the root words. The difference is that I believe God could have created it in 6 24 hour days, not that he had to just because someone interpreted that verse in that manner. [...]

For the original question from Alan - I truly believe that in 60 years time or less, the world as we know it will be drastically different - the rapture will have happened and most won't have to worry about this debate from us supposedly illiterate, non-thinking, hate mongers, you will be able to go about your lives living with the same wars etc that were supposedly caused by us. But trust me, your day standing at the Judgment day will come and don't forget your Festivus pole - because the airing of grievances will surely happen.

The future of faith

Gary Schear, Bozeman, MT — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:08:20 GMT

JaneDoe,

Your comments indicate that you may be a sincere reasonable Christian. I have no problem with people who have adopted a set of beliefs to live their life by. My own lack of belief in a deity is in fact MY set of beliefs. My beliefs are based on the observable. That leaves many questions and I am ok with that. It is my belief that when I die my consciousness will cease. My ego will cease. My existence will cease. Until that time I will enjoy all that there is to perceive. I will enjoy the love of my family and laughter of my grand children. I will maximize the time that I spend smiling and laughing and try to make others laugh and smile as well. And I will support my species attempts to learn more, to increase knowledge, to answer the hard questions. It is a multi generational endeavor that I will never see finished. I am ok with that. I have no desire to force my beliefs on anyone and I would appreciate the same in return. Unfortunately some of the folks that you mentioned in your post are pretty intent on having their "truth" taught in public secular schools. These are the same type of folks that burned the library of Alexandria and set us back 2000 years. These are the same folks that forced a brilliant old man to confess to heresy and slowed the advance of astronomical knowledge for centuries. These are the same folks that were fond of bringing people to God by the word or by the sword. These people are one of the things that take my smile away.

However, reasonable people like you, JaneDoe, give me that smile back.

Merry Christmas!

The future of faith

Tom Lambie, Charlotte, NC — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:14:46 GMT

WAYNE McCOY:

The thing that intrigues me about your analysis is how passionate you are in asserting that you don't care one way or the other about the existence of God.

When I hear someone who is passionate about not caring, I think of William Shakespeare’s line: "Thou doth protest too much, methinks."

Many of my friends who claim to believe only in observable science, as you do in earlier posts, seem to maintain strongly-voiced convictions about the irrelevance of faith. You have to care very much about this question because your stated skepticism about the existence of absolutes is dependent on the non-existence of any sovereign deity.

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas, Tx. — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:15:40 GMT

Science must guard against "god-of-the-gaps" arguments (like the one used by Darwinists: "it may be physically impossible, but given a good 200 million more years...").

Science professors need to just stop teaching mythology (i.e. Darwinism) and just teach what experiment dictates (i.e. organisms constantly lose genetic complexity through evolution).

Will there be a conflict? Absolutely. Religious zealots (Darwinists primarily) will through tantrums repeatedly as they have been for years.

Will the mythology eventually lose to real science? Absolutely. Numerous college professors are already openly teaching the truth- Darwinism can't ignore the advances of bioinformatics, applied biophysics, and complexity theory forever.

This argument is kind of beaten to death, mostly by those who have very strong opinions and know little to nothing about science. I.e., many of the poorly informed individuals here. Some of us have seen it do the rounds many a time:

"Darwinism is science"
"No, it is incompatible with microbiology, biophysics, and information theory."
"What is biophysics? What is information theory?
"Information theory actually helps us track the flow of biocomplexity in the genome- showing us that organisms are de-evolving"
"Ooooh"

No affront to the ignorant among us at all- just please educate yourself before making such egregious opinions.

The future of faith

Elaine, East Tennessee — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:31:34 GMT

After years of mucking around with religion, I can only conclude that if there’s a Who out there, I do not want a personal relationship with it. By the same token, I do not want a personal relationship with my toaster. I want my toaster to do what I expect: toast my bread. I do not want it to give me advice. However, I also know that if my bread is to be toasted, it is up to ME to plug it in, check the setting, and insert the bread. If there is a God, that is the sort of relationship I seek. As for science, the jury is still out and if scientists are to be truly honest, they will say the same.

The future of faith

Andrea Skye, Cushing, Oklahoma — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:33:10 GMT

Having read the comments before mine, I'm struck by how many people still don't understand the basic terms: that Science is a methodolgy for investigating things and religion is Belief in a set of group/historical traditions for relating to some (sometimes all) of those things - whatever 'things' you might be talking about. Spirituality is possible in both religious and scientific realms, since it is one's personal way of connecting with what one's knows/believes is greater than or beyond yourself. Science produces explanations based on facts that are observable, repeatable, quantifiable, and as a body of knowledge is rather unified and universally agreeable. "Religion" is a singular term for a vast multitude of historic, or cultural, or regional, or ethnic explorations of meaning, purpose, and morality, with few commonalities and no possibility of universal agreement. They are two very different approaches to understanding things. Yet the overlap between them is the universe itself, all of who and what was, is and may be. Conflict between science and religion is not inevitable, nor essential; to accept one doesn't require rejection of the other. Healthy science requires freedom to question, explore and debate facts - so does healthy religion. The two can, and ought, to compliment each other, not compete. It would be peacable if we all left it at that - but then we'd miss out on all the lovely debates and discussions, such as represented here! Me, I'll keep enjoying reading the messages, and the "religiously" vast array of ideas! Here's to more of the same in 2007 and beyond.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:48:55 GMT

How do Buddhists view science vis-a-vis their religion? Listen to these talks for some insight.

http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/
talks/details?num=OM729

The future of faith

John Kovacs — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:48:55 GMT

In my opinion, science actually helped conceptualize the creation of the universe, which in turn points to the existence of God. You don't have to be religious to believe in Him. Common sense will tell you.

I think we can all agree that something doesn't spontaneously comes into existence. What was there BEFORE the creation of the universe and where did it come from? There was never a time there was nothing. Since it is impossible for something or someone just to pop into existence, it follows that Someone ALWAYS WAS. To me that is God. Since actually helped us reason out the He exists.

The future of faith

K. Mapson, San Mateo, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:54:48 GMT

The funny thing about discussing religion in a scientific context is that the evolution of religion and religious ideas can themselves be charted over time, in a fairly scientific manner, with each step likely bringing us humanity closer to the “truth.” What began with animism and ancestor worship developed into a full-fledged polytheistic system of Gods, each with their own area of specialization (the sky, the sea, love, war, death) essentially competing for human attention through prayer and sacrifice. Belief in these multiple Gods was every bit as fundamental as modern belief in monotheism (Socrates was put to death for purportedly stirring disrespect for the Greek Gods).

But the idea that one among any given pantheon of Gods was dominant gained ground. Just as the middle of the five toes of the prehistoric ancestor of the horse became larger and sturdier until it alone remained to support the weight of the horse. So did religion come to accept that there could be only one “God”, although hints of polytheism continue to strain from this notion, with various iterations of monotheism insisting on the existence of being that should properly be deemed “lesser gods” – powerful archangels who, like Hermes for the Greeks and Mercury for the Romans, act as God’s messengers; a devil with immense power to cause misfortune and tempt adherents away from the one true God, saints or other holy persons with influence over particular spheres of life, even different aspects of the one God to which independent appeals can be made.

The process did not end there, as mankind continued to struggle with theological formulae intended to reconcile our understanding of God with our knowledge of the physical world, to determine not merely how and why we exist, but how and why our existence follows from the observed structure of the Universe. Early in the 1700s, the theory of “pantheism” was put forward, explaining God as the Universe itself (and codifying in explicit terms a concept that Buddhism had developed over two millennia before). Later in that century, “deism” suggested that God had created the Universe, but then abandoned it to operate under its own devices (though its mechanics were designed by God at the outset). Neither of these was quite satisfactory, as pantheism presumed that the Universe itself had existed infinitely, and without Creation, while deism failed to explain why God would create a Universe only to abandon it.

These deficiencies were answered in new concepts put forward in the 1800s. First, there is panentheism, proposing that the moment of Creation was one in which part of God became the Universe while another part continued to exist separately, to transcend and guide the Universe. Finally, there is pandeism, proposing that the moment of Creation was one in which God became the Universe, leaving nothing of “God” outside the Universe, which operates under its own devices, but for the purpose of God’s experience of this operation.

If past trends hold true, it is quite likely that the next century will see a gradual move towards panentheistic and pandeistic religious beliefs, with the major existing religions adapting their doctrines to accommodate such explanations. Pandeism, at least offers a theological perspective consistent with our current understanding of the origin of the Universe, and the origin and development of life therein.

K. Mapson

The future of faith

Harry, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:58:28 GMT

Religion is an institution. God need not be a part of religion (for example, Scientology). Remove the God and the instition and you get philosophy. It's this last part that has been left to us as a great heritage. Too bad so many people misused the philosophy, the concept of God and the institution for their own benefit and for the detriment of so many others.

Science is a way of looking at the world and of finding out what makes it tick. Science doesn't tell us how to live our lives (except stuff like eat less fat, don't have unprotected sex, etc.). Science too can be misused.

Still, I see no conflicts between philosophy and science; they support each other. However, when an institution is invested in the status quo, as has often happened with religion, then the religion may instigate a conflict with science. The reverse never happens because scientists report results.

If you believe in one or more gods, then you must believe that he/she/they support science. So, just stop this nonsense about conflict. Science does not conflict with religion, and any religion that chooses to be at odds with science isn't worth following. If you find your religion in conflict with science, you have three choices.

1. Get your religious leaders to change their ideas.
2. Change to another religion that doesn't choose to fight science.
3. Abandon all religions; you may still choose to believe in God and in Jesus or Mohammed or Moses or anyone else on your own, but stop supporting the anti-thought dogmatists.

The future of faith

Petra, Fredericksburg, VA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:24:14 GMT

I would much rather believe in this life and be wrong then NOT believe in this life and be wrong.

The future of faith

Mark Mankowski, South Bend IN — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:29:07 GMT

Time to raise the white flag, fellow believers. The other side, by their own admission, is so much smarter than we are, we don't have a chance of winning any arguments, and besides, look at the record.

They gave us the science of thermodynamics, and are succeeding in melting the nasty old polar ice cap. They gave us the French revolution and enlightenmnent, and we have reaped the sweet fruits of Auschwitz, the Gulag, and the Great Leap Forward. They have repealed the ten commandments, and we now have a global AIDS epidemic and abortion on demand. They gave us globalization, and now any city on earth looks like any other city, with the same schlocky merchandise, and beautiful adjacent 2000 acre landfills. Their next gift will probably be genetically modified humans, made in the images and likenesses of the Harvard and Stanford faculties.

Burn your bibles, and leave your ignorance behind. with their guidance we can all become as vital as western Europe!

The future of faith

Harry, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:29:17 GMT

@JaneDoe

Who created God?

"Science has made one correction after another to cover its mistakes over the years." You could as easily say the same about religion. There is, however, one huge difference. Science always leaves open the idea that its theories contain errors -- small or large -- and has the means BUILT IN to make corrections based on new evidence. The religions with which I'm familiar don't.

Science does not contradict or attack religion. It ignores religion. Religions may choose to adapt to new realities discovered by scientists or to fight them. The onus is on the religions, not the scientists.

Science does not tell you to be an atheist. It does tell you not to accept claims without repeatable evidence.

The future of faith

Zibibo — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:29:46 GMT

The future of the Christian (and other) religions is sealed - once there are enough educated people on Earth, there won't be a need for any form of supernatural explanation for anything. Ponder this old Chinese saying: "The more you know, the less you believe".

The future place for World's religions is on a scrapheap of history.

The future of faith

Mike, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:43:49 GMT

I'm mostly interested in genetics. For 35 years, I studied what C.D. Darlington called the Third Forbidden Question in Science, Heredity. I put the solution at www.diver.net/seahunt/p/p_trans.htm.

Recently though, my friend has come to intensely dislike religion ... because it got politically manipulated.... Good point. He decided to cure the world of religion, one person at a time, starting with me... which is odd as I'm not particularly religious. Still, he forced me to look at it. Do you believe in God is a question of belief. Does God exist is a question perhaps for science. In science it would be the Fourth Forbidden Question. Well, much to my surprise, based directly on my genetic work, I concluded that the probability that God exists is very high. Not only that, but what the religions tell us is very likely true. I left out a lot so as to base it only on my genetic work, human habit and reason. Just read the Third Forbidden Question at the link and then follow the link there to the Fourth Forbidden Question.

...Think... why were the pyramids built? Human aspiration to beat death. It may not be so hard to do. The rest of the stuff just seems to fall into place.

... and now for something different...

Enjoy, Miguelito

The future of faith

Bob — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:51:01 GMT

To Gary.

Maybe you could summarize what you are saying about "Thou Art God"? It sounds like the very thing that people like to delude themselves into believing, because actively denying the existence of a higher God outside of yourself (which you are doing when calling yourself god) is a crutch for people that do not want to come to terms with a higher authority.

Atheists who deny God and relativists who like to believe they are their own arbiters of reality, are just different sides of the same coin in that they both have developed ways to delude themselves that He does not exist. Atheists though, while deluding themselves about God, can still have a discussion about logic. Relativists are in such denial, that they refuse to admit any truths or absolutes...in order to fully escape even the possibility of facing the truth of a higher authority than themselves. They cannot not admit that some things are 'true' and affect us whether or not we believe in them, even when they live their lives in accordance with this truth all the time.

The future of faith

Mike Johnson, Baltimore, Maryland — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:52:10 GMT

I am a mainline Protestant and at heart a scientist. I do very much believe in a God of the gaps. I think society would have to change a great deal to transition from a religious majority to a religious minority or religious fringe.

Most of the world's choral library would be considered "beautiful nonsense"

Many of our holidays would become generic

Weddings would be much shorter

St Augustine and St Paul would become just like Confucius or Plato.

Lots of beautiful real estate would go up for auction.

We'd never again have a pastor-in-chief in the White House.

The future of faith

katy, Hoffman Estates, IL — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:55:53 GMT

why cannot both science and God exist on the same page? I dont see the problem. God gave us the ability to learn, to grow, to make our lives easier. There is evil in the world too, which no one will deny. how can we accept the evil, yet deny the good?

The future of faith

Sergey, Atlanta, Georga — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:02:50 GMT

While I'm typing this message on the WWW, looking at my cellphone and daily enjoying other advancements of science I can't help but wander where we would be if religion wasn't blocking the progress throughout the ages. How can you say they can co-exist and are not opposites if one always fought the other?

We should stop caring about what happens after death and make this current life better. As life does get better we stop complaining and looking forward to afterlife - hence atheism grows.

The sooner science makes us richer - the sooner God concept will no longer be needed.

The future of faith

Kevin, Ludlow, KY — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:51:18 GMT

Science and religion are siblings, in that they both spring from humanity's desire to know and understand. Scientists just seem more willing to work for their answers.

The future of faith

Joe — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:06:48 GMT

Religion was created by man to control the masses, and though guilt, it lives on, nobody want damnation in hell, we all want eternal light /life.What better way to control man than through religion.

As time go by, and if man does not go extinct, we will find way to travel in space and, yes live in space,eventually, planet hopping thoughout space, until we find livable planets. God and religion may still be there for comfort and some to control man. But where will the end-of-the-world folks be. Truth be told if humans survive it could be thousands of years and religion as we know it could be like the greek mytholgy of today

So keep giving all your money to the church to build more extravagant churches and make the priests millionaires. your guilt will sustain the priests and pastors. Give to the needy if you have guilt, not the people that can actually work for a living ... the truly needy and infirm.

The future of faith

John Carroll, Riverton, CT — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:22:32 GMT

Sergey, Religion and science do not always impede or fight each other. They do in fact often help each other by providing a stable social environment in which to flourish.

Secondly, can you provide evidence that improved standards of living results in atheism? The U.S. as a whole is very prosperous and also very religious. Russia's growing economy is being accompanied by a renaissance in the orthodox church.

As for science making us richer - wealth - of knowledge or material, is a happy byproduct of science, but it is also true that the pursuit of creature comforts can make selfish, spoiled and in some cases evil. I submit to you that the concept of God is precisely what is needed when humans devolve into no better than a sum of their animal appetites or become intellectually arrogant. Porn on an iPod is a poor substitute for enlightenment.

Future religion will undoubtedly evolve along with human understanding. People will attempt jihads against those who question their dogmas, but eventully those dogmas which prove to be patently ridiculous in the light of day will be quietly explained away as metaphorical or abandoned just like the concept of a geocentric universe. There will always be an interest in spirituality because far too many people have paranormal experiences which science can not address adequately.

The future of faith

Chris, Denver, CO — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:26:53 GMT

What man wants most is hope, not truth. Science is the search for truth beyond a shadow of a doubt. Faith is hope. How do you reconcile hope with truth? You cannot! I think Albert Einstein said it best: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

The future of faith

Reed Southern NH — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:19:47 GMT

Alan,

You might find it interesting that the second most widespread (although not the second largest) religion in the world, the Baha'i Faith, insists that a harmony between science and religion is not only possible, but essential. For example, "Fourthly: Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. 29 One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)
and ...

If any religion rejected Science and knowledge, that religion was false. Science and Religion should go forward together; indeed, they should be like two fingers of one hand.(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 71) and ...

The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation. (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 239)

So, you see, it is not a dichotomy, but a dynamic which strengthens both science and religion.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:21:03 GMT

@John Kovacs

When you say "I think we can all agree that something doesn't spontaneously comes into existence," I have to disagree, if you mean something material. Quantum mechanics provides that particles can come into existence from fluctuations of the vacuum, spontaneously. If you want to look for God in the quantum fields of the vacuum, then be my guest, and I won't argue. But this is radically different from an intelligence guiding and loving mankind.

@Tom Lambie

I don't claim to believe "only" in observable science. I really don't "believe" anything. I'm open to anything, ghosts, UFOs, gods...but I need to see valid reasons for accepting the probability of such. Convince me! I can accept that certain phenomena might not be reliably repeatable enough for scientific investigation. But give me something more than personal andecdotes in support.

As I've stated earlier, I have seen no reason independent of a belief in God for holding such a belief. Every reason I've ever heard eventually comes down to accepting the a priori assumption that God exists. I challenge anyone to give me a reason for belief in God that does not already entail that belief. Here I refer generally to the Christian concept of God, but to any others as well.

As for my passion, I get passionate about people who try to make me out as evil incarnate because I don't happen to share their opinions--and religion is truly only a set of opinions, nothing more. There may be truths in some of those opinions, but for the most part, I don't agree that those are necessarily truths for me. Hence, they cannot be absolute truths, because such truths should be obvious and not open to any doubt whatever. Why haven't we discovered absolute truths yet, that everyone will believe to be true, without any doubts?

Christians need to realize that there are many like me who really don't care about having sins washed away or living forever in Heaven, and we don't want to have their opinions continually pushed on us to get us to change our minds. When you can give us reasons to believe that are not circular logic, maybe we'll listen. But don't count on it.

The future of faith

Mike, Chicago, IL — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:27:19 GMT

To : Cliff Jennings Ste. Genevieve, Missouri

So you're saying we should believe based on sheer intimidation? That's not a God i want to believe in. Your argument, or should I say statement, is not a case for God's existence; it's an argument for belief based on irrational fear. With that kind of reasoning we should just pick the religion with the worst hell. It is not true that the believer loses nothing. We diminish this life by preferring the myth of an afterlife, and we sacrifice honesty to the maintenance of a lie. Religion demands time, energy and money, draining valuable human resources from the improvement of this world. Religious conformity, a tool of tyrants, is a threat to freedom. Nor is it true that the unbeliever gains nothing. Rejecting religion can be a positive liberating experience, gaining perspective and freedom of inquiry. Freethinkers have always been in the forefront of social and moral progress. What kind of person would eternally torment an honest doubter? If their god is so unjust, then theists are in as much danger as atheists. Perhaps god will get a perverted thrill from changing his mind and damning everyone, believers and unbelievers alike. Or, inverting the gamble, perhaps god will only save those who have enough courage not to believe! A belief in a deity based on fear is not a belief that produces admiration. It does not follow that such a being deserves to be worshipped.

The future of faith

Wayne Mims — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:32:17 GMT

From a theological point of view, there is no question that science and God are directly tied together. A God who created everything did so using Scientific Laws that He created. Therefore, a belief in God is an acceptance of Science and all the technology that it brings. If that's the case, eventually, science may prove, even to non-believers, that God exists. But until then, theories like Evolution (remember everyone, its just a theory based on literally thousands of hypothesis, not a Law like Gravity) need to be re-evaluated for accuracy and relevancy. We've only been teaching Evolution in our classrooms for about 70 years now. For the previous 150 years of our nation's existance, we taught creationism in our classrooms. Only time will tell which one is right.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:47:19 GMT

There's an easy answer to the question of religion. "People lie." Once you understand that simple principle, it all makes sense. At a time when Judaism felt that God should step in and save them from Roman oppression, religion invented a lie, that a day of judgment and resurrection was at hand. It has no basis in fact, only a misreading of a poem. Before Paul was a Christian, he was a Pharisee, a cult that believed the world was about to end and the dead resurrected. So Peter made up another lie, that he had seen a resurrected Jesus. The deadline for the end of the world and the resurrection passed when "all those who heard Jesus preach" died, about 110 AD or so. The Pope has no family, no purpose in his life other than to keep people from realizing that his whole religion is based on a lie.

The future of faith

Dan Ryan, Glendale, AZ — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:49:52 GMT

I haven't had a chance to read through all of the posts, so my apologies if anything in here has already been addressed. As one poster mentioned, science is the how and religion is the why. I would like to ask, what good is one without the other? I see Science and Religion, not as oil and water, but as vodka and cranberry, or rum and coke. They’re both good, but when you mix them, they become something wonderful! Even the greatest scientific mind of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

If God created the universe (as I believe), it would follow that all the cosmological mechanics, the “immutable” laws we have observed and discovered, would have been created by God as well. Some scientists will say, “I came up with the theory.” I don’t think they came up with the theory any more than Columbus “came up” with the Americas. They already existed, and all the scientists have done is shed light upon them. I am not saying, by any stretch, that the scientist arrives at these easily or that their work is somehow trivial; just that their work is one of discovery.
When I look at the universe, I am awed. I wonder to myself how random events could come up with a system that works so well. With every new scientific discovery, it becomes more complex and fascinating to me. How could a series of random events create the mathematical perfection that I’m sure is behind everything we know and don’t know?

I will leave you with one final thought. The Big Bang is the accepted scientific theory of creation at this point. I have no problem with the theory myself, but I have a problem with science when it says, “It all came from the Big Bang, and all the rules and everything you see and hear came with it.” All the material in the universe had to come from somewhere, or something; and that begs the question, in the instant before the Big Bang, where did it come from?

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:00:07 GMT

The American educational system is a total nightmare, because of religion and religious nonsense. There are obviously false ideas like Hell, Salvation, and atheists being condemned to an eternity of torment for not accepting Christ... and the American religious establishment has so much power, you can't stand up in a public place and say, "Jesus is dead and the idea of needing a Savior means that everyone who isn't saved will be condemned by your Imaginary Creator, and that doesn't make any sense at all." We need to change the rules, so people can say "Christianity is a lie" without feeling guilt.

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas, Texas — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:00:12 GMT

The anti-theistic arguments here demonstrate the normal level of ignorance when it comes to basic philosophy. Here the atheist argues that we should study philosophy and science without God, all the while openly demonstrating blatant ignorance about epistemic philosophy...

The problem, as I have tried to point out before, is that even many practicing scientists know nothing about the epistemology of their own field. Then they state emphatically that someone else has an inherently wrong epistemology, based on their superior epistemology- when all the meanwhile their own epistemology is self incoherent.

Also, directly regarding Alan's cosmic blog here: he is, sadly, parroting the wildly miseducated conjecture put forth by Stephen J. Gould (which I might mention has been thoroughly destroyed by educated philosophers for many years). Of course Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) philosophy does correctly describe the (lack of) interaction between science and CERTAIN religious frameworks (i.e. be it certain pseudo-Christian systems that apparently Alan and Stephen believe to represent that faith, or even things like multiple universe theory) - but he makes the error here of assigning it to describe the relationship between all religions and science.

Come on, guys. If you want to act like an intellectual, don't base your anti-theism on antiquated ideas!

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:18:48 GMT

@Wayne Mims

NO, Evolution is NOT just a theory! That is a comforting myth that some Christians have created to convince themselves that all is right with their faith. Evolution is a well-established principle, the first inklings of which go back nearly 200 years--Darwin made inferences based on this and his own work and devised his "Origin of the Species." The theory (not hypothesis, which is what those Christians really intend to say) is that natural selection accounts for the observed mechanism of species adaptation and evolution. Gaps and flaws in the theory? There are gaps and flaws in EVERY scientific theory, including mathematics--it's what keeps science going, answering those questions, generating new PhDs.

As to a Law of Gravity, even that is under fire in physics. Newton's principle of diminution of force by the inverse square of separation may not hold under certain conditions near a black hole or near the nucleus of an atom. There are serious questions as to why gravity is at least 16 orders of magnitude weaker than the other 3 fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force.

Statements like "evolution is only a theory" and that it "has flaws" are purely foolish. Corroboration from other fields such as geology, and biochemistry provide compelling evidence that the current theory is correct (it's been extended several times since Darwin). Moreover, its predictions in fields such as medicine and genetics strongly suggest it is correct. "Alternative" theories, such as Intelligent Design, will have to show that they contradict most of evolution in order to be considered viable alternatives, not just addressing the gaps. So far, these competing theories have not been able to contradict any of evolution, nor to show that their explanations work any better. Until such time as they can truly compete, they are at best philosophy and should not be presented to students who have not developed the facility of critical thinking.

Creationists in the 17th and 18th Centuries tried to reconcile the tale of Noah's Ark with what they knew then of species, and came to the conclusion that the story could only be a myth. This skepticism led almost directly to work on evolution by predecessors of Darwin, and cast doubts on the concept of the young Earth as calculated from the Bible.

The future of faith

Linda M, Cleveland, OH — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:44:20 GMT

@Jim C

Dear Jim C

I was initially intrigued by the title The Future of Faith and started reading the responses to Mr. Boyle’s Cosmic Log when I came upon your comments and I could hardly breathe while reading it. Your emotion, feelings and heart felt reasonings were all palpable and so sweetly poignant and bitter at the same time.

First, let me express my deep condolences for the loss of your wife. I am truly touched by your obvious love for and devotion to your dear wife. From your simple eloquent words, it is so apparent that she was truly appreciated for the special woman and companion she was to you.

You did not kill your wife. Her illness took her life. You did all you could to help her live- not die - and extend her life until the reality of her situation was that she was getting worse and recovery was out of the question. Your wife had what all of us would truly want under such circumstances, someone who dearly loves us and someone who we trust completely at our side during such a grievous time.

I am troubled by your “friends” calling you a broken man. I see nothing broken about a man who could love so much and so deeply. Your heart is broken over the loss of your wife and your pain because of her absence is real, but it does not make you broken. I have no doubt that your wife knew how much you loved her and even if she couldn’t communicate that to you, we simply do not know what the brain of a terminally ill person is still able to pick up. Could she tell that the hands that touched her were gentle and loving? Could she tell by the softness in your voice as you spoke to her of your children, grandchildren and life together that she was deeply and truly loved? I cannot believe that this woman would have ever doubted she was completely loved by one remarkable man.

Jim, I am also troubled by anyone who would insinuate that God would take her or that “it was her time” or worse yet, it “was God’s will. Those are blatant lies about God. Anyone who would say such a thing does not know our loving Creator Jehovah God or his Son Christ Jesus. Anyone who would claim to worship God and then try to justify doing ungodly things (i.e. you mentioned Bush and what he has done under the banner of God’s will) that are in direct conflict to what the Bible teaches simply has no clue about what God’s will truly is for mankind. This world has grown so far away from God that his truths have been twisted into lies about Him. Today’s world clearly reflects the lack of God’s truths and standards in their lives, not the adherence to such beautiful laws and principles. (1 Corinthians 1:19-21, 25) People who claim otherwise do so for selfish and self serving motives, to do what they want with no accountability to God or their fellow human being. Santa Claus is a lie…we all know that and yet most continue to propagate the lie to their children.

Our loving creator is not a man made lie and he can truly be found by those searching the one book, the Bible, that claims to be from God and can prove that by a close study of his word.

You mentioned you think about death a lot and wondered how your wife felt at the end. The Bible contains answers to these questions. There is the account of Jesus Christ raising Lazarus from the dead in John chapter 11. In verse 4 of this chapter Jesus said when informed of his friend’s illness that the sickness was not with death as its object but it was for the glory of God (to actually show God's power and a glimpse into what life will be like when it is in harmony with God's purpose)... He went on in verses 11-15 to liken death to sleep (see Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10). His disciples were a little confused and felt that Lazarus would get better. Jesus then simply said he had died but Jesus knew that with God’s help it would be as easy to resurrect Lazarus to life (even after 4 days) as it was to awaken someone from sleeping. Your wife is alive in Jehovah God’s memory, every detail, every experience she had, her feeling, her loves (you, your children and grandchildren), her humor, her brilliance, her compassion, her quirks, everything that comprised her as the lovely woman she was. She does not feel pain or cold nor is she aware of anything…just like when we are asleep. When it is God’s due time and she is included in the resurrection to life on a paradise earth as spoken of in the Bible, she will have all those qualities back in a new healthy, perfect physical body and be given the opportunity to learn about Jehovah and his Son Christ Jesus. She will also have the opportunity never to die again! (Psalm 37:11, 29; Revelation 21:3-4) I am sure that after the happy initial shock of being resurrected wears off, she will be looking for you and her family!!

You mention being an engineer and that evidence and proof are always a concern. It may surprise you to know that the Bible’s perspective is the same. At Hebrews 3:4 it simply states that “Of course, every house is constructed by someone but he that constructed all things is God. “ God wonder is clear in all creation and He had provided a guide book for us to understand Him and what He expects of us. Proof of his existence is available, but it takes work and a study of the Bible. At Romans 1:20 it states: “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship so that they are inexcusable.” Please go to the website: www.watchtower.org (the official website of Jehovah’s Witnesses) and there you can have someone contact you to help you from your own copy of the Bible to understand the clear teachings contained therein about these questions/thoughts you have. Do not be afraid to ask. Pray to Jehovah God to help you find the truth. My sincere prayer for you is that our wonderful God comforts you and helps you and your family to endure this difficult time. You do not have to “hobble” through your life.(1 Thessalonians 4:13) Learn of the joy, love, happiness and wonders that are in store for you under God’s righteous rulership on a Paradise earth. You can find God’s wonderful truths and promises that will sustain you until He gives your loving wife back to you in the resurrection on a restored paradise earth as promised in the Bible.

Sincerely,

The future of faith

Alan Hardy, Parkesburg, Pa. — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:48:30 GMT

All science is man's search for GOD. Keeping searching, for only at your end will you truly find him, but only if your heart is sincere.

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas, Texas — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:01:05 GMT

Mr McCoy,

You are parroting dead arguments. Actually you are correct that evolution is not "just a theory." It has assumed the position of an interpretative framework, which is why all data is automatically assumed to be confirmative data and thus interpreted. This says absolutely nil of the position of the conjecture except its status as a religious framework.

Furthermore, spare us the line about competing theories not being good enough. We don't need competing theories: we need evolutionary biologists to simply teach real, observed evolution (which is informationally degenerative).

The bottom line is that Darwinism doesn't have "gaps and flaws." It is suggesting that biocomplexity change occurs in the opposite direction of what is actually observed- thus, not holes in theory, but direct and outright contradiction to experiment. Its downfall is not the result of a religious conspiracy (although that would be funny), but its stance against real experimental data.

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Aaron S, Indianapolis, IN — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:40:55 GMT

The inclination to definitively separate science and religion seems to be predominantly Christian. Since that's the majority religion in the United States it's no wonder it's the majority opinion.

However, I happen to know that Judaism does not seek to separate - quite the contrary, it seeks to reconcile science with the Divine. Are we always successful? No. But the inherent tension to choose one or the other is just not part of our belief system.

I think I must qualify the context of my statements today. I am at the home of my elderly parents - my father is hours away from dying of cancer. I've been with him for six days now and his decline has been rapid.

Hospice nurses have been in and out using their science to make him feel more comfortable. Nevertheless, he was in excrutiating pain for several days. Their science finally worked, he's quiet and comfortable - I think, I hope. Now it's up to my father and God to decide when he's ready to go. I have no doubt that God has been with him throughout, made manifest by the loving hands of the nurses, my brothers, my mother and I.

Science did its best to cure my father. Unfortunately, his is a very rare and incurable form. He lived 3 years longer then anyone expected. Science worked - it helped extend his life and gave us three years of grace. Religion worked, he found comfort in knowing people were thinking of him and praying for his recovery.

The future of faith

Ariel in Eugene, OR — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:31:58 GMT

As we all can cosider ourselves as life on this planet, we are all aware of our surroundings. As we evolve over time we have become more aware of our surroundings. That is science. Perceving the beauty we see in our world and feeling love, that is our faith in our true unity with "God" if you call it that. Science is only complex common sense. Everbody needs it, some more tham others. Faith is apreciating beauty, some need it more than others. existance would be rather dull of there were no great mysteries to life. Especialy if you believe in eternity if we go to heaven when we die, we must have come from there before we were borh. And what is left in between?

The future of faith

E.G Louisiana — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:35:14 GMT

All you people pointing out what you see as inconsistencies in the bible are fools. Even the bible itself warns about this and says to take precautions, "hermeneutics".
With as much accurate and dead on information that is presented in the bible im surprised scientists don't turn to it more often for knowledge.

Heck, it's been known for well over 2000 years that the earth is round!! It's in the bible!! Then [someone] comes out of nowhere with his PHD and says, oh wait the bible says the earth has "4 corners" so it's all just speculation. C'mon, what type of idiot doesn't see 4 corners to our world today? North, South , East, and West?

The problem with modern science is the necessity for scientists to enclose themselves in this elitist, hateful circle and judge everyone else as a fool for not following them because they have a PHD.

Also, [whoever] posted above about the evolution theory. Quit spreading that crock of lies. If evolution is true, they why the heck does the "Theory" or "explanation" or whatever you wish to call it get changed every so often? Why does it have information taken away and then added every once in a while? BECAUSE ITS FREAKING WRONG!!!

Don't take what you "believe" in science and force it onto everyone as a fact when it clearly is not and then treat everyone else as a fool!! [...]

Anyone on here can just go to google or yahoo and within a few searches find a historical timeline of all the various changes to those ridiculous theories. Heck I know I have at least 4 different science books from a high school with very different explanations of it all, this is all a crock of lies and anyone spreading this crap should be ignored.

The future of faith

Keith Lee — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:49:38 GMT

To Wayne McCoy:

Quantum Mechanics, particularly the Standard Model is of course 'honest' math/physics, but again, it is a statistical model with probabilities. To date, it is the best model but with 'statisitical' constraints. And again, the 'honest' was directed at the nested acceleration proposition. Have you considered it? With regard to de Broglie, again, the consideration he made was for a model that does not support positivist doctrine and that electrons and subatomic particles may not 'probably' have to exist in partial probable states in, as to date, indeterminable exact states under given circumstances. But you support positivism or Buddhism? Is not Buddhism a religion? Does the Dalai L. express the same doctrine as you particularly in your specifics?

Again, be it Buddhism or Christianity or other religions, if religion is allowed as science, then can America properly open legal doors in public classrooms to all religions as science, even those who teach a science contrary to evolution? Or do we leave religion/philosophy, including evolution, out of the classroom, , and just teach hard science, and not soft sociological science and religious 'science'?

The theory of evolution also has its weak spots. There is a monkey that exists in South America. It also exists in Africa. This certain monkey, per evolutionists, evolved in Africa at a time long after the continental drift occurred. Did the close relative in S America evolve separately from its African counterpart by chance? Or did it evolve in Africa then walk across the water to S. America? Where is the evidence for the evolution of this monkey in S. America?

Evolution may be true. My religion (Roman Catholic)accepts evolution, but obviously not with an atheistic view. I believe anything possible, whether it is probable or not. But that is not the point. Again, why not follow the U.S. Constitution for freedom of religion? Keep religion as a constitutional right, no religion or philosophy infringing on the other, but leave the uneven treatment of religion in the 'hard sciences' out. Biology, chemistry, physics, and all the hard sciences can be taught objectively and very effectively without subjective opinions of the existence or non-existence of God being interjected.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:52:19 GMT

ALL religion wants their followers to believe that it works hand in hand with science. Science doesn't want anything to do with religion, and for that reason, there is NO bridge between Science and Religion. OK, I'm talking about Christianity, and the doctrine that anyone who is not saved will be condemned and tormented by a Creator God. Yes, we have reached a point where we think about this imaginary God in the same way we think about Abe Lincoln, as if it really exists. Science is a search for knowledge. Religion is an attempt to dumb down the entire world by making them think "The Great Oz" is standing behind Door Number One. We need to reach the point where we can say "The story of Jesus in the New Testament is a lie. We don't need to prove it didn't happen, any more than we need to prove Hobbits didn't save Middle Earth." Humans make up STORIES to teach lessons and pass the torch between generations. Jesus may have been a nice man, or not, but he certainly didn't die FOR me.

The future of faith

Gary Schear, Bozeman, MT — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:21:59 GMT

Bob,
"Thou Art God" was a greeting used in the book 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlein. My apologies to Heinlein and to his readers. In my previous post I think I cited it as from ' The Martian Chronicles" In any event you are correct. The greeting re-enforced the concept that all people are collectively God, and should love each other. I won't waste your time here with a synopsis but Check out the plot line summary on Wikipedia. I think you would enjoy the book and you will be suprised how it ends. It does provoke thought and that is always good.

As for my beliefs, check out my response to JaneDoe a few posts up.

Cheers!

The future of faith

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:59:46 GMT

Hi, All. Shane, This is regarding your post of Dec. 26 at 9:04 a.m.. Is Pennslobovia located somewhere between Upper and Lower Slobovia? :). CT

The future of faith

Naneki — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:39:12 GMT

Carlos, Austin, Tx. (Sent Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:06 AM) AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

The future of faith

Richard New Bedford, MA — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:39:35 GMT

Two, let's call them, reflections. Jim, way back in the beginning, was correct. The attraction to religion is not primarily truth but hope. That came across so clearly to me when Wendy described the death of (second) Jim's wife. I said "ugh, that's all. That explains death! How boring, how meaningless." Though what you said was "true", Wendy, the explanation did nothing for me. So much for "truth." The other point is that Jim wrote of his pain of losing his wife and having to make the decision of pulling the tubes, I heard very little of you non-believers, and really not many of you believers too,in offering solace/consolation. What an awful world we would live in without religion! How barren, how without imagination.

Third point: I submit to you, though religion has participated, wars are primarily of an economic nature.(There can be evil/non-caring leaders in religion also. Maybe too many.)

Purpose of religion: (St. Clement in 96 CE)"deliver the afflicted, pity the lowly, raise the fallen, give to the needy, heal the sick and feed the hungry, ransom the captive, support the weak, comfort the faint-hearted." This is the purpose of religion: act as God's arms and heart. Caring. We have an opportunity to go beyond ourselves. Can science do that for me? Science can explain but not quite enough.

Let your heart and prayer go out to Jim, show empathy because we all are broken. We all need religion. What an empty life without it. Peace

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:37:08 GMT

I must state for the record that there are fundamental, and important differences between what might be commonly referred to as 'mainstream biblical Christianity'...(Lutherans, Baptists, Protestants in general, evangelical...whatever) and the 'Jehovah's Witness' religion. Jehovah's do not believe that Jesus is God just to begin with. Most Christian churches differ on implementation, and emphasis of certain points. However, while they do call themselves 'Christian' and they might be very nice and well meaning people, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons for that matter, differ on very critical and significant issues.

The future of faith

Brenda, Henderson, Ky — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 04:16:56 GMT

After reading all of these blogs, I felt the need to respond. I'm sure my response will be viewed as simple and uneducated compared to some of the others.

My opinion is that science and spirituality/God go hand in hand and complement each other. RELIGION has created hatred, war, famine and dissension among people all over the world; not God or science. I believe we find answers about God and our universe through science.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home and lived most of my childhood in fear of God; afraid of making mistakes or even having thoughts that would be unacceptable to God for fear of perishing in a fiery pit. I never felt the peace or love of God I'd heard so many people describe. Many times when I had a question regarding God, I was given the answer "you just have to take things on faith" --the Christian cop-out for not having an answer. Questions like "why does God have a 'chosen' people"? Didn't he make all of us? Why does God need me to carry his word to those indigenous tribes on the other side of the world? He got the word to me, couldn't he get it to them? He's God, isn't He? (just a couple of examples of the many questions I had)

As I got older, I expanded my horizons and met people of other religions and philosphies--some who were more loving, forgiving, (and more Christlike) than the Christians I had been exposed to all my life. These are people I had been told were evil. I have read the bible cover to cover twice in the last ten years, and have found it very contradictory. I finally found peace in creating my own version of god. Loving, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,(kind of sounds like energy, doesn't it? Is in everything, goes through everything, and never dies, just changes form) doesn't think I'm second rate to "his" chosen people, doesn't need me to "spread his word" and wouldn't dare think of sending me to a "fiery hell" because I make errors. I choose to believe this life is a learning experience. We have been given knowledge and creative power---knowledge to heal, go to other planets, build great megastructures etc. all by using different forms of science. Did God give us these abilities? I don't know. Though I can't explain the power of prayer,I've seen great results because of it---Improved lives because of positive thinking and belief in something greater than ourselves.

And as for Mark Mankowski, you stated that the "non-believers" are the reason we have AIDS, moral decline, landfills, etc. To quote the bible, "he without sin, cast the first stone...."

The future of faith

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 04:53:17 GMT

D. Filler:

No..my input starts with: "Why do people have this need to have a God, faith and religion?"

Then I try to relate this with the only real engine of religion is "everlasting life". You missed or ignored the main things.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:16:24 GMT

@EG Louisiana

[...] Science NEVER has a final word on anything. The point is to continue to ADD to knowledge, not be satisfied with what is known at a given point. Science itself evolves. It is not so arrogant as to claim that it is the last word, as some believers in God are wont to claim for their beliefs. You claim that the Bible has all the knowledge necessary for science? I can show you two places in the Bible where it is dead wrong. Look at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. In both of these verses the value of pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, is stated to be 3, not very close to the correct value of 3.14159... (with infinitely many decimal places). Apologists for scripture claim that this might be due to misinterpretation of the length of a cubit or to round off because the Hebrews didn't know what to do about fractions. Why didn't the Hebrews just say "3 units and a small part thereof"? Moreover, Egyptian and Mesopotamian values of a much earlier time realized values of 3.125 and 3.162, respectively. The Hebrews were in contact with both the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, by their own frequent admissions in the Bible. Why didn't they get this simple fact right?

To state that science theories are all lies is to express a highly uninformed opinion. You don't need a PhD to understand how science works (I don't have one). You just have to be able to think.

@Richard

You stated: "Purpose of religion: (St. Clement in 96 CE)'deliver the afflicted, pity the lowly, raise the fallen, give to the needy, heal the sick and feed the hungry, ransom the captive, support the weak, comfort the faint-hearted.' This is the purpose of religion: act as God's arms and heart. Caring."

Precisely. Clement didn't mention anything about explaining the Universe. Why should that matter to the central purpose of caring? Let religion--all of it, of whatever stripe--be concerned with caring and let science be concerned with explaining. When religions begin to explain and science begins to care, trouble ensues. When Einstein said that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind, he meant that science done without wonder and awe for the Universe and its workings and contents (however you realize that for yourself) is mere accounting , and religion that decries facts that contradict dogmata is meaningless drivel. Einstein also said, "Gravity is not responsible for people falling in love." This more than anything expresses the difference between and religion and science: science is of the mind, religion is of the heart.

The future of faith

Lonnie, Ringgold, Georgia — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:36:28 GMT

Please please please. How many people have been killed in the name of religion. I did not say spirituality, I said religion. How can an advanced society continue to rationalize this killing. Oh yes, in the name of GOD. Hmmmm,and yet these are the same people that say their religion is based on love. GO figure that one folks. I personally am so "ANTI RELIGION" that its just rediculous. Who with a slightly advanced brain wouldn't be. I feel strongly in the consciousness and even more in the power of the collective consciousness. Face it, we create and harvest our own reality. It will not be until more people are enlightened that things will change, our reality will maybe then change for the better. Science has a large roll to play in this by investigating the mind, hypnosis, and the makeup of the universe. It's all really elementary if you stop and think about it. But I guess it's easier to hate. Just a few thoughts.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:05:27 GMT

@Keith Lee

I agree that Quantum Mechanics is bound by statistical constraints, but it is so highly successful in explaining phenomena, that this "limitation" is difficult to call into question. However, this doesn't mean that quantum theory and its interpretations are not immune to rethinking. This goes on all the time. Same with general relativity--consider the situation with the cosmological constant, which is now back in "favor" after Einstein abandoned it, because of the observation that the Universe's expansion is accelerating. Dark matter and dark energy are also causing some intense head-scratching. Each new discovery uncovers important new questions.

I'm not familiar with the independent (or nested) inertial frames you've mentioned. Can you point me to a source on the web?

I have a Buddhist daughter, and some of my thinking parallels Buddhist thought, but I don't need Enlightenment to think those things. I came up with my thoughts after many years of reflection.

As far as the monkey in South America and Africa goes, I don't see this as a fundamental weakness or flaw of evolution, and especially do I not see this as implying that "God did it"-- that's a cop-out, an admission that one has no idea how it happened. Rather, I think it is one of those intriguing questions that propel science forward. There are surely enough biologists in the world aware of the problem that someone has an idea. And, it might not be evolution at work at all. Maybe a few monkies hitched a ride from Africa to South America. After all, Thor Heyerdahl with Kon Tiki showed 60 years ago that ancient humans could have made the journey across the Atlantic thousands of years in the past. Monkeys trapped on a debris raft could have done so as well. Or maybe they were brought by the ancient explorers.

I agree with you on religion as science, particularly in the classroom. Why would one religion get preference over another? How do we know that Wotan or Zeus or Osiris is not reality? What of Buddhists who have no god? Do we know for a fact that Everything is not run in cycles of Brahma?

I'm not sure why you want to exclude "soft" sciences. While I can agree that much use of statistics is made in these areas, and we know how statistics can be abused, today there is a lot of good science going on in these areas, and they often overlap with some of the hard sciences--anthropology and archeology, for example, with physics, biochemistry, geology and biology. Even psychology and sociology have branched out.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:10:29 GMT

If God does not exist, there is really no basis to judge anything as 'wrong' or 'evil', because the person performing the act is as much a determiner of 'right' or 'wrong' as the person witnessing the act. Yet, wouldn't even the most hardcore atheists admit that certain things are just 'wrong' or 'evil' in some big kind of universal sense. Now I realize this is not 'proof' of God's existence and I know some people really like to play wordgames so please just try to play along, but where do these very strong emotions or sense of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' come from? If it is 'right' for person A to inflict pain on an innocent person B, but it's 'wrong' to person B for that to happen....does it balance out? Or is there a bigger universal 'wrongness' to this? To me, it feels like this is a universal 'wrongness', but I don't think this would be 'logical' without a God. It seems to me that this could possibly be evidence of God. Not some kind of test tube evidence, but more like when you feel a breeze on your skin it is evidence of the 'air' around you. Maybe some people don't need to run a lab analysis to believe in the wind? What if the right tools aren't available to run a scientific analysis? Is it smart to deny the wind exists because you can't test it? Maybe some people have real thick skin and don't feel the wind? Just some thoughts.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:18:54 GMT

To WIlliam Hays

How do you know that?

The future of faith

JaneDoe — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:54:31 GMT

Ain't free will and choice great?? :) Happy New Year, Gary Schear. You made me smile too.

A lot of what I read here makes my head spin. The smartest person I've ever known has a Masters from Purdue and a PhD from M.I.T., is a world renowned expert/scholar in his field, and lead chair at a major U.S. university. He says he has no idea what his I.Q. is and he never talks about religion. Refuses to. He does have a mean sense of humor. Sounding 'deep' doesn't mean a whole lot to him. I guess it's like wealth. If you've really got it you don't have to flaunt it.

We'll all be proven right or wrong on the subject of God when we draw that last breath. Until then, it's faith and speculation. None of us personally has time to wait around and see what science will come up with in 100 years. There will just be another set of posters discussing it on another blog, if blogs aren't totally antiquated by then and we all communicate simply through RFID chips.

If religion was gone from the planet, we'd be fighting about race, sex, or something as benign as shoe size.

.....and to all a good night.

The future of faith

Eric, Indiana — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:15:33 GMT

Religion is as stupid as wishing on a star. It gives hope, false hope, and nothing more. You better live like you are dying, because you are, and you're not coming back.

The future of faith

Eric, Indiana — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:20:18 GMT

I would also like to add that "faith" is the stupidist concept ever produced. This by definition means believing something without any proof. The only way that such a unrealistic attitude continues to prosper is through family indoctrination. There is a way out though, I was born Lutheran and am 100% atheist.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:32:07 GMT

I don't know if you've ever sat through a debate with William Lane Craig, but once you do, it's much easier to say that Christianity is a con game with no substance. Why? Because the man refuses to consider the possibility that people lie, and the stories in the New Testament MIGHT be lies. Once you realize how Christianity works, then you have to ask, "What are they trying to hide?" Christianity divides the world into two groups, the Saved and those who Reject Christ. The saved group is about two billion, and those who reject Christ about four billion. So, if they're right, the Creator of the universe is going to sentence 2/3 of the human race to eternal torment for not accepting Christ as their Savior? Can't you see that it's a Con Game? And not a particularly nice one? That it's just the Same Old, Same Old, to divide humanity into Our Side and The Other Side, and demonize everyone who doesn't share your beliefs? The only way to make sense of Christianity is to go back to basics: It's a Lie, and after two thousand years, you may not be able to prove it's a lie, but come on. Why would a God condemn 2/3 of the human race to eternal torment? Christianity began as an End of the World cult. The world didn't end. The dead were not raised. That should be all the proof you need. Believe me, all you need to do is honestly examine the Possibility that it's all a Con Game, and the Correct Answer is Obvious.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:41:20 GMT

To Lonnie, Ringgold

Way more people have been killed by atheists, just in the last century than by all Christians in the previous thousand years. Hitler and Stalin are good examples. Many people also do bad things in the name of God, but does that mean His message of love and forgiveness is wrong? It is humanity that does bad. Take away all religion and humanity will do bad in the name of something else. No matter how 'enlightened' or 'scientific' we get, the same atrocities will happen. If anything, religion will probably moderate the worst that man is capable of. I guess Hitler was trying to create his own reality when he slaughtered millions of innocents.

The future of faith

Wayne Mims — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:39:59 GMT

This has been a great discussion! I'm always intrigued by a good debate. And I think most of us can agree that being able to put our feelings and thoughts into words helps us to better understand were it is we stand on any given topic. I'll never be able to convince anyone that God exists. But when I was present for the birth of my three kids, God was there for those miracles. When I see a wonderful New Mexico sunset, I see God's handiwork as my soul aches with the sheer grandeur. When I walk along an ocean beach, smell the salt air, and see nothing but ocean horizon, I sense Earth's magnificence and power. And when I look at the stars and realize what a tiny speck I am in the universe, I feel God's comfort and grace that I part of it. For those of you who will never experience these things, I'm sorry you'll miss them. Science can fill in the gaps of our understanding, but only a true relationship with God can fill in the gaps of our souls.

The future of faith

Gary Schear, Bozeman, MT — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:52:07 GMT

Bob,

The first sentence in your post on universal “evil” is one of the things about faith that scare me. Are you saying that the belief in God and fear of her wrath is all that keeps some people from raping and killing wantonly? What about empathy? Maybe your Universal rights and wrongs are explained simply by people raised in a loving environment instinctively treating people correctly by putting themselves in other people’s shoes. Yep, the golden rule. It is a natural rule for people with a conscience. There are, no doubt, people who are sociopaths who have no constraints to their behavior. Oceans of blood have been spilled by governments and religions that use religion and nationalism to de-humanize perceived enemies in order to make war ok. That has been a terrible misuse of religion for thousands of years. That is where the terms good and evil come in handy as labels.

I would say that Conscience and empathy are a natural trait that has favored the survival of our species. You might say that Conscience is evidence of God. I don't think that either position can be proved or disproved. They are not mutually exclusive.

The only certainty is that we are all seekers. And equally certain is that we "won't get to get what we're after till the day we die."

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:02:04 GMT

Wayne McCoy,

I'm entertained by your claim that the Hebrew Old Testament was "dead wrong" for saying pi = 3. Pardon me if I go on a little mathematical rant here...

For one thing, no circle exists with C/d actually equal to pi (the true value as determined by a non-finite series convergence). That is why engineers use finite approximations. How do they approximate? Scale and precision dictate the number of decimal places necessary. In fact, if you build on a very large scale, you cannot even use an approximation of pi because the earth's surface is a non-euclidean plane and no longer keeps pi constant.

Which brings us to your claim. You think that the record is invalid because they used a low-precision approximation of pi- when really the Hebrews were building a medium sized structure, hand tooled, which was only on the order of 25 feet in diameter. Please. While we're at it, I think that all Greek mathematics is wrong because Euclid assumed the fifth postulate! (sarcasm, of course)

But really, getting back to the intended subject of the whole cosmic blog: Boyle should pay more attention to history. This is by no means the first time that anti-theists have proclaimed the victory of science over religion. I.e. the enlightenment came and went, and the atheists are still confused as to why god-free science didn't entirely squelch religion: they forgot that many of the scientists and mathematicians who were supposed to usher in the new era were actually theists themselves (i.e. Newton, Euler, Pasteur, etc, etc).

Sadly, many of the anti-theists on this blog seemly blissfully unaware that religion is not only NOT being removed by science, but that religion (esp. Biblical theism) is actually having an increased influence on science. And unlike anti-theistic scientists, who automatically reject any experimental data which is implicitly teleological, theists are actually pay attention to what experimental data says. Science benefits, Biblical Theism benefits. Poor Atheists.

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Susan, Annapolis MD — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:28:31 GMT

@WAYNE McCOY:

Earlier you asked for someone to state an absolute truth. Since I see none up to this point, I'm compelled to give you two:

1) all existing things cease to exist at one point in time; and

2) the only constant in the universe is change.

Synopsis: death and change. Both absolute truths.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:29:21 GMT

@Bob

Your contention that without God there is no sense of right and wrong is simply wrong. Buddhism has no god and is as ethical and perhaps more moral than Christianity is. What of those societies which came before Jesus or even the Jews? Egypt, despite what the Bible wants to claim, had highly a developed sense of ethics and morals a thousand years before the Hebrews came on the scene. The Crusades and Inquisition, with God central to the efforts were as reprehensible as any non-Christian assaults on peoples. And recall the assaults of Joshua, who was commanded to destroy villages, every man, woman, child, cat, dog, cow, sheep, goat...all because Yahweh/God was offended by their non-belief in him. That's moral? Oh, please. And what of the Bible's support of slavery? Is that moral?

Ethics and morals are human inventions, not God-given, for the survival of the tribe. The Golden Rule has been expressed by almost every society that have ever existed--it's not unique to Jesus. Hammurabi had a form of the Ten Commandments 500 years before Moses. To say that one cannot be moral and ethical without God is to be simply blind, it's simply wrong. It's another of those self-serving myths that some Christians continually perpetuate, to denigrate non-believers. In a way, analogous to Old Yahweh in Genesis.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:20:21 GMT

ABSOLUTES
As mnentioned 12/25/06, definitions of words present problems and the definition of "absolute" does not escape common difficulties. There are those, who don't want absolutes to exist, who define "absolute" (perhaps better left as an undefinable) in such a way that absolutes cannot exist (akin to self-fullfilling prophecy). Obviously, one cannot demonstrate the existence of an absolute to those who have a definiion that precludes its existence or probable existence. For me, "absolute" is best taken as an undefinable, like time, mass, or length in physics, something that one is expected to have experienced or have a feeling for. Lest one still wants to doubt the existence of any absolutes, I'd like to suggest their own existence. Knowing that there may be some who doubt that they exist, let me try a universal for all and all of our universe (whose existence may be doubted if one chooses).

Here's an ABSOLUTE (there are more, but those who refuse to accept this one will likely refuse others I have to offer): "In our universe gravity is an attractive (not repulsive) force.". I suspect that Einstein could have added that God had no choice but to make gravity an attractive force if God wanted to make a universe such as ours, one that can lead to human life with its wonders. Of course, Planck would have complained; "Who does Einstein think he is telling God what God can and cannot do?". Einstein and Planck have both been shown to have been wrong about some things in physics, but they, with all others having their impressive knowledge (and most with lesser knowledge) AGREE that gravity is an attractive (not repulsive) force. I don't see much hope convincing those (who doubt their own existence) of the existence of our universe or that gravity is a force of attraction, but maybe the New Year will bring them a REVELATION (resurrection?).

It seems a shame that their, perhaps, heartfelt submissions to Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log don't exist or are probably meaningless, if they are correct. Again, here's to a very meaningful New Year for ALL.

For those who are up to date on cosmology, there seems to be a repulsive force acting in our universe other than the electromagetic force, but gravity still remains an attractive force (mass attracts mass) in our universe.

For the mathematically inclined, may I suggest that Godel's Proof as an absolute for finitistic proofs. Mathematicians must have the FAITH that mathematics is consistent because Godel showed the consistency of mathematics can't be proved, finitistically. A popular joke among mathematicians is:"We know God exists because mathematcs is consistent and the devil is postulated (exists) because we can't prove it. Einstein could have said that a universe such as ours required God to make it consistent. Indeed, it is consistent (we see it's consistency exposing liars), thereby, making the maximum speed of light the ABSOLUTE maximum speed for objects in our universe. Like the consistency of mathematics being a matter of FAITH (unprovable by Godel, finitistically) so is the consistency of our universe.

"Lots of luck" to those seeking infinitistic proofs, if they exist. Meanwhile, the rest of us can live happily observing and relying on the consistency of our universe in our daily life (our car will still be in the driveway, in the morning, where we left it last night; we are not worried about falling through our bedroom floor to China on getting out of bed, etc.) and its truth every day inspite of any temporary doubts.

Here are two more ABSOLUTES from physics. (1) General Relativity (Einstein's theory of gravitation) is better than Newton's gravitational theory in determining the way the planet Mercury goes about the Sun. (2) A space traveller on returning to the departure spaceport will return younger than those who stayed at home (or at the spaceport). If the trip speed was sufficiently close to the maximum speed of light and covered a sufficiently large distance away from the spaceport, the space traveller can find that grandchildren left at the spaceport will be older than their space travelling grandparent at their remeeting. This absolute of our universe has been verified by flying precision clocks across the USA in high speed jets. Precision clocks were necessary because jet plane speeds are very small compared to the maxmum speed of light, thereby, making only very small time differences between the travelling clocks and those staying at rest on the ground.

The future of faith

Rod L. Middletown, NJ — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:29:06 GMT

Whew! After reading (nearly) all the entries on this topic, I feel compelled to weigh in. First, I grew up in a Christian home where my father was a Lutheran minister. Around the age of 10, I utterly rejected the notion of God (Santa Claus was a much more compelling mythology to believe in). My search for understanding began by studying physics and even earned a Ph.D. in the '80s. I have always reasoned that the belief in a deity originated by human's fear of death and thus people were exploited and manipulated because those fears.

To those who have no real understanding of science, yes ALL of science is theory. Darwin, quantum mechanics, everything is theory. Please try to realize that science creates a model based on empirical evidence to create a working theory. Scientists create working theories because they just don’t yet have the tools, measurements/information or mental capacity yet to understand the fundamental level. Working theories are constantly in motion as better methodologies and tools are brought in to increase our understanding. For example, Newton’s universal law of gravitation was replaced by Einstein’s general relativity. Newton’s model of gravity is still a valid under the proper conditions but Einstein currently rules the gravity roost as the most general of the models. I am constantly astonished at how much physics has changed in just the last 20 years. As a result, science is never really “right” but is self correcting while zeroing in on what is “true”.

Because of my search for understanding, I try very hard not to use the word “believe” in normal speech. I try to understand things rather than believing. Empirically speaking, I think humans are capable (if given enough time) of understanding all of the mysteries of the universe. Unfortunately, for the believers, I think they will be disappointed in what will be found. The bottom line for me is that true understanding and belief systems share little common ground.

The future of faith

Matthew Caldwell, Nashville, TN — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:49:50 GMT

My goodness we like to get off-topic, don't we. To determine the future of faith we must examine its root cause: fear. Religion was invented as an antidote for humans who have trouble dealing with their fears - fear of hunger, thirst, the dangers of our environment, sickness, and of course, death.

Science has proved a better cure for most of those except for the biggie: death. So until Science finds reliable proof of an afterlife there will always be religion. The question is how significant a role will it have in the lives of this world's future inhabitants.

The future of faith

Aaron S, Indianapolis, IN — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:18:09 GMT

Geez, there seems to be a lot of debate that's missing what's being debated. Folks are using religion, God, the Bible and spirituality in the same arguments. I cringe with generalities like "all religion..."

One of the most spiritual and God-believing people I've ever met was a Ph.D. physicist who works at Fermi National Accelerator Labs in Chicago. He's unabashed about his faith (he's Christian) and clear that science is the key to understanding the universe - but there's a realm past the understandable. His faith "fills in the gaps." Like Wayne I'm glad I can see the divine in the amazing.

The future of faith

Charles Wells — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:12:31 GMT

I have been thinking about why God does or doesn't exist for a long, long time, like everyone else. As a reader of science fiction all my life, I have reached a dramatic conclusion that I would like to share on the subject. I have faith and hope in the Human Race and believe we will continue to evolve toward our ultimate destiny. Albeit extinction or continued rebirth and existence. I have a vision of a future time when Mankind will face the dillema of linking our brains with machines. Downloading our minds into Meat Computers for storage, programming, and conversion to digital array. Of Mankind transcending death and become total "living" machines. Pretty standard science fiction stuff, you might say. Except I can see where these living machines are headed. I think that there purpose will be to correct the mistakes of the past by seeking time travel. In some of my nightmarish scenarios, I can imagine the effect they could impart on us, if successful. Which is what worries me about religion and science. I can see the inevitable link that will occur when Mankind has evolved to this God-like state of "existence". I think that our purpose will be to leave the Earth as a pristine world, rid of all evidence of our being here, and allow Mankind to "evolve" once again. Then, to watch over these creatures, as was done to us.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:56:35 GMT

@ Matthew Dingemans

I'm entirely aware of the transcendental nature of pi, since I have a master's degree in Mathematics. But the determination of pi as a transcendental is a relatively recent development. The Greeks certainly knew it was at least irrational. The earliest values were "rational", such as 25/8. In any case, the C/d value is for an ideal circle which cannot physically exist, at least in a Universe in which quantum mechanics is valid. This still does not excuse the Hebrews from not determining that the value is more than 3. They didn't have to measure the large brass casting to figure that out -- an approximate circle on the ground would have told them the truth. In any case, they shouldn't have written their result down for all the generations to see.

I have to agree that Biblical theism is having an effect on science, if nothing but to rise to the challenge of fundamentalists and their outrageous claims. As I have related earlier, religion is not likely to go away because it meets so many emotional and personal needs for people. I don't happen to be one of those who need it, but I don't begrudge those who do. I just don't want to hear those who feel it is incumbent on them to try to sell me on it when I'm not buying. I bought once, and then returned the package as a lemon. Again, science is for the mind, religion is for the heart.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:16:29 GMT

@Susan

Very good, on the absolute truths. From the perspective of macro-physics, at least, these seem to be true. However, Christians (and others) may argue with your #1, on theological grounds. Your #2 is actually the more general statement and #1 is sort a a corollary. It's also interesting that #2 is the basis of science, i.e., answering the question of "Why change?" But there are aspects of the Universe that are believed not to change -- i.e., the nature of subatomic particles (any electron is indistinguishable from any other electron, for example). Also, fundamental particles don't cease to exist, at least in common parlance. They are transformed into other particles or into energy. One might even say they have an eternal afterlife. :-)

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:26:40 GMT

@Bob

Hitler was not an atheist, and Stalin, for a while, trained for the priesthood. Read here to see some of Hitler's statements about his Christianity:

http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

It might be claimed that Hitler "was not honest" or that his acts were far from orthodox Christianity. His acts were no less "Christian" than those of the Crusades and the Inquisition (and for nearly the same reasons--kill off the unbelievers), whose proponents were, by the way, far more pious and intense believers than the vast majority of today's Christian. Their religion deeply infected every moment of every day of their lives in ways that people today can scarcely relate to.

The future of faith

N.Smith, Miramar, Florida — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:02:58 GMT

I cant understand why people think religion and science don't mix. If God created everything, then he also created the sciences that we use to discover what he created! So whats the big deal with science and religion mixing? "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein"

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:12:12 GMT

To Eric...based on your definition of 'faith', you have faith that there is not a 'God'

To William Hays...Christ died for you so you wouldn't have to go to hell...why would you resent that idea...why would He, or anyone con you about it? It's not as if you have anything to offer to God. You don't have to go to church, give money, proselytize people...you just need to talk to Him about it. It's the only religion that doesn't require you obtain salvation thru a lifetime of hard work in the hopes that maybe you will be 'good enough'.

To Gary...I'm saying we do have a 'right and wrong' in our conscience and that is consistent with the existence of a moral God who created us with that conscience. Lets say it did not come from God for the sake of argument. Who determines the moral framework we live under then? If it is the individual, then nobody should be expressing outrage at someone else who commits atrocities. That other person may just be living within their moral framework. But the fact that we do judge people like this is inconsistent with a bunch of individual moral frameworks.

To Wayne McCoy...my contention was that without God, morality is a very relative thing....it doesn't have the same significance....one person's opinion is just as good as anyone elses...who are you to tell me stealing is not moral? in your opinion Buddhism is moral, in mine it's immoral...who's right? We are equally right, so then what is morality?

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:22:41 GMT

ABSOLUTES
Those seeking absolutes, including W.McCoy, please, click DISCUSS on AROUND THE MOON IN 2011 where they were wrongly placed. Here are two of the examples: (1)In our universe gravity is a force of attraction (not repulsion).
(2) Th maxium speed of light is the absolute top speed for objects in our universe and this absolute supports our FAITH that our universe is consistent like a mathematician's FAITH that mathematics is consistent in view of Godel's proof (another absolute?) that mathematics can't finitistically prove it.

Lots of luck in the New Year to those who try an infinitistic proof and those still trying to trisect an angle with only an unmarked straight edge and compass (another absolute in that it can't be done in plane geometry to keepit simple?)

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:14:39 GMT

@Carlton Lane

Regarding your point #1 that gravity is not repulsive, some current theories suggest, because the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, that under certain conditions, gravity may in fact have a repulsive effect. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his General Relativity equations early on then abandoned it as ridiculous, because it implied a repulsive force. Now physicists are putting it back in.

Regarding #2, the velocity of light in a vacuum is assumed to be constant and special relativity posited that it is a limit to motion for objects with mass. But most physicists will hesitate to tell you that is absolutely the case. There are in fact some current investigations into whether or not the velocity of light might be variable. Moreover, it may be that the metric structure of our space-time is such that photons constrained to follow along that structure. In another space-time (which some theories strongly suggest may exist) light may have a different velocity.

It is indeed a mystery as to why the Universe is consistent enough that our minds can perceive its workings with mathematics. As Euler once said, "God provided the integers, the rest is the work of man."

The trisection of an angle using only Euclidean methods was a restriction imposed in ancient times, when it was "forbidden" to make a mark on a straight-edge. The problem goes away when the mark is allowed. Not much of an absolute.

Goedel's proof (which holds under the assumptions of metamathematics used to develop it) states that a (logical) system rich enough to contain the arithmetic of the integers cannot be proven to be consistent within its own axioms if that system is known to be complete (i.e., if every theorem has a proof, then one of those theorems must be a contradiction). Similarly, if it is known to be consistent, then there is at least one theorem which cannot be proven. It's best not to blindly assume or have faith that some mathematical system is consistent. There are too many mathematicians out there waiting to demonstrate the error in your thinking.

I'm still not convinced there are absolute truths.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:24:35 GMT

@Bob

Would it be wrong for a man to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving child?

Would it have been wrong to murder Hitler?

Is lying always wrong? St. Paul said that lying to advance the faith was acceptable, and a host of priests and preachers since his time have occasionally taken him at his word. Do you tell your favorite aunt the hat she is wearing is ugly? If a killer happened to break into your house, and he asked where your kids were, would you tell him?

I think that some ways Christianity is practiced is immoral. In particular, when someone has accepted Jesus as his Savior and thereby has his sins forgiven, he then feels free to do whatever he wants, because he considers ALL his sins to be pre-absolved, just by his belief. There are LOTS of Christians who think this way.

I'm mystified why you consider Buddhism immoral, since many of its moral teachings are exactly what is found in Christianity. In fact, there is some informed speculation that Jesus may have actually spent his years before his ministry at least talking to Buddhists. So if you are going to call Buddhism immoral, you better quote some specifics, and not claim this just because you think your beliefs are superior. This is not a matter of simple opinion.

In fact, opinion of an individual cannot be the determination of what is moral. Society decides that through shared values. For, if morality is decided by individual opinion, then everything is moral. Values change over time. At one time in this country, slavery was not considered immoral, in part because some saw its advocacy in the Bible. In fact, churches in the South vehemently supported slavery while churches in the North did not. Northern Christian zealots like John Brown took matters into their own hands toward eliminating slavery. We fought the most bloody war in our history over that argument about morality. So there have been arguments even among believers in God as to what is moral and what is not. What kind of guidance is that from the Bible, if it's open to interpretation?

Morality is often in the eyes of the beholder. Christian missionaries first encountering tribes of Eskimos and Aleuts were aghast to see that when people reached a certain age, they were expected to wander out on the ice and die. Horribly immoral, the missionaries said. But they didn't take into account that that old person remaining with the tribe would mean that younger members of the tribe, in particular children, could well starve if food became scarce. If your food was very scarce and you could not get more, would you rather see your grandmother starve or your child? (You couldn't choose to give up your own food, because you were the only means of obtaining it.) This was not a hypothetical situation. The solution? The missionaries worked on new, more efficient ways for the tribe to obtain food.

Morality is also a set of shared values. These values harken back to prehistoric times, and throughout civilization. These precepts were necessary for the tribe/city to survive. They have varied from place to place, and form time to time. We've retained many of them in our laws, from sources such as Hammurabi's Code, the Ten Commandments, Roman Law, English common law. The Golden Rule is one of the great shared values across the world. It has appeared in various forms in virtually every society since the Babylonians and Egyptians. Jesus wasn't the first to enunciate it.

Even the Ten Commandments are not absolute. It is clear from the context that it was OK to go wipe out those who didn't accept the Hebrews' god, and to wipe out every living thing in their villages. Is it moral to kill cows just because their owner doesn't bow down to your god? It apparently was, in the days of Genesis and Exodus. Today, we'd cart the miscreant off to jail--after a fair trial, of course. And we don't stone someone to death if he happens to not observe the Sabbath or eat shellfish.

Individuals can be moral without God, despite what you think. And that is not a matter of opinion. It happens to be fact.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:08:34 GMT

Reply to: "I cant understand why people think religion and science don't mix. If God created everything, then he also created the sciences that we use to discover what he created!"

Let me try to explain it to you. There is no such thing as a God. God is an invention of religion. Everyone involved in religion wants to fool you into thinking science supports their beliefs, so they make statements like "If God created everything...." The truth is, God did NOT create everything. What you said is only wishful thinking from the viewpoint of the religious mindset. However, from a scientific standpoint, it is wrong. If there is no such thing as a God or a Creator, then where does religion come from? Religion comes from dishonest people seeking a way to manipulate others. Think about the statement, "Jesus Christ is the only path to God." Self-serving? No, the only issue here is whether you accept the statement "People lie." Once you admit that, all the other answers fall in place. People who claim to have a book containing the word of God, or the authority to speak FOR a God, are liars.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:20:46 GMT

[...] W. McCoy is using the Cosmic Log to propagate his religon or faith (and definitions). As warned in my 12/25/06 comment, we need to understand that definitions lead to problems for humans. It now seems clear that some may need to be reminded that some, in order to protect or propagate their beliefs on others, choose their definitions to let them remain secure in their faith. W. McCoy's response to my attempt to demonstrate absolutes in our universe, as he requested or challenged, shows that he has a special definition of absolute that protects his beliefs about what he wants to "probably" not exist. Because one limits the realm of an "absolute" it does NOT necessarily stop the "absolute" from being absolute; rather, it often allows the absolute to exist or to be clarified. In plane geometry, it is an absolute fact that a triangle has three sides and that the sum of its angles is exactly 180 degrees. One may reject this as an absolute by telling of other geometries wherein the sum of angles of trianles is NOT 180 degrees, for example, the well known spherical geometry, It should be clear to all that the switch to spherical geometry does not get rid of the absolutes of plane geometry and that limiting to plane geometry simply clarifies or specifies what one is talking about and attempts to assure and clarify the truth involved. It is always best to try to be as clear as we can unless we wish to deliberately mislead.

The newly possible cosmic repulsion is NOT called "gravity" by any bona-fide physicist (perhaps it will be called antigravity). We all can see that to say gravity and antigravity are the same thing is absolutely WRONG in any valid physicists handbook and that of any human attempting to avoid confusing their audience, be consistent, avoid self-contradiction. It is an absolute of classical logic that any conclusion, true or false, my result from starting with a self-contradictory premise.
Godel's Proof is an absolute in its area of applicability, as absolute as any of the arihmetic we all rely on regularly. The arithmetic sum of 5 and 4 will absolutely be 9 regardless of the valid base used, where symbols may be different. Showing that Godel's proofs do not work in other areas or have limitations does not destroy their absolutism where they apply (applying them where they do not apply is at the very least misleading if not dishonest) although it could seem to diminish it for those who want their defined absolue to include everything, have no limiting area of discourse. Such "absolutes" make useful discussions meaningless.

There are, likely, those who would argue that the absolutes of our universe can't truly be absolutes because there are other universes out there. I suspect that most humans will not let the limitation of only being true for our universe keep us from calling them "absolutes", which also allows us to avoid the need for having FAITH that other universes exist. Our universe is well enough endowed to keep most of us happy, interested, and challenged. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for other universes and it is a reasonable matter of FAITH that we nor science will have to be concerned with them even if they exist.

The constancy of the velocity of light has nothing to do with the absolute of our universe that no body (mass) can ever reach the maximum speed of light in our universe. This absolute helps to make our universe self-consistent, another absolute for many scientists and the foundation for meaningful science.

The fact that some people claim an absolute to be untrue does not destroy the absolute. Anyone (having freedom of speech) is allowed to say that a marble released from rest at some height above the Earth will go UPWARD (maybe a planet larger than Earth goes by at just that moment of release), but their freedom of belief does nothing to destroy the absolute that such released bodies go DOWN due to gravitational attraction. Science is mighty absolute about this fact (truth) and finer details of the resulting motion DOWNWARD.

The mixability of science and religion depends on how one wishes to define each. This long Cosmic Log (THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALAN BOYLE for making it possible) discussion is rife with different and often conflicting definitions of science and religion. The strawmen being created for obvious and often, seemingly, gleeful destruction or for preservation of one's own beliefs and faith need to be exposed. I have faith that most, if not all, of the contributers to this topic can see through the created "strawmen" and not be fooled or misled by them, but BEWARE (be wary).

There are those who may say that there is error in my thinking in my contributions. All humans are subject to error and I'm glad to get evidence that I am human, but I have tried very hard to avoid errors in truth and labored assiduously to keep out any deception (any that crept in was unintended and additional evidence of my humanity? . If some cannot accept their own existence or that of our universe as absolutes (truths), it does seem to me, and I suspect most others, that they may lack the necessary tolerance for differing defintions, which may be useful for having a meaningful and happy (not fantasy) life. With my definition of "praying" I can pray for those in such mentioned trouble and all others to have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR and hope that those in trouble will allow that my definition of prayer may be nothing like any demeaning (strawman?) definition often seen of "prayer".

Finally, as a New Year's resolution some might wish to read up on Georg Cantor's and most mathematicians "ABSOLUTE" to see what some bona-fide mathematicians see as (call) absolute. It will do nothing to improve on most people's more obvious, universal, absolutes, but it will be a different definition than any presented so far.

The future of faith

Bob — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:00:19 GMT

To Wayne McCoy

I don't think you were catching my point before. One person might think it is immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, another might think it's moral. The point being, how can you even tell me Buddhism is sometimes more moral then Christianity when you don't even have a valid reference point for morality? I would agree with you on much of what you are saying about 'what is moral' because your conscience and mine probably line up in a lot of areas, but without a valid reference point...whether it is the Christian God or some other all-powerful being.....it really is a relative kind of morality. I also only stated Buddhism was immoral to make my point before. Culture can also not be a valid reference point. Many cultures don't even value the freedom of religion and choice that we have in ours, and are oppressive and wicked to other viewpoints. Many cultures are oppressive to women, which I refuse to believe is 'moral' just because it is a shared value in that culture. Yes, Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism have all included evil people committing evil acts, this is more an indictment of mankind than that religion. People like to think in terms of 'humanity' somehow getting to this point of 'enlightenment' whereby everything is peaceful and wonderful, but there is no evidence this will ever happen. The most you see is moments of kindness in a sea of selfishness...and I include myself in that category.

The future of faith

Bob — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:25:21 GMT

To WIlliam Hays

Let me explain. There is God. God was not invented by religion. Every atheist wants to fool you into thinking science supports their beliefs, so they make statements like "Could God make a rock He couldn't lift".. The truth is, God DID create everything. What atheists say is only wishful thinking from the viewpoint of the anti-religious mindset. However, from a scientific standpoint, it is wrong. If there is such a thing as God or a Creator, then where does atheism come from? Atheism comes from dishonest people seeking a way to manipulate others. Think about the statement, "There is no God." Self-serving? Maybe, but the only issue here is whether you accept the statement "People lie." Once you admit that, all the other answers fall in place. [...]

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:31:47 GMT

Wayne McCoy,

1) I am surprised you don't find yourself embarrased to grapple for this kind of example of "disproof." If you realize (which you admittedly do, with a masters in mathematics) that pi only applies to defined circles (not real circles) then you should also realize that defined circles are 2 dimensional. The object you seem to be stuck on was not 2 dimensional, and therefore has no well-defined radius- once again your argument becomes pointless (excuse the pun). As I said, it is just grappling and would be like blaming the Egyptians for using Pythagorean triplets without the actual infinite solution set given by the theorem (which they woefully failed to prove).

2) Hitler was a Christian. Oh really? And I am a house plant. And because of that you must accept that some house plants have the ability to converse,write, walk, talk, etc. [...] While Bible-believers can (and have, repeatedly) explain why attrocities "in the name of Christ" were actually contradictory to His teachings, you've got a big problem trying to explain why Hitler was wrong to apply Darwinism to his social actions. As has been documented, he was actually quite justified in his generous social applications of selective pressure- provided Darwinism is taken as a moral basis. So please, spare us the line about Christians killing people- atheism is the best justification.

3) 'Atheists can be moral, at least relatively so.' Sure they can (and I would suggest to Christians who disagree to reconsider). The question is whether subjective morality is good enough- and that all depends on who you are. Half my family comes from liberal, socialist countries where the prevailing dogma is Naturalism and Christianity is either a formality or largely dead. The average atheist would idealistically assume that it is the perfect opportunity for atheistic morallity to pop up and defend the Golden Rule. Reality check: no. That is why I have family who will not even return to Holland, because they know that a single car accident (regardless of survivability) might well result in involuntary euthanasia. Yes, it is easy to sit back in your chair living in the protection of a society whose moral system is largely Biblical and claim that the Biblical basis is nugatory. It is naive idealism. [...]

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:46:53 GMT

Mr. Hayes: I don' think of them as liars as such, although that may happen, but mostly the people you speak of are deluded and became that way for mysterious reasons. Any orthodox or extreme fundamentalist following are the extreme cases.

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:05:54 GMT

Folks, so far I've been really enjoying this symposium ... but some of the comments are starting to set off my radar for "attacking the comments of others." Of course, any discussion is going to have to refer to previous comments, and that's why I usually approve comments even if they dispute what others have said. However, I'm picking up just a little too much shrillness in some of the messages I'm seeing. My rule of thumb (stated a couple of times before) is "address the information, not the person." So it's better to say, "I disagree with the idea that X is the case because of Y" ... rather than "Mr. Smith is trying to perpetrate a fraud by ridiculously claiming X." Also, please try to refrain from characterizing fellow posters in disparaging terms (in previous threads, referring to folks as idiots, morons or liars has clearly gone beyond the line). I'm not pointing any fingers at all, just letting you know that my radar is starting to ping. I'm not as skilled a moderator as I'd like to be, but I do hope we can muddle through. Thanks again for a really interesting discussion, I'm learning a lot (and thinking a lot, which is always a good thing).

The future of faith

BG, Scottsdale, AZ — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:27:14 GMT

Many religions help children develop a healthy sense of right & wrong, they can help confused or troubled adolescents and adults, and they can bring a community of people together under a common bond. Unfortunately, many whack-jobs take it too far and confuse fiction with fact and build walls around themselves and others from which there is no escape. Even nuttier, uncivilized folks feel a need to kill and destroy in the name of religion. Why not just be content to say that religion can be a good life guideline, the Bible/Koran/whatever are great stories, and Jesus/Mohammed/whomever were righteous dudes? Just please don’t blow me up if I choose to disagree with you anywhere along the line…

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:39:52 GMT

By the way, the references to gravity and antigravity are really interesting, because they point to one of the great mysteries of contemporary physics: the nature of dark energy. Dark energy is the favored term for the repulsive factor that appears to counteract gravity and drive the accelerating expansion of the universe. I remember in the first days after the effect was discovered, it was called a kind of antigravity, but the current thinking is that it's a property of the space-time continuum ... related to Einstein's conception of the cosmological constant.

Einstein came to reject the idea of a cosmological constant (a.k.a. lambda) as an unnecessary cosmic "fudge factor," but it turns out that so far that's the best explanation for the data. In fact, dark energy is thought to account for around 70 percent of the universe's matter-energy content.

Another part of the puzzle is that the cosmological constant appears to be dramatically smaller than current models would predict. If you can stand a bit of math gobbledegook, here's an explanation from the University of Chicago's Sean Carroll:

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/encyc/

This is what's sparking all the discussion in physics about multiverses, cosmic fine tuning and "design," the anthropic principle, etc. Why does lambda have the value that it has? If it were more or less, would the universe as we know it even exist? (That's a big point of debate right now.)

This all goes back to the question over cosmic design vs. dumb luck, and it's fitting that the concept has come up during this Science and Religion Symposium.

I'll just provide a couple of extra links to spark your thinking:

Debating the universe's design (a golden oldie)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077380/

Einstein's revolution enters second century
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7327050/

Dark energy traced back to cosmic infancy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750601/

Free Republic: Hawking says God may play dice after all
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/688115/posts

(In this last post, there's a reference to the cosmological constant as the "God factor," which is also the subject of a book called "God in the Equation." I think I may cite that as a Cosmic Log Used Book Club selection, even though I haven't yet read it myself and some of the reviews are mixed.)

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:53:49 GMT

@Bob

Thanks for clarifying your points. I see what you are saying now, and I pretty much agree with you. The question is who gets to be the authority on morality, or as you say, the point of reference. Religious people rely on a deity or writings to provide that, however inconsistent that might be. The atheist relies on his sense of right and wrong, often rationally derived, and admittedly, this can lead to individual interpretations that are in fact "immoral" as society sees it. But most atheists, like most religious people, do act morally.

The example I gave of John Brown just before the Civil War is one of acting on one's sense of morality in the face of society's views. They hanged him for it. That's moral courage. Same with Christians who hid Jews in Germany during the Holocaust.

The future of faith

Bob — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:50:00 GMT

To Wayne MCoy

I looked over your post a 2nd time and I agree with you when you said:

"For, if morality is decided by individual opinion,then everything is moral."

but I would have to disagree that taking it up 1 level to society is really any different. There were and are numerous societies that ate people, mutilated women, etc. etc.....I believe that societies themselves can be immoral.

I really think though that people have a low kind of view about morality though. People think if you are all peaceful and don't do specifically bad things, then you are moral. Morality though is a much bigger thing than that. To be moral is to actually 'love' people, it's not just when you don't kill them. Love is also not just a wishy washy feeling inside, it is much more involved than that. We like to think we are good people because we don't do specific bad things, but God doesn't compare us to other people who have a little bigger list of bad things they've done. He judges us based on His standard which is perfect. SO there are 2 ways to get to heaven, you can be perfect or you can be forgiven. I had to opt for the 2nd option.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:38:58 GMT

Let me explain what I mean by a lie.

Exodus 32:26 Then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp and said, "Thus saith the YHWH god of Israel, Let every man...kill his brother." So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and three thousand men died..."

I'm talking about a specific example where one man stands up and claims, "I have the authority to speak for God. God wants you to kill those people over there."

That's a LIE. And until you reach a place where you understand why it's a lie, you'll never understand what religion is all about.

Religion is deception. Religion is based on fooling people into thinking the words in a book describe miracles and prophecies from God... instead of just really good stories that were supposed to make us feel better about watching our parents die.

At Christian youth fellowships, you meet teenagers who think the Bible is Literal Truth. They have learned to close their minds to anyone who tries to explain where the stories came from.

The future of faith

Susan, Annapolis MD — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:00:03 GMT

Theology has no basis for arguing a truth. Theology is a science, a study of "truths" as it were, and is based, itself, on a set of beliefs. Those beliefs can be either truths or falsehoods and proven right or wrong. Yet, I stand a bit corrected here, there are plastics in our landfill dumps that will last forever. I apologize for my short-sightedness in not thinking of those few things that will never cease to exist. Or will they? Half-lifes might come into the equation here, but the rate plastic disintegrates is beyond my lifetime and so I'll never really know for sure. My guess is that eventually those few things that we think of as being "forever" will eventually die or cease to exist. Which raises a completely different question: how eventual is eventually?
As far as my second statement, there can be some serious arguments against it, but that would be for naught. Change is a given, a postulate, and it seems the more we try to prove that truth to be false, the more absolute it becomes. Everything changes. Everything.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:19:34 GMT

@Matthew Dingemans

I'm afraid I don't see what your contentions about pi have to do with the Hebrews' goof in the Bible. Nor do I see what 2 dimensions has to do with it, except perhaps if you are talking about circles on a spherical or higher dimensional surfaces. The classical origin of pi is the 2-dimensional circle with the Greeks, and perhaps others earlier, first as an approximation of an ideal circle that exists only in the mind and not in any physical sense. Later developments gave way to more abstract definitions that have nothing overtly to do with circles. The real number pi is a transcendental that appears all over mathematics, and by coincidence, with circles. It shows up in number theory, real analysis, complex analysis, to mention only a few. Its computation from a simple power series expansion has been known for a long time. The relationship of pi to the circle really arises from the right triangle and its trigonometric functions, with the circle being the complete extension of the radial angle. And of course, the triangle becomes something different on the surface of the sphere when the scale of the triangle is appreciable compared to the radius of the sphere -- angles can add up to more than 180 degrees, and to less than 180 degrees on a surface of negative curvature. The relationships of plane geometry are completely demolished inside the event horizon of a black hole. What else do you want to say about pi?

So, with regard to the Hebrews' mistake, I don't know what your point is. As I stated before, they could have easily stated "3 units and a smaller part thereof." Yet they didn't, and they were wrong.

Hitler in many of his speeches claimed to be Christian, he was baptized a Catholic and never renounced his Catholicism. He certainly was not a good Christian, but then neither was Pope Urban for instigating the Crusades nor Pope Sixtus in approving Ferdinand and Isabella's instigation of the Inquisition. In fact, the motivations behind the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust were essentially the same: destruction of heresy (Jews being heretical to the Nazis' theory of Aryanism). Jews were killed in all three of these escapades, as well as Muslims, and Christians (Byzantine Christians in the Crusades, "ordinary" heretics in the Inquisition and "undesirable" in the Holocaust).

But to restate the proposition: Hitler was probably was not an atheist, and certainly was not a good Christian. For more discussion of this see:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html

As to using social-Darwinism, I don't see where that makes Hitler an atheist. Social-Darwinism only shares a name with the founder of modern evolution. Creationists are fond of trying to link social- Darwinism to evolution, but in fact it is only the name that is shared. Evolution is the process by which species change over time through the mechanism of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is only one RESULT of evolution, not the driving force. An animal that can detect more light has long-range food advantages over a larger, stronger animal that detects less light. The phrase, "survival of the fittest", was coined by the social-Darwinists (Darwin never said it), in falsely applying a scientific principle to ethics, to mean that specific action should be taken to ensure that only the fittest should survive. The only relationship to atheism is that one or more social-Darwinists may have also been atheists. One or more great humanitarians have also been atheist, who completely denied social-Darwinism. There is a huge difference between Darwinian evolution and social-Darwinism, and only the uninformed confuse the two. See here for more details:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml
http://www.ioa.com/~shermis/socjus/socdar.html

Most atheists are only too willing to proclaim their unbelief, and the fact that Hitler did not, and did proclaim his Christianity (despite practices to the contrary), strongly suggests that he was not an atheist. Moreover, he had a lot of Christians helping him--just following orders, they said. Other Christians had more moral fiber and hid Jews and other "undesirables."

You also can't discount all those Christians in the Dark and Middle Ages who went to battle against one another, proclaiming "For God and England (or whatever land)" before bashing each other to death.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:34:49 GMT

@Bob

I think the Golden Rule says it all. Yes, societies can be immoral -- Nazi Germany comes to mind. But in most cases, it is the collective will that makes morality work. Individuals have to come together to do that, otherwise nothing can happen. Even Jesus had people of like mind helping him. It is what they agree upon that defines morality for them, rightly or wrongly. For that reason, I say that one dimension of morality is political. But I don't think that "God" necessarily gives all that is moral. The treatment of women as implied in the Bible and interpreted and instituted by churches, is as immoral as slavery, also supported by the Bible. If the Bible represents the perfection of God's judgment, then I say it ain't too perfect from where I stand. As far as getting to heaven, I think I'll just opt out of that altogether.

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:59:18 GMT

Wayne McCoy,

I guess I assumed you might be able to figure out my point about pi, but perhaps you haven't actually researched this case. Circles expressed by physical objects do not have a unique diameter- they have a minimum of two diameters (inner/ outer, and technically a "central" one as well). The Hebrews never state "pi = 3"; they simply compare an unspecified diameter to the circumference (which we assume, probably correctly, was a euclidean circumference and not a fractal circumference, which would have given a larger value of pi). Considering the relationship of finite-valued outer diameter values to a euclidean circumference, there is VERY little decimal difference between the physical value of pi when the "true" diameter is actually taken.

And you don't need to lecture me about the history of pi. It doesn't substantiate your claims.

Re: Social-darwinism, Hitler, atheism, etc. First off, you needn't think I am uninformed, nor am I confusing dichotomous concepts. The separation of social-darwinism from Darwinism is entirely unfounded if ethology is gene based- unless perhaps you are suggesting that it isn't? And why is social-darwinism connected (with Darwinism) to atheistic "morality?" Because atheists don't really have an alternate moral basis (if they are correct). Sure, they can construct imaginary moral precepts, but this to would be nothing more that genetically determined ethology.

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Rob A Scotland — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:41:25 GMT

It is understood by clerics & scientists alike that God can only be accessed through faith. But why should we blindly accept such a concept? Surely a just & caring creator, whatever his cultural label, would want to bring out the 'better angels of our nature', rather than allow us to stumble around in fear & doubt, as we are left to do?
In short, if God exists why would he choose to hide his face from us, his creations? Why would he save only the unquestioning faithful, damning those with the intelligence & the courage to question ancient dogma?

The answer is obvious.

The future of faith

KEITH LEE — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:01:08 GMT

TO WAYNE MCCOY:

KEITH LEE HERE. THANKS FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS ON YOUR POINTS AND IN UNDERSTANDING MY STANCE A BIT MORE WITH MY LAST POST.

I CAN SEE YOU HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY WITH THIS YEAR'S COSMIC LOG STORY AND FORUM ON THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM, AND WHY NOT? IT'S AN INTRIGUING DISCUSSION TOPIC.

I HAVE BEEN BUSY AT WORK AND AM ONLY RESPONDING TO YOUR LAST POST TO ME. IN RESPONSE, I CAN ONLY SAY SORRY, I HAVE NO WEBSITE OR OTHER REFERENCES FOR THE NESTING CONCEPT I BROUGHT UP.

TO YOU AND ALL THE OTHER FORUM CONTRIBUTORS I SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTERESTING COMMENTS. TO THOSE WHO ARE UPSET, BE IT SAD OR ANGRY, I HOPE IT WILL PASS AT LEAST OVER TIME.

AGAIN, SORRY FOR THE LATE REPLY, BUT I CAN SEE MANY OTHERS AS YOURSELF HAVE A READY AND BETTER REPERTOIRE AND REFERENCE RESERVOIR THAN I COULD EVER HOPE FOR.

WILL BE LOGGING OFF, VERY BEST OF HOLIDAYS AND ALL OTHER DAYS TO YOU AND EVERYONE, WHATEVER YOUR FEELINGS, BELIEFS, BACKGROUND.

The future of faith

Wayne McCoy — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:14:08 GMT

@Matthew Dingemans

Of course I know about physical circles. They are never perfect, there is obviously an inner and outer diameters, because of the annular width of the line describing the circle, even if the width of that line is the Planck length. However, one can take the average of the two diameters and take that as representing the "true" value of the diameter. The accuracy of the average will be increased the more measurement are made. Similarly, between successive measurement of these diameters, the distance between the two points can be measured. If these are close enough together, a very close approximation to the circumference can be determine by summing, and fractions of the ratio C/d. We have invented the integral calculus. So what? Pi can still be defined abstractly, precisely, in finite (but not closed) form using a converging infinite series, that has nothing whatever to do with a physical circle.

What has this got to do with the Hebrews? Solomon's craftsmen measured the brass tub to be ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference. I Kings 7:23 says nothing about inside circumference, nor inside diameters; nor does 7:26 really clear the situation. The verse 7:23 reads: "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about." Have a look at this:

http://www.abarim-publications.com/
Arie/Bible/PiInTheBible.html

The question comes down to how they measured the tub. Did they get one of them to lay his arm (as a cubit) around and across? Did they use a piece of rope to lay around the tub, then measure the lengths with known standard lengths (they probably had a standard cubit by then in order to properly construct the Temple)? However they did it, they still could have have noted that the circumference was thirty cubits and a smaller portion thereof, or "about 30 cubits" and let it go at that.

Sorry, I just don't buy that social-Darwinism has anything to do with Darwinian evolution, other than a name and a corruption of concept. What references can you cite to show otherwise?

Atheists most certainly do have a moral basis. Buddhism is an atheist religion, and it had a very solid moral basis 500 years before Christianity came on the scene. Its moral basis is as least the equal that of Christianity -- Buddhists don't start wars, for example, nor harm animals. Buddhism may have even influenced Christianity. And what of Confucianism? Atheists are no more evil or immoral than any other people and it's time that believers get used to that fact. I'm not convinced of the general moral superiority of believers (ever hear of Charles Keating or the BTK killer?), though there are many individual atheists and believers who are clearly of superior fiber. Being a believer doesn't guarantee that you will be moral. Christianity only guarantees forgiveness, and urges the use of faith to be moral.

The future of faith

Author Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:17:05 GMT

A few months ago I remember wondering if the conscious mind itself might be considered another dimension. If you think about it, doesn't it take another completely different dimension to witness three dimensions and time? We seem to effect reality itself with our consciousness as I noted earlier. People seem to also know when another person is watching them and there are other similar paranormal-type effects like ESP that the mind is said to have. All of which seem to hint that the mind really has an effect on what we feel.

If this is so, there really may be something to this general idea of an eternal soul that we hear about so often in religion. Just think about it. If a person exhibits an exceptionally strong consciousness (say they have many heartfelt passion in life or an acute inner yarning), then maybe this leaves some sort of lasting imprint on reality itself. When the physical/three dimensional body dies, this truly might not affect the dimension that the consciousness existed on. Something akin to reincarnation may then be possible as another body is conceived and takes the place of the last one… I’m kind of liking this explanation personally! Let me know what you think.

Also, apart from the Heisenberg Principle and the mystery of tied electrons, I also remember reading about a very brief instance of observed time travel seen in a particle accelerator. Maybe it's been disproved by now but I remember a photo showing what they said was the departure of a short-lived particle a fraction of a second before it zoomed into the picture on the same time elapsed photo.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:54:27 GMT

To WIlliam Hays

There is no evidence that Moses was lying. He had brought down plagues on Egypt, split the sea, and rescued them from the Egyptians. This was not some schmo that came along and said "Hi, I'm Moses, I speak for God. Go ahead and kill everyone you can get your hands on because I said so". God also wiped out most of the world with a flood. There is much more context here than can possibly be thrown out there so casually.

The future of faith

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:41:16 GMT

I ask again, why do people need God, religion and faith? Is it in the same camp as why people need leaders of nations? As far as I'm concerned , true democracy doesn't need a figurehead. There should be no president or prime ministers or "leaders". This is a huge falacy wrought with problems. The model of the UN is free input and dialogue with voting. There is no one "leader".

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:39:40 GMT

Thanks for the update, Bob. I'm curious about where you got your information, because some of it seems inaccurate.

First, you mentioned a Great Flood that wiped out most of the world??? That Flood was supposed to have covered the tops of the highest mountains. In order to raise our current sea level to the height of a mountain, you would need to ADD three times as much water as there is on the entire planet. Where did that water go after the Flood was over? It's not there. So, the story of Noah's Ark is pretty much a lie.

Same thing for Moses bringing down plagues on the Egyptians. If all of the first-born children in an entire country had died on the stroke of midnight, there would be a record of it outside the Bible. No, it's only a story, and a pretty scary one at that. But it isn't a TRUE story. People lie. People make up stories about Great Floods because they've experienced little floods AND they have great imaginations. If you're talking about the power of God, why then you would need a GREAT Flood.

I wanted to reply to this one, too: "Whew! What a bunch of confused people, for the most part. I hope this will help. You do not approach God with YOUR conditions attached. Conditions such as 'proofs', 'evidence', and the like are akin to asking for a 'sign' and will not elicit a response. He is GOD..."

Let me give you a short definition of a Con Man. A Con Man thinks that the money in YOUR pocket actually belongs to him, and he invents a STORY that will persuade you to hand it over. A Con Man sees a LIE as a means to correct a terrible wrong - ie, people who have HIS money. That's what God is. God is a LIE that people tell. Since there is no God, the Con Man says "You do not approach God with requests for proof or evidence..." That takes the simple idea of a LIE to the next level, which is a CON GAME.

Always look at the proof. Always look at the evidence. Our universe wasn't created. It's the result of an explosion, rather like a firecracker going off. It took 8 billion years for our sun and planet to form out of material expelled from other stars. We KNOW the universe wasn't made for us. It just happened. But thanks for clearing that up.

The future of faith

naneki, CA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:42:52 GMT

TO: Tony Gutierrez, long Island, New York. (Sent Sunday, December 24, 2006 2:46 PM)

I just wanted to clarify that I am not wise. True wisdom belongs to God alone. I merely spoke His word. Those were good and "right on" scriptures you referred to.....take care!

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:59:00 GMT

To William Hays

You really don't have to add up the amount of water to say "the flood couldn't have happened, because it was a miracle, and miracles don't happen" because that is where you are coming from. I said that God caused the flood, not random weather patterns.

We are talking thousands of years ago here. We are still just gleaning bits and pieces of early history, so what are you talking about with the children thing? This is pure speculation on your part. I'm sure I can speculate on some much more recent events, like why when people believed that Christ rose from the dead, weren't the Romans able to produce a body to quell the rising faith? Why a flood? Because that just happens to be what He used, that's why.

As to your response to the other guy. Why would Jesus disciples die for a lie? They had nothing to gain. They saw Jesus crucified, and they saw Him risen again. Why would they die if they knew He hadn't really risen from the dead? People lie for personal gain, they lie to manipulate....but they aren't willing to die for something that they know is a lie.

Scientists don't have the origin of the universe all figured out....and we don't know if it was or wasn't created for us. I also wasn't claiming that He did make it for us.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:23:43 GMT

To Wayne McCoy

I noticed under an earlier post that you stated you used to be a Christian, but are now happier without it. You mentioned that you could care less about going to heaven. This is confusing to me, because if you pre-suppose that a heaven exists to make the statement in the 1st place...how could you not want to go there?
Certainly, pre-supposing God exists and created you and knows your true needs better than you do, then isn't that a self destructive sentiment? I'm sure that heaven, whatever it's like, would give you many more infinite and dazzling things to discover and explore than what man is coming up with. When you do see great things about people, don't you know that these are just small examples of what God has given to us....and will also provide much more of in heaven? Also, what happened with being a Christian that wore you out so much?

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:33:28 GMT

To Thomas Ashby

If God exists, and if He created mankind, and if He says that you need Him, then you need Him.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:10:51 GMT

Definitions (daffynitions?)

Atheist is defined in a 1978 Random House dictionary as follows: "the belief that there is no God or gods". A 1937 Funk and Wagnalls gives atheism as follows: The denial of or disbelief in the existence of God". Therefore, the older Funk and Wagnalls has "denial" and the not redundant "disbelief". For those who see no important distinction between "denial" and "disbelief" in their definitions of each, the problem of humans having different feelings from others about their definitions appears.

I entered this colloquy by trying to have all see that the statement "There is nothing ABSOLUTE" is SELF-CONTRADICTORY and that classical logic makes it clear that one cannot be logically certain about the truth or falsity any conclusions drawn from self-contradictory premises. Hence, we prefer premises that are not self-contradictory when searching for truths of which we can be certain. I also mentioned that this self-contradiction could be seen as highly desired and well recognized by those who wish to "prove" (hence, con the uninitiated?) anything their heart desires.

For all who are willing to admit that "there is nothing absolute" is a self-contradictory premise or statement (incidentally "everything is relative" can similarly be seen as self-contradictory), I would like to probe a little further. W. McCoy made a response to make it clear that he saw the self-contradiction of "there is nothing absolute" and how he avoided it. So, let us now examine the not=self-contradictory "there is something absolute". One is entitled to believe or disbelieve this premise (statement) just as one is entitled to believe or disbelieve their own existence. However, most people's experience and discovery gives strong support to this self-consistent (not self-contradictory) premise. I suspect most see the advantage of being in the belief camp. Those who do not believe in their own existence can stop reading here. For those who do believe in their own existence, let us move on. I guess that I should warn those in the other camp (who should not be reading further and possibly become confused or angry) that I am going on to show by classical logic and definition that God exists if you accept that "there is something absolute".

"There is something absolute" will be shown to allow "there is God" as a valid premise, statement, or belief. Of course one can get there the easy way by saying that God is something absolute and that is a perfectly valid way to go for those who have experienced God or have a feeling for God. It is my hope to provide an experience with or a feeling for God through experience with or feeling for INFINITY. As in mathematics where addition is taken as "undefined" (something one is expected to have experience with or feelings for) and subtraction "defined" in terms of the"undefined" addition (incidentally, mathematics could take subtraction as "undefined" and then "define" addition in terms of subtraction; so, one could take God as "udefined" and define infinity in terms of God), I shall take INFINITY as "undefined" and define GOD in terms of infinity to help those who have had no experience with or feeling for God (please keep in mind that the God I am leading to is not the strawman God so readily shot down and used for that purpose by so many self-called atheists).

All have experience with our counting numbers, 1,2,3,..... and realize that they go on FOREVER as indicated by the ........ This going on forever of the counting numbers was probably people's first glimpse of, experience with, or feeling for something infinite. We all can "feel" the infinitude of the counting numbers. However, this infinitude or infinity had and still has strange properties that confound our common sense which is based on our vast (probably for most, esclusive) experience with finite things. Our finite biased "common sese" tells us that there must be half as many even counting numbers as evens and odds combined (all counting numbers). Thanks to Georg Cantor and others much earlier on, we now know that there are just as many even counting numbers as evens and odds combined (all counting numbers). This knowledge allows us to see that infinity added to infinity makes only the same infinitude (infinity) as either addend. The "religious" might say "See I told you that you cannot add to God". It also turns out, using one-to-one correspondence, that if one removes all the infinite even numbers from a list of all the counting numbers, the infinitude of the counting numbers remaining (the infinity of the odd counting numbers) is still the same infinitude it had before the infinite removal; hence, infinity subtracted from infinity can leave the same infinity with which you began. Here come the "religious" again with "see I told you that you cannot subtract from God and I 'felt' this all along before being told about the infinitude of the counting numbers because it was my experience (dreams?) that told me God was infinite".

This comment is getting too long, but I hope it may help some. The infinitude of the counting numbers is only one of an infinite number ("infinite number" is deceptive in that infinity is not a number but a concept; hence, "infinitude" would be better) of infinitudes as shown hy Georg Cantor. While the infinitude of the counting numbers can be associated with going on forever (an attribute of God for many), the infinitude of the irrational numbers, which is a larger infinitude than that of the counting numbers (hence, the irrational numbers cannot be counted) and may be associated with the infinitude needed to "fill" space (make a mathematical continuum) with something discrete that "occupies" no space (making something from nothing?). Going deeper into INFINITY can give one more "experience with" and "feelings for" infinity, thereby, qualifying it as an "undefinable" like time and length of physics. Extended experience can lead to the self-consistent premise "there is something infinite". Once God is defined in terms of the "undefined" infinite (like subtration being defined in terms of addition or velolcity in terms of length and time), then the premise "there is God" is self-consistent and deserves more justifiable credence than the self-contradictory "there is no God" ("there is nothing absolute").

Sorry this comment is both too long for many and in some ways too short for others, those who would like to know more about or increase their experience with or feelings for infinity (God?). Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind" might help some, but it is not very clear (look who's talking) in some places. The more recent "The Infinite Book" by John D. Barrow is probably better for most. Both can be purchased on Amazon.com.

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:45:52 GMT

Wayne Mccoy,

1) pi. You are still missing the point. The circumference of a finite-thickness "circle" will not automatically be 3.14159... times the diameter, unless you have specifically defined the diameter and circumference in question. And once again, you needn't lecture me on the various derivations of pi- it doesn't make your theatrical attempt any more convincing.

2) Social Darwinism. Firstly, not only did Darwin adopt the phrase "survival of the fittest" he went so far as to conceded (Origins, 5th ed) that it was "more accurate" than "natural selection." Secondly, the idea that social darwinism is an innappropriate "ethics" application of an ethically neutral theory is also wrong- it has nothing to do with ethics (if those even exist). The point of natural selection (in Darwinism) is to only allow those organisms to survive who are most prone to passing on their genetic content- thus the propagation of various genetically determined behaviors (be it altruism or cannibilism or whatever necessary within a population). Social darwinism is nothing more than a case study of such behavior. (unless, again, you may be suggesting some transcendental nature to human behavior)

3) Atheistic morality. I don't know what your point is in claiming atheists have a moral basis. I thought I already said exactly that. The point is that it is subjective morality- which I have also already addressed.

William Hays,

The arguments you present... well, actually they're not arguments. They're opinions. Opinions expressed in a vehement, emotional manner. Keep up the posts- they're exactly why the majority of Americans consider atheistic naturalism entirely untenable (and why such subjectivity fails to succesfully mask itself as objective analysis). (In addition, before uttering a broad dismissal of a widely-held belief, such as Noah's flood, you should research the case a little bit more- i.e. the fact that no informed Biblicists would ever suggest that today's global topology was identical then- then you might have a little bit more thinking to do before issuing your diatribe.)

Of course no personal rant on you- just observations.

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:51:11 GMT

Bob asked, "When people believed that Christ rose from the dead, weren't the Romans able to produce a body to quell the rising faith?"

That one's easy. No one suggested that Jesus had risen from the dead until years after the event. There was no reason to refute a story that didn't exist. Saul (later Paul) was a Pharisee, a cult within Judiasm who predicted a resurrection of the dead for well over a century before Jesus was born. Before Paul came into the picture, Jesus' friends were mourning Jesus. They made NONE of the claims modern Christians hold about him. The martyr Stephen said he saw Jesus in heaven, standing next to throne of God, and that was probably the party line for years after Stephen's death. The body of Jesus was never taken down from the cross. It was eaten by birds or animals, and denied burial as part of the Roman punishment. Thus, no body could be produced.

Reply to: "Why would Jesus disciples die for a lie? They had nothing to gain."

Unless, as the evidence shows, the early Christians were recruited using promises of an imminent bodily resurrection of all the dead, followed by a day of Judgment. If a small cult convinces their victims that is about to happen, of course they will die for the lie.

There was no Great Flood. The Great Flood is a story, nothing more. There is conclusive genetic evidence that all living humans did NOT descend from a single Jewish family less than 5,000 years ago. Studies have been done on mitochondrial DNA to establish a Last Common Ancestor, and the time frame is millions, not thousands of years. The Pharisees' promise of resurrection began as a STORY based on a poem in Ezekiel, to ease the pain of seeing relatives murdered by Romans. The only deadline that still appears in our heavily-edited NT is "before all of those standing here listening to me have tasted death." ie, about 110 AD. I'm sure various other deadlines were advanced and then erased, but that one still survives, attributed to Jesus himself.

The future of faith

F. David Plummer, Rockland, Maine — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:46:08 GMT

I wrote this letter to Pope Benedict the other day: "I saw in the news media that you questioned whether or not mankind had any use for a savior in the 3rd millenium because of supposedly great technology and science. I am and have always been a space advocate and futurist activist. I am also a christian (Presbyterian), and I will tell you now that even though many scientists are debating the existence of God, they will eventually find their arguments defeated. God is as much out there in space as he is here on earth. Christ will always be part of the human spirit.
These great achievements of men (though they seem great) are only that which shows the intelligence of mankind which was created by God, therefore these inventions and discoveries only glorify God.
The Lord will not allow us to discover that which we are not ready for. Time Travel is one example. We are not ready or evolved enough to understand the power of time travel just now, only we are now allowed to discover that it may be possible; yet Christ knew time travel, for he is the alpha and omega.

God Bless,

I can understand so many humans confusion in this day and age. What they do not understand is that God and science and religion are one and the same. The kingdom of heaven, the spirit world, whatever you want to call it, exists on a parallel existence simultaneously with the material/physical universe. The only difference is that the physical universe is transient and the spirit universe never changes and time as we know it does not go by in the other universe in the same way. As Einstein predicted, time is relative. A day in heaven is a thousand years on Earth. There will one day be a convergence of religion and science, and mankind as a species will find itself spread out across the entire milky way galaxy during the next 10,000 years.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:10:19 GMT

To William Hays

Are you stating that Jesus' disciples were mourning His death up until the time that Paul appeared on the scene? and then they changed their minds? Please clarify and with what evidence.

The martyr Stephen comment isn't relevant.

As to Him being left on the cross and scavenged...that's speculative and I am not sure how to respond other than I've seen information that people are sometimes buried and sometimes left on the cross.

About the lie thing. The people that "know" it's a lie would not "themselves" die for it.

Again about the Flood?

Who claimed we all came from a small Jewish family less than 5000 years ago, I didn't. I'm not sure about all that, but if God can make great big supernatural floods that cover the earth to the height of mountains and make all the water disappear afterwards, He can certainly make us all come from a small Jewish family 5000 years ago.

The Pharisees comment is not relevant.

You'll have to give me that scripture about the deadline. I don't have the Bible memorized yet, and I'll probably have to look it up. There is an interesting prophecy in Daniel 9:20-27 though, that I've heard is really intense for those with the time or patience to study it.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:11:25 GMT

Bob,

   I think you're missing the point. Let's start with a Great Truth: People LIE.
   Everything about "the Christ" in the Bible is a LIE. That's why it's called "The Greatest Story Ever Told." When you're making up a story, you don't care if it's true or not. Because it's a story.
   About thirty years after Jesus died, this was added to the Gospel of Mark: "But after the tribulation, they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds and he will gather together the Elect from the farthest part of the earth. Truly, this generation will not pass away til all these things occur. Heaven and earth will pass away..." (Mark 13:24) About ten years later, after the destruction of the Temple of Jeruslalem in 70 AD, we get a different version in Matthew 24:3, where Jesus is answering a question, "What will be the sign of your coming at the end of the world?"
   Christianity was an End of the World cult. Victims were lured with the promise that the Son of Man (a character from the Book of Enoch) would appear in the clouds with legions of angels.
   The comment of Stephen IS relevant. The early Christians died for the promise that the world was about to end, when the Romans would be judged and sentenced to eternal torment for their crimes against Judaism. The "son of God" claim was meaningless to them, because the Roman Emperor used the same title for himself. The Promise of Resurrection was firmly in place before Jesus was born. Paul called Jesus the "first-fruits"- meaning he was the first to be resurrected, but ONLY as part of a universal event. 1,900 years later, we KNOW this story isn't true. Mitochondrial Eve dates from 200,000 to 250,000 years ago, the last time all humans had a common female ancestor. There was NO universal flood during those 200,000 years. Jesus was an ordinary person, and no one cared whether his body was around or not, because the prediction was for the Resurrection of ALL the dead at the end of the world. It didn't happen. Christianity is a STORY. We know this because (the general rule) the people who wrote the Bible were writing a STORY, not a history book. It was propoganda for an End of the World cult, nothing more.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:20:33 GMT

F. David Plummer wrote: "The kingdom of heaven, the spirit world, whatever you want to call it, exists on a parallel existence simultaneously with the material/physical universe. The physical universe is transient and the spirit universe never changes and time as we know it does not go by in the other universe in the same way."

I think this makes my point.

People make up stories. When they make up stories, they often tell them in such a way that you might confuse them with scientific fact.

   I think Mr. Plummer has read some legitimate speculation by physicists like Andrei Linde... and is giving us a tiny peek into HIS Imaginary World. Mr. Plummer has no information or facts to support his theories about the passage of time in a spirit universe. The same applies to the stories written about the Son of man, resurrection and the virgin birth of Jesus.
   People lie. People invent stories. That is the Correct Answer, no matter what organized Christianity tells you.
    I apologize to Cosmic Log for getting off the subject.
   The Future of Faith? The world will split into two groups. Scientists will look down on Christianity as people who can't recognize the Correct Answer, even when it's read into court testimony. (ie, the Intelligent Design case in Dover, PA) Faith will increase their war on science and people who know the difference between a Con Game and a History Book. No politician is ever going to have the nerve to go against Christianity, so the laws will always protect the Con Game from too much exposure. People will watch movies like "The Nativity Story" and assume that the story must be true because so many believe it is true.

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:21:10 GMT

William Hays,

Your vehement, religious, emotive comments continue to spew forth- exactly as I requested in the previous message- so I thank you. Once again, you make exactly the point that so many people are already convinced of- that atheism is an illogical and intellectually unnecessary position.

Your doomsday predictions about the end of educated faith will never come, in large part because of the passionately subjective stance that poorly informed anti-theists ... take. [...]

I would be curious, however, to know how much time you have spent in the academic world (considering your sweeping dismissals of the intellectual strength of theists). Those of us who actually live and breath in the academic world are well aware that theists represent some of the best minds in the business (even Dawkins is honest enough to admit this- of course to his consternation). Not that I always agree with theists at my university- but between the various doctors in biology, nuclear physics, chemistry, etc, I at least recognize that theism has strengthened their scientific epistemology if anything.

Cheers-
Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Gary Davis, Shreveport, Louisiana — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:11:34 GMT

I've always prefered to think of science as we mere humans coming to understand how God managed to do the things He did when He created all that is.
Given the fact that we only use 10% of our mental capacity I don't think any of us are smart enough to know what God likes or dislikes or even what He's trying to tell us. We can't even all get together and figure out exactly who He is. We can't even define life. We know how organisms function when they are alive, we know when the animation of life leaves them, but, we can't duplicate it or even decide on when it actually begins. Of all the knowledge we have amassed in our brief time on this planet we have only scratched the surface.

And a closing thought to ponder, I'd rather live as if there is a God and discover there is none than to live like there is none only to discover there is.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:13:07 GMT

[...] If you live in an Imaginary World, then the characters you've created MIGHT tell each other that atheism is illogical. Or intellectually unnecessary. When one person writes the dialogue for ALL the characters on the stage, that could happen.

Out here in the Real World, atheism is the ONLY position that is actually supported by Facts.

Christianity has taught you - drilled it into you - that your opinions are more valid than scientific theories. That your belief counts for something. Why? Because they want you in a good mood when that collection plate comes around.

Belief in a supernatural Savior counts for Nothing in the Real World. I can believe that I'm going to win the Lotto, but until I do, it's unproven.

Matthew said: "Those of us who actually live and breath in the academic world are well aware that theists represent some of the best minds in the business (even Dawkins is honest enough to admit this- of course to his consternation)."

Sorry, Matthew, but I don't think theists represent any such thing. Organized religion CLAIMS to contain members who think in intelligent ways, but that's only an opinion. For example, are you familiar with the title of Dawkins' current book?

The God Delusion.

If Dawkins respects their intellect so much, why did he choose an emotionally loaded word like "delusion" for his title?

Legitimate academics know the difference between Mythology, Fiction, and History. Christian academics can't seem to figure out which is which.

Mythology is a story written to convey knowledge and wisdom from one generation to the next. Let's look at a passage from 2 Peter and apply some test:
"..scoffers will come in the last days, asking, Why hasn't this Lord and Savior appeared? The world did not end as his apostles predicted.... (But I tell you) the day of the Lord WILL come as a thief in the night, and both the earth and the works in it will be burnt up. The heavens will be dissolved being on fire and pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with a fervent heat... The heavens and earth are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (Chapter 3)

Can we agree this did NOT happen? Can we agree that some early Christian forged this letter after Peter had died, and recruited new victims for Christianity with the threat of an imminent destruction of the world by fire and then divine punishment of "ungodly" men?? Can we agree this does not rise to the level of Mythology, and is simply FICTION?

I suspect this is where your opinion of atheism comes from. [...] Well, let me go back to the Simple part. People lie. The author of 2 Peter lied.

Atheism is the ONLY intellectually honest position. Why? Because it is the only position supported by scientific evidence. Science has looked for a God. It's not there.

With authors like Dawkins and Sam Harris, the scientific community is getting the message across. Science does NOT support Christianity. Many Christians wish it did, but it doesn't. [...]

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:08:13 GMT

AMITY PLEASE
If anyone is paying attrention to my points about definitions, if not, please read the beginning of my DEFINITIONS (daffynitions?) to see if you want to continue here, then one should see that some making comments here have very special definitions of their own especially for the word "LIES". In the commonly accepted definition of "lie" there is the need for willful or deliberate deception; the necessary requisite in court (willful) to win a slander case. Accepting the common (dictionaries?) definition of "lie", it is obvious that some contributers to this colloquy have confused "myth" with "lie". While such contributers may define "lie" any way they like, they would get more attention for and understanding of their ideas (stay with "lie" if only trying to anger people) if they avoided uncommon usage of "lie" which serves to inflame rather than to gain understanding. It is very difficult (if not impossible) for inflamed humans to undersdtand well. Because there are some good ideas from those using "lie" (even "LIE", for more inflamation?), these good ideas might be better able to be seen if one replaces "lie" (mostly wherever it occurs) with "myth". To say the Christian Bible or any other well intended religious text is a "lie" subjects the stater to unnecessary critism and turns off many of those probably hoped to be reached. The statement that the religious writings, honored by many, may be "myths" (instead of calling them "lies") is in far better accord with the definitions of "lie" and "myth" used by most people; besides, it's far more "user friendly" if not more polite.

It does seem that politeness to each other may be very good goal for all and help us to "all get along", but it also may be very helpful in going beyond, now and in the future, if we wish to go beyond "getting along", to HELPING EACH OTHER (in contrast to enraging each other). If the future finds us practicing the meritorious goal (moral obligation for some) of dedicating our life to helping each other, then a great deal of new joy for all can appear. I do hope some can see why such a dedication is always a prime candidate for a New Year's resolution every year.

I don't know when Alan Boyle will stop this topic and comments (perhaps early in 2007); so, before it's too late, I do want to thank you all for your ideas of interest; there were many on all sides and especially for those that may have helped some of us humans on our journey. It is ABSOLUTELY clear to me that you all exist and believe in your existence yourself as demonstrated by your dedication and efforts to find "truth" (absolutes?).

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:47:04 GMT

Carlton, you do sometimes go on a bit (as you've noted yourself), but I think you're on the right track. At some point, people can end up in disagreement and just have to go on their way. I've had to start toning down the references to other posters a bit (that's what the [...] insertions signal). I hope you folks don't mind if I edit things somewhat to conform to our guidelines. Again, it's a judgment thing, and if there are any of your comments you'd prefer to have me delete, you can let me know (although it might render the retorts nonsensical).

William's references to "lying" might challenge some people's faith - but I don't think it's anything that hasn't come up before. I recently read "Misquoting Jesus," and in that book Bart Ehrman refers to the claims that Romans made against the Christians back in the day ... some of which sound a lot like claims being made today. I found the book an interesting read, just because I'm interested in the provenance of ancient texts (Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls and all that).

It struck me that in science and scholarship, there's a self-correcting mechanism at work. Of course people are capable of lying. Many of those people happen to be scientists (just look up Woo-Suk Hwang as an example). But eventually the truth will out. You don't see that self-correcting feature so much in religious thought; nevertheless, I think there are subtle processes at work. Christianity has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the millennia (though it's important for some believers to insist that their faith is unchanging), and we see that in Islam as well (witness the current rifts between Sunnis and Shiites, for example).

As we turn the page on the calendar, I do hope we can turn the page on this discussion, too. Not to let it drop ... the comments are still very thought-provoking. Rather, it'd be great to cast all this as speaking to the community at large, saying your piece, and not indulging in a person-vs.-person debate. I guarantee you that no one is going to "win" this grand debate - but the discussion has certainly gotten me thinking and questioning, and I hope it's done the same for you.

A Happy and Thought-Provoking New Year to all of you!

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:39:49 GMT

RIGHT ON, as usual, Alan. Thank you for providing so much to so many with your Cosmic Log. Hope you have a very HAPPY NEW YEAR and every one that comes along

The future of faith

Matthew Dingemans, Dallas Tx. — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:05:24 GMT

Re: william Hays, et al.

This has been a most entertaining thread... And it just keeps getting better. I'm not really sure if the added "content" is really adding any content- but the attitudes of the posters lately have been quite telling.

I'll try to keep this as on-topic as possible: this blog was intended to address the question of what will happen to faith in the future. Some highly emotional (and perhaps slightly upset) anti-theists have expressed their sentiment that religion is dying its final death- or at least that it is finally being cut off from the real world.

Well, I won't continue to contend otherwise if that is what some of the readers are convinced of. The rest of us will continue to actually work in the academic world, complete with brilliant (and of course, sometimes not so) theists and all.

And sorry, Mr. Hays. Just because you "don't think" that theists represent an intellectual stronghold doesn't affect reality- and your contention to such ends has me further doubting that you actually are in touch with the academic world.

Oh well, thanks Alan for the interesting topic- maybe a little more life will be squeezed out of it before the year is actually over.

And thank you, in addition, to those of you who (though disagreeing with others) were able to keep a cool and level head while debating- Wayne McCoy is a good example- as this kind of respectful disagreement is what makes intellectual communities thrive.

-Exno.blogspot.com

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:57:44 GMT

ATHEISM is a FAITH, A Self-contradictory faith
What follows is very much like what has been said before in this seasonal colloquy, but it is being repeated somewhat differently because it is clear to me now that the first attempts have not been read or not clear enough to be understood.
If "atheism" means a belief(FAITH) that there is nothing absolute, then such a faith is belief in a self-contradictory statement. Bona-fide scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, etc. have the prime directive to expose, not support, self-contradictory statements. Indeed, attempted proofs in mathematics are discarded once a self-contradiction is found in them even if there are no other errors and even many truths. If atheism is, for some, a faith (belief) in the truth of the statement "There is no God", then they will find deaf ears on those who find sufficient similarities betwen God and infinite things to say that there is equivalence between "There is nothing infinite" and "There is no God". Those having ample experience with and evidence for infinite things or the concept of infinity, especially in mathematics, will understand why persons without such experience or expertise may be prone to say there is nothing absolute or infinite (I made a somewhat loose demonstration, in order to be brief and keep it simple, of infinity in an earlier reply). Similarly, it is easy to understand how people who have never experienced love may deny its existence. Denials of existence by those deficient in experience will often find those without such deficiencies trying to help remove such deficiencies, provide evidence of things not yet experienced by those in denial or impolitely turning a deaf ear. If one defines their atheism as the credible belief that established religions or others are full of myths (or "lies" if one so chooses), this stand cannot be discounted as self-contradictory, like "There is nothing absolute" can.
Please, tell me and others, up front, what you mean by (your definition of) "atheism" so our discussions and considerations can be intelligently carried on and it is hoped they can be based on definitions that are not self-contradictory.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:17:14 GMT

ABSOLUTES IN EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Bona-fide physicists and many others know of the many ABSOLUTES in Einstein's Special Relativity. Here "ABSOLUTE" means true for all observers of our universe in uniform relative motion (moving at constant, no change in size or direction, velocity and includes being at rest with respect to each other). Many of these absolutes of Special Relativity have become well known by many, such as, (1) no body with rest mass (weight on any planet for those unfamiliar with the mass of physics) can, in our universe, ever reach the speed of light (light has zero rest mass in our uniuverse); (2) any clock (person if wish) that makes a trip at sufficient velocity (less than speed of light, of course) to a sufficiently distant place and returns will (not due to any trouble with clock's precision) return showing a time (age) measurably (can be made ever greater the closer the speed is to the speed of light, speed is the size of the velocity) behind a similarly precise clock (aged friend) left at home. This clock fact has been verified by experimental physics and is as firm as the verifications of physics truths such as experiments on falling bodies. As mentioned, there are many more facts (absolutes) of Special Relativity including the fact of nuclear energy, but here is an absolute (same for all observers, experimenters, in our universe) of Special Relativity that is not well known by some physicists and some, at first glimpse, might doubt its truth (absolutism).

All observers, experimenters, in our universe will, telescopically, see the SAME (no relativity of time here) time on a distant clock (face), synchronized with and by one of the observers, when said observers are SIDE BY SIDE with each other (light taking negligible time to travel between them) regardless of the direction or size of their constant speeds. It is well known that, when "not side by side", such uniformly moving observers may see different times on said distant clock. The absolute (2), above, caused many to use this result of Special Relativity, before Special Relativity was well understood, in an attempt to show that Special Relativity was self-contradictory, hence, to be discarded. It turns out that those, who wanted do show relativity self-contradictory, hence brought down, were guilty of a self-contradiction themselves along the way and we see their dream has gone down in flames as a result of their self-contradiction and the self-consistency (no self-contradiction) of Special Relativity has brought us much important and useful information. The origial detractors (I think most all saw their error before dying, but there may have been some flat-Earthers amog them) have some kind of "fame" because their title "Clock Paradox" still abounds in the literature although, aside fom the "flat-Earther" types, we now know that there was and is no "paradox", only unfamiliarity. While much that happens at speeds close to the speed of light is still "paradoxical" (strange, unfamiliar) to us humans who have never been able to move fast enough to see the "strange" effects found at such speeds, it is only the "flat-Earther" types who doubt the truths of Special Relativity here.

It is, perhaps, of interest to know that while side-by-side observers will, telescopically if necessary, see the SAME time showing on said distant clock, they will not see said clock at the same disance from their side-by-side position. Those moving toward said clock will see it blue shifted and FARTHER AWAY (the greater their speed the more color shift and the greater the distance seen to said clock); those moving away will see it red shifted and CLOSER-IN (the more color shift and ever closer-in the greater their speed away from said clock). While said observers of our universe, when side by side will see the SAME time (in their telescopic eyepieces if needed), they will not agree as to the time on the distant clock that an observer in their system (same state of motion) will see who is side by side with the distant clock when they are side by side with each other; hence, the relativity of time of Special Relativity is still operating for us all. This SAME (telescopically not calculated) time seen when side by side, which Special Relativity considerations show, attests to the self-consistency of our universe so manifest in and verified by Special Relativity. It would be a true paradox, showing the inconsistency of our universe, if our universe provided side-by-side observers with different times on the same clock, that was the paradox claimed by the clock paradox originators standing on our (their) universal belief that our universe is self-consistent and any theory that conradicted this "absolute" truth of our universe had to be wrong. Well, Special Relativity is true in our universe as shown by many experiments and Special Relativity helps us all, greatly, to distinguish that which is RELATIVE from that which is ASOLUTE. Most of all, I feel, Special Relativity showed us that our bias based on exclusive experience with speeds small compared to the speed of light (our fastest rockets move at speeds very small compared to that of light and there were no rockets at the age of the "Clock Paradox" proclaimers) led us to be certain that things were absolute which actually, in our universe, are relative and gave us many absolutes to enjoy and relish with far greater certainty than ever before while licking our wounds of losing some cherished absolutes we held due to our bias developed from limited experience.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:08:23 GMT

On the definition of atheism, don't start from the assumption that there is a single valid definition. In fact, atheism is a collective term for the personal beliefs of millions of very intelligent people, and each atheist may have a different belief. An atheist may hold a personal belief that there is no such thing as a God, or he may simply acknowledge the Greater Truth. 2,000 years of research has consistently returned the same answer: God does not exist, and the people who invent a God are not credible.

The problem here is "deaf ears." Christians who consider themself "academics" yet can't display the sound judgment necessary to separate Lies from Myths or History. If a church owns a college like Notre Dame, then they can pull out their defense mechanism by claiming "we're the college," and they never have to acknowledge their own shortcomings. They can require every professor to sign a Statement of Belief before getting tenure.

Richard Dawkins has written a book titled "Unweaving the Rainbow" where he again places the word "delusion" in the title. From a review on Amazon: "...where Dawkins is flawed is his condescending attitude to areas of belief and knowledge outside of the scientific method, which he often treats with great contempt at worst and as foolish fairytales containing some truth at best..."

I think this is an accurate statement of his opinion. (And mine.) Dawkins treats alleged Christian academics with great contempt. He regards the Bible as a foolish fairytale with only a small amount of truth lost in the larger text (because the gospel, or good news, is actually a recruitment tool for an End of the World cult that missed its' deadline in 110 AD)

Will atheism grow in the future? I can't imagine that it will. It will remain at 5 to 15% of the world's population, including most of the real academics who are willing to look at the facts rather than preach their own beliefs. No post-Darwin scientific inquiry has ever returned even the slightest evidence for an intelligent Creator. Evolution has produced great results with predictable flaws (ie, by the time you've lived 100 years, a human body is largely worn out and there's no easy way to repair it.)

Many cultures have Myths about floods. If you can't get past belief in a worldwide flood inflicted as a punishment for God for humanity's immoral behavior, you can never appreciate the struggle of the human race over the last 200,000 years. Try to imagine what life was like for our ancestors 200,000 years ago, and what kind of stories they would invent. A story about a Flood.. is just a good story. A story about needing a Savior to avoid being sentenced to eternal torment by an all-loving God is NOT a good story.

Maybe that's my problem with the Resurrection Accounts. A general resurrection of all your ancestors at the "Day of Judgment and Condemnation of Ungodly Men" is not the Greatest Story ever told. The real history of humanity is more complex and a ten thousand times as impressive. "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is just a blurb from the ad, trying to get you to buy a ticket.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:01:45 GMT

PRECISELY
W. Hays notes that there are many definitions of atheism and they may be highly colored by one's personal experience or beliefs (amen and PRECISELY why I brought up the point about definitions). Therefore, discourse is going to, most likely, be close to useless if the participants either don't know the definitions being used by others involved or fail to make them clear so that all know just what it is that they are talking about.

Difficulties and conflicts often arise from comments and assertions which come from laboring under different definitions and many, often, assume that they know others definitions or try to force definitions on others that make them look foolish (the "strawmen"). When people say that there is no God, We need to know their definition of God. In one of my commentaries, I showed how God could be defined in terms of infinity. Those with what they consider their own personal experience
with God can, for their purposes, take God as undefined; however, those with no similar experience need to see something with which they are familiar to try to understand or have a feeling for the definition being used for God or what is being talked about.

For those who say that God does not exist we need to know their definition of God in order to see that they are not just trying to be iconoclastic or attract attention to themselves. If by God, they mean a guy in the sky in a white sheet, then we will know how to proceed or to not proceed at all. If one's definition of God is Cantor's Absolute Infinity, then the statement that God does not exist is FALSE, at least for Cantor and others who know (believe?) Absolute Infinity exists. If God is defined as the fine tuning physics sees in our universe, then the statement that the fine tuning does not exist is false as far as most bona-fide current physicists are concerned. For those who define God as the absolute, we have seen, I hope, that "The absolute does not exist" is self-contradictory; so, for those using said definition, the statement "God does not exist" is self-contradictory and common logic tells us the uselessness of using self-contradictory premises. Here's an interesting definition of God: God is light. Genesis' "Let there be light" becomes "Let there be me" (God is an egotist just like us?); light is photons and photons were the first particles of the "Big Bang"; a photon is everywhere in the universe at once (at speed of light all distanes in direction of motion contract to zero) (omnipresence?); time does not pass (exist?) for photons; the atheist's "God does not exist." becomes "Light does not exist."; etc.. Most humans are, probably better off taking God as undefined, like time and length of physics. Physicists don't define time but take it as an undefinable. It was this ultimate reliance on undefined things that gave rise to Bertrand Russell's epigram that said we (physicists and mathematicians) don't know what we are talking about. If we cannot tell people ultimately what such universally familiar things as time or length is except in terms of other undefined words or running up against circular definitions, (like saying that "length" is "distance" and "distance" is "length"), then, surely, we see why so much difficulty arises when trying to tell others what God is (define God); hence, what is meant by "God does not exist".

Even the agnostic position (I don't know) is difficult to defend due to the impressive universe around us seen by so many of us, but tolerance should let us allow the agnostics their right to their honest beliefs.

There are those who may say that they themselves don't exist (atheists?) and those who say that they don't know if they exist or not (agnostics?). Surely, all can see that these claims are subject to disclosing a definition for existence or declaring it an "undefinable" before understanding and meaningful discourse may result. Those who believe that they do exist face the same difficulties in discourse with "atheists" and agnostics".

In the new year and future years let's all keep in mind the wonderful things humans have discovered and enjoyed even if, ala Russell, we ultimately don't know what we are talking about. So, also, keep up the discourse (faith?) (seeking truth) many more wonders may be found and doing it in the face of not knowing what we are talking about is, perhaps, the most amazing thing of all (perhaps not so amazing to those who believe God is minding the store). Science will continue to advance and has advanced since its birth because it is based on the faith that we can find the laws (truths, absolutes, Energy = mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light? etc.) of our universe.

The future of faith

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:01:39 GMT

Bob wrote "To Thomas Ashby: God exists, and if He created mankind, and if He says that you need Him, then you need Him"

You sure have a lot of "if's" in that answer, Bob.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:25:28 GMT

FREEWILL

Saying that one does not believe that God exists does not bear the difficulties of saying "God does not exist.". "God does not exist" appears as an assertion of an absolute truth (no exceptions, includes all definitions of God). To expose this fact those asserting it could be clearer (more honest) if they came clean with "It is absolutely true that God does not exst."

However, those who define God as the absolute of all things (not some guy in the sky), like Cantor's "Absolute Infinity" (incomprehensible to human minds as presently constituted) or Russell's "set of all sets", will see a self-contradiction.

When we say that the number of numbers is infinite, we are opening the door to paradox or self-contradiction because the infinty of the numbers is not a number. Cantor's "Absolute Infinty" is not an infinity (as Cantor knew and made clear) but something greater than infinity, like infinity is greater than the finite and Russell's "set of all sets" cannot be a set as set is defined in mathematics (a well defined set requires that one be able to tell if something belongs to the set or doesn't).

For those who say God does not exist because of all the bad things that happen in our universe, it appears that they do not understand the implications of having a universe with freewill, one where things can go badly. A universe with determinism and robots instead of humans might be seen as a tinkertoy universe of a tinkertoy god. Science has shown that our physical universe is not deterministic in the way we originally thought and quantum theory supports the idea of freewill. Currently, science points to our universe appearing to be one with freewill. It seems that it must take infinite LOVE and infinite wisdom to have such a universe. It seems to me that a deterministic or robotic universe surely lacks infinite it wisdom.

Got to get off to my New Year's day swim in our warm Hawaiian ocean; so don't have time to proof read, sorry. Keep on trucking.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:25:32 GMT

Reply to: "For those who say that God does not exist we need to know their definition of God in order to see that they are not just trying to be iconoclastic or attract attention to themselves.... "

What?

The topic here is "The Future of Faith." Taken in that context, the phrase "God does not exist" is absolutely clear.

Christianity defines God as the Creator of the Universe ex nihilo who will also end the universe at the Day of Judgment, resurrect the dead, and punish the ungodly for their bad treatment of Jews and Christians. That flavor of God does not exist.

You cannot justify your belief in a God by changing the definition of "God" to something that actually exists, such as light.

Let me explain where "God" comes from. Every one of us started as an infant, and we depended on our parents for everything. In the NT, Jesus says, "Call no one on earth Father, for you have one Father, the one in heaven." And yet, Catholic priests use the title "Father." Why? Because God is based on your subconscious and half-remembered impressions of your own father. Deep voice, judgmental, rules by handing down laws on stone tablets, etc., etc.. Some of your very first thoughts were about the power of your Father over you, and what you had to do to please him. Pleasing your father was a stage most people had to pass through. Christianity politely asks you to stop your development and stay on your knees, lighting candles, praying, trying to find better ways to please your Father so he will reward you with eternal life.

I know the difference between my Father and a God. My father was real. God is not.

The future of faith

Bill, Murfreesboro, TN — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:28:51 GMT

For those who have no faith in God, death simply means the end of life. For those who have faith in God, death is just the beginning. If the God fearing people are wrong, they’ve wasted some of their time and money. If the atheists are wrong, they get the pleasure of spending eternity in hell.

I am a college educated professional who spent a good share of his life trying to find reasons why the Bible/Christians were wrong. Fortunately, I ended up learning/understanding the truth about those I was so willing to attack and now count myself among them.

There is no gap between science and religion. It is obvious to those who follow science that the more we learn, the more we understand how little we actually know. Perhaps not everything written in the Bible is completely accurate or maybe something has been lost in translation. However, I have found that the Bible has been extremely valuable in my personal development. Then again, the periodic table I studied 30 years ago wasn’t 100% accurate either but it too proved valuable in my overall professional development.

If you’re out to bash people of faith, perhaps you should spend some real time studying their beliefs rather than pulling bits and pieces out of context to prove your point. I think that would be considered “bad science.”

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:43:35 GMT

PROTECTING THE INNOCENT (GULLIBLE?)
The errors, I see, in W. Hays' January 1, 2007 9:25 P.M. reply are too numerous for me to consider briefly, (one error that can be handled "briefly" is that "God does not exist." is not "a phrase" as claimed by W. Hays but a declarative sentence). Some errors may be due to lack of clarity in my submissions, sorry for that.
I do not, however, wish to leave this topic without saying why I joined in, specifically, to offer some protection for the innocent (gullible?) and to try to provide tools to help all to differentiate between what is opinion or beliefs from declared absolute facts or claimed truths. One point along the way was to make it clear that even definitions can differ, thereby, making some declared facts open to question or debate. In particular, those declaring it is a fact that God does not exist have often chosen their definition of God so that God cannot exist (like a self-fulfilling prophecy) and some even seem to disallow any other definition than their own (often strawman) to preserve their own beliefs or ensnare others. Many of the greatest human minds, thus far, have defined God, as mentioned in an earlier comment, as the absolute and for such people the declaration that God (their absolute) does not exist is seen as self-contaditory, because it claims to be an absolute (something absolutely true) while saying that there is nothing absolute (explained more clearly, I hoped, in an earlier comment). We should not let thought police try to force only one definition, their definition, on the human race and remain on guard to prevent their efforts from succeeding, especially when self-serving. If someone wishes to define God as light because light has many of the attributes they wish others to know about in their idea of God, then the thought police should be exposed if they try to deny the right of people to try to help others understand what they are talking about. Also, some use definitions that are peculiar to their limited experience and limited knowledge. It is not derogatory to say that human knowledge and experience is limited (finite). None of us "know it all" (or even all about some things) even if some seem to think they do. Much wrong bias comes from limited experience and all should remember to look carefully for hidden or unsuspected wrong bias ("common sense" being carried over from well explored areas, where valid, into unexplored areas, where it may be totally wrong. In the finite realm, where many have most, if not all, of their experience 1 + 1 = 2; hence, our "common sense" developed from working with finite things rebels at infinity + infinity - infinity (1 + 1 = 1) and WRONGLY concludes infinity + infinity= 2 times infinity. It is hoped that the FUTURE will find our knowledge expanded. Who knows? Some things our current limited (finite) knowledge sees as absolutes now will turn out to not be absolutes after all and more powerful absolutes may replace them.

B. Murfreeboro's comment of January, 2, 1:28 A.M. may be seen by some to have errors in it according to some people and their definitions; but, in my opinion, the possible errors of B. Murfreesboro pose far less trouble for the innocent
(uninitiated?) than those of W. Hays that I see. I feel this way because of an idea of the great scientist and pioneer of probability theory, B. Pascal, that the best bet is to believe in God because the infinite gain that will result if He does exist will always outweigh the finite loss of time that will result if He does not. Likewise, the atheistic position is the worst bet because if God does exist the loss will be infinite, whereas if He doesn't the human gain will be only finite. It is easy to see W. Hays and B. Murfreesboro are betting opposite ways and the innocent should have little trouble understanding the point and making their bet. I would have felt terribly remiss not trying to help all to see that there may be a better bet than atheism (W. Hays included although it does appear that I have failed for him, but I can have faith that a light (God?) will shine for him too sometime).

Here's one last note,

Cantor's definition of God as Absolute Infinity (greater than all the infinitude of ever larger infinities) calls to mind Canterbury Archbishop Anslem's ontological proof of the existence of God, as being that above which no greater can be conceived. Perhaps, it is appropriate to close with "Just because somone cannot conceive of something it does not mean or prove that said something doesn't exist". In the past inconceivables, like electrons, quarks, and atom bombs came into existence; how exciting to think that other inconceivables, today, will appear in the future.
Here's to FAITH that the LARGE HADRON'S discoveries of the FUTURE will bring more scientific truths (absolutes), philosophical truths, and other truths and FAITH that R. Kurzweil's SINGULARITY is near.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:19:17 GMT

If you've ever seen the movie "The Sting," you might have wondered whether an entire society of con men exists, largely unnoticed, as the movie suggests. A society with their own rules, morals, and philosophy. Rule #1 might be, "All of the money in the world rightfully belongs to me." Rule #2 is, "If I can make up a simple story that convinces a mark to give me money, that's a good thing." For our own protection, we need to learn the difference between a Con, a Lie, a Myth, a Story, and a History Book. Let's try to define the following: Example A: "If the God fearing people are wrong, they’ve wasted some of their time and money. If the atheists are wrong, they get the pleasure of spending eternity in hell." (end) The guestion can be rewritten as "Is there a credible possibility of being punished for the rest of eternity in hell?" How many think this is a Historical Account? How many think it is a Lie? The Correct Answer is, It's a CON. The con men know that if you join their group to avoid the fictional plight of an eternity in hell, you will give them ANY amount of money to stay in the group. In the Book of Acts, Chapter 5, a victim of this con wises up. His name is Ananias, and Peter kills Ananias and his wife in cold blood to prevent him from sharing his insight with the other victims. Example B: If someone wishes to define God as light because light has many of the attributes they wish others to know about in their idea of God, then the thought police should be exposed if they try to deny the right of people to try to help others understand what they are talking about. (end) The word "God" does not refer to "light." If you announce that you are trying to help people understand by defining God as light.... is it a lie? Or a story. Sounds like a story to me. There doesn't seem to be any ultimate plan to obtain money attached. Example C: A great scientist and pioneer of probability theory, B. Pascal, said the best bet is to believe in God because the infinite gain that will result if He does exist will always outweigh the finite loss of time that will result if He does not. Likewise, the atheistic position is the worst bet because if God does exist the loss will be infinite, whereas if He doesn't the human gain will be only finite. (end) The Correct Answer here is obvious. I don't fall for a Con Game simply because the Possible Outcome is so fantastic. I ALSO weigh whether it is CREDIBLE. Anyone who uses a phrase like "if God does exist the loss will be infinite..." is setting up a Con Game. He has NO facts behind his predictions, only the promises of a Con Man. So, I reject the wager, and count myself the wiser for doing so.

The future of faith

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:09:13 GMT

My last submission brought up B. Pascal's wager offering two choices: (1) God exists and (2) God does not exist. W. Hays has given, in earlier comments, the impression or claimed the conviction, via declarative sentences, that (2) is his choice. His latest 4:19 P.M. January 2, 2007 shows, perhaps, the wisdom of not wagering when don't understand the bet (good advice to all) or, perhaps, a change of mind from some of his earlier positions (great for Cosmic Log). We all find difficulty with changing from our most deeply ingrained thoughts, experience, ideas, etc. to unfamiliar ones. It seems well to note, again, that one may define, for example, take W. Hays' "phrase" (and other words), as one wishes, but one's definitions may make communication with many others difficult or impossible, let alone the difficulties of attempting to convert, brainwash, con, or whatever. One has the right to say that "If God does exist, the loss will be infinite." is a "phrase" because it fits their definition of "phrase", but it is a DECLARATIVE SENTENCE which has a subordinate clause, subject, verb, and predicate, by most commonly accepted definitions.

I am resigning, now, from this commentary because it now seems to be between too few people (perhaps only 2) and I don't see any evidence or hope of reaching W. Hays if. apparently, I can't even convince him of the difference between a "phrase" and a "declarative sentence".

The future of faith

Rob A, Scotland — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:16:21 GMT

Like many others I have followed this topic with great interest; although I do think that, latterly, one or two intellectual heavyweights out there have taken the argument beyond the grasp of most of us lesser mortals.

Before Alan loses patience and finally pulls the plug on this discussion, I would like to add that it has been my experience in life that religious teachings tend, in general, to mould young minds into constrained patterns of thought.

(Don’t question; Believe).

The full majesty and beauty of life consequently become lost to them, and their full potential becomes lost to us.

As a frequent visitor to the U.S. I have a great affection and admiration for the American people, and like many Americans I’ve watched with growing disquiet the resurgence of Creationism in The States, with its attendant dangers of religious control and the inhibition of free-thinking.

In most of Europe that particular primitive beast was put down centuries ago during our religious wars, and it’s difficult to understand why it continues to thrive in such an enlightened country as the U.S.A.

As for the subject of this discussion; the future of religion. Whether it’s in the Middle East or the American Midwest, I can only hope that for humanity’s sake simple common sense will eventually prevail over mass indoctrination.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:01:41 GMT

to William Hays,

I regret that a much earlier post I left for you was apparently not permitted by the moderator. I don't know why, nothing inflammatory.

Anyways, Peter did not strike down Ananias. You should reread it. It warms my heart that you are trying to read the Bible at all though.

................

to Rob Scotland,

Even if there is no intelligent design, discussing that possibility and others is the best way to challenge young minds to be flexible. It is better than forcing them to adhere to one narrow scientific view.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:58:07 GMT

Bob,

Try reading the story in Acts 5 again.

Peter was in a room with Ananias, arguing over money, and Ananias fell down dead. Six hours later, same argument with Sapphira, and she fell down dead. Peter's explanation was the God had killed them.

It's a test.

The correct answer is, "Peter LIED."

Peter killed both of them in cold blood. In a court of law, nobody buys the lame excuse that "God struck two people dead because lying to Peter was the same thing as lying to God."

Josh McDowell used to pull out an old chestnut about "Jesus was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or exactly who he claimed to be." You can't fault his logic IF you assume that he's given you all the possible choices. Not so. In reality, Jesus NEVER claimed to be a son of God. Those stories were invented decades after Jesus died. Hence, NONE of Josh's three answers are correct.

That's a great place to start. People lie. Look for the correct answer, and never accept THEIR version without checking the facts against reality.

The future of faith

John, Fremont, Ohio, USA — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:31:01 GMT

Religion is a basic part of the human condition. The issue is why.

So often in reading these posts, I see an assumption the religion is Christianity or arguments from Western European philosophy.

There is a lot more to religion than Christianity and philosophy. There are six other major world religions. Two of them (Judaism and Islam) are theistic. Four of them (Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism) can be theistic, or monistic, or agnostic, or atheistic.. Then, then are the polytheistic and animistic religions. Then there is modern spirituality. Etc.

Given that diversity, what does religion have in common and what purpose does it serve?

I suggest that, at its root, religion is the desire for something more than the phenomenological world of passing experiences; it is the (perceived) encounter with that something more; and it is the attempt to express it: verbally, mentally, behaviorally, and so on.

Whether the "something more" and our encounters with it are real or just in our minds is a matter of faith. However, one religion --Buddhism-- and certain parts of other religions assert that it *is* all in our minds; and then there it goes on to teach a way to live with that, which is religion.

Ultimately, people are yearning for context for life, meaning for life, and purpose for life. Religion is the catch phrase used to describe the great diversity of human attempts to answer the ultimate questions of human meaning and purpose -- not just intellectually, but as a way of life. Because, however we choose to describe life and understand life, we still have to live life and find our meaning and purpose thereby (as well as therein).

When we accept that point --that we have to find our meaning and purpose for life in how we live-- we take the first step to Truth of the spirit. The rest follows from that and is commentary. See the Deerpark Sermon of the Buddha or the Beatitudes of Jesus.

The future of faith

Gary Davis — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:20:51 GMT

Alan is absolutely correct, no one is going to "win" this debate. The number one fault with everyone's arguments, pro and con, is the lack of context. We, as 21st century human beings have no concept of life 2000 or 3000 years ago. There was no 24 hour a day cable news, satellite TV, internet, most people couldn't read, what written language there was was rudimentary at best, someone calling themselves a physician had less training than a phlebotomist, mathematics consisted of counting how many cows one owned, and one's geographic perspective was somewhat limited as the average person didn't travel much more than approx. 10 miles from the spot they were born. The "whole world" was a pretty small place for them.

Picking just one example, Bill Hayes' comment "there was no world-wide flood" - true enough on the face of it, however, every ancient culture that existed had a Great Flood story. Not too surprising given that the world is 2/3 water, but he's right, there is no geological evidence of a world-wide deluge of water. There is evidence that the Black Sea and the Mediterrean were two unconnected bodies of water until an earthquake approx. 2500 years before the birth of Christ connected the two by forming the Bosporous Straits. It would have seemed like the whole world was coming to an end and for a lot of people I'm sure it did, but, without knowledge of how and why earthquakes occur, it would have been seen as punishment from a higher diety for some known or unknown offense. Heck, if your goat died and you didn't know why, it was punishment from above.

A good story has legs, and since most couldn't write it was handed down as oral history and we all know from Psych 101 if you tell one person one sentence and have each , in turn, tell another until you get to the last in a group, that sentence has changed entirely. You gotta drop the name calling and conspiracy mentality and go on the assumption the authors of the Bible were faithfully documenting what they believed to be true.

Bottom line is religion is real to 95% of the humans on this planet, real enough that they take up a life of celibacy and poverty at one extreme and strap explosives on themselves and expect to wake up in Heaven on the other. We each have to make this journey from the cradle to the grave the best we can and if belief in a God gives direction, meaning and purpose to one's life, if they find the moral compass to be reasonable (you know, don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, don't mess with your buddies wife, take a day off once a week and look around and be appreciative of what you've got, etc., etc.) then wish 'em well and believe what you want, you are on your own journey and got enough to do to keep your own ducks in a row.

One final comment on "absolutes" - was a time, not too long ago, the speed of sound was an absolute, a wall that couldn't be broken through and we all know how that one went. I believe, when we get a little smarter, we're going to find the speed of light to be the same way. As to what we'll "see" at that speed, the human mind has trouble processing information at 100 mph in close proximity to the ground, even in open space the mind would be completely overwhelmed long before 186,000 miles per second. And always remember, there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:59:33 GMT

To William Hays,

Stating that Peter struck down Ananias is like saying that you believe 'Ananias really died'. On some level you are accepting the story, but throwing out the parts you don't like. The story about Ananias is your source to begin with. How can you accept the source (Ananias died) and deny the source (Peter said God killed him) at the same time?

Also, you, just like many other people, accept scientific 'fact' that was fed to you thru intermediaries (just like when people accept the Bible), whether textbooks or professors (many of which were fed much of the material themselves) without having performed the actual scientific validations yourselves. There is a certain amount of 'faith' involved for many of you.

Science is also not the only scholarly test of truth. There are internal, external, and bibliographical tests to consider too.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:11:11 GMT

"Does God exist?" is an important question. Too many people try to take the word 'religion', define it as the summation of all beliefs in God or the spiritual and then dumb it down as some primeval instinctual need for humans to feel important. If we are just physical bodies with no souls and just decompose eventually, the real delusion is that we actually have any significance at all.

The future of faith

Margaret Shea,Worcester, Massachusetts — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:50:37 GMT

Help for Gary Davis?

I've been watching for someone to respond to the Gary Davis remark about the speed of light "barrier", but no luck thus far. Don't want anyone thinking the speed of light "barrier" is physically like the speed of sound "barrier". The fact that sound needs a medium to travel in and light does not prevents many analogies from being valid, A "barrier" as used by Gary Davis is one where the analogy won't work.

One can argue that Special Relativity may be shown to be "wrong" someday, but the extensive experimental evidence supported by Special Relativity requires any new and, perhaps, more correct theory to still support said evidence. One can say that Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong as shown by General Relativity, but the vast experimental evidence in support of Newton and verified by General Relativity shows how Newton, though "wrong", in a sense, still gave us many physical facts verified (not refuted) by General Relativity.

For example, in our universe, bodies with non zero rest mass, includes all humans, (having weight on our planet or any other) would require INFINITE energy (more energy than exists in our entire universe) to acquire the maximum speed of light. Further, due to the Lorentz contraction of Special Relativity, any distance in the direction of motion at said speed would shrink to ZERO; hence, one would "bump into" a lot of stuff as approached the maximum speed of light (galaxies, planets, hot gas, etc.). Finally, our physical universe would become inconsistent (contradictory) if humans (and any other bodies with zero rest mass) could attain or exeed the maximum speed of light. Any theory that seems to show that our universe is physically inconsistent would be unacceptable in the face of the vast accumulation of experimental evidence to the contrary.

Once more, just as General Relativity did NOT change Newton's gravitation from being an attraction (or the fact that bodies sufficiently near to the surface of Earth fall when released from rest if gravitation is the only force acting), any new theory which finds shortcomings in Special Relativiy still has to agree with the vast experimental evidence already found to be true as found by Special Relativity, including that,in our universe, the maximum speed of light can't be reached (let alone exceeded) by bodies having rest mass which is not zero (light has zero rest mass).

The fact that in our physical universe non-zero-rest-mass bodies can't attain the maximum speed of light is as "absolute" as the fact that gravitation. in our universe is an attraction (not a repulsion) or the truism "antigravity is not gravity" (a triangle is not a parallelogram?).

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:03:36 GMT

I'd like to reply to: "A good story has legs...You gotta drop the conspiracy mentality and go on the assumption the authors of the Bible were faithfully documenting what they believed to be true."

Absolutely NOT. I see no reason to ever make that assumption. It's not justified. There are two possible positions (a) the authors of the Bible were documenting what they believed to be true, or (b) the authors of the Bible were making up ridiculous stories to test how gullible people were. Why choose a over b? There is no reason to eliminate b. Do you know what Greek mythology is? Heroic Greek tales of gods on Mt. Olympus?

Acts 1:3 (Jesus presented himself alive to the apostles after his suffering by many infallible proofs) ...Now when he had spoken these things, while they watched, he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight. Two men in white garments said, "Men of Galilee... Jesus, who was taken up into heaven, will return in the same manner..."

This is Mythology. A prediction from "The Book of Enoch" that a fictional character called "The son of Man" would appear in the clouds at the day of judgment. So, they invented a STORY that the apostles saw the ghost of Jesus levitate into the sky and disappear behind the clouds.

I like the imagery of the story, but I see NO REASON at all to assume that anyone is being honest, or documenting something they witnessed.

The problem is making an unwarranted assumption. Never start from the position that a story is true. Why? Because it's a STORY. The resurrection of Jesus is only a story. A tale invented to convince innocent victims that the world was about to end, and the Romans punished for their offensive behavior.

If the con men can convince you to accept their lies at face value, they've won. I'm not about to let them win. I know what a STORY is, and I don't believe a word of it.

The future of faith

Jon F, Fort Lauderdale, FL — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:38:05 GMT

Re: The President literally believes in, and looks forward to, the Rapture

If you are talking about the President of the USA I rather doubt it. He is a Methodist (same church as Hillary Clinton by the way) and the Methodist Church does not teach a rapture.

I do have a list of issues with Mr Bush that goes on and on, but his religion is not one of them.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:08:31 GMT

To William Hays

Let me see if I have your argument down:

"People lie, and there are examples of mythology out there, so then we can now come to the conclusion that the Bible must be stories by con men trying to see how gullible people are".

If this is your logic then I have to disagree with your reasoning.

Why do you assume the Bible is fictional stories, but believe whatever a scientist tells you? To quote you "people lie". Well, scientists are people, and they lie too. Take the "there was no flood" example. Did you find out who these scientists were? How they obtained their data? How the data supports the conclusions they come too? Did you corroborate their data? Verify that their data only lacks evidence, but doesn't preclude a flood? No! So when a few scientists say "there was no flood", you gobble it up......hook, line and sinker! You have a lot of faith.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:32:10 GMT

Reply to: "Take the "there was no flood" example. Did you find out who these scientists were? How they obtained their data?"

No, I didn't take anything on faith. First, I read the Bible. Genesis 7:19 "And the waters prevailed upon the earth, and ALL the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth. He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground, both man and cattle."

Rather than relying on the opinion of a scientist, I looked up the height of mountains, stated in feet "above sea level." So, I had reliable data for how far the water level had to fall AFTER the flood was over. I then used the diameter of the earth to calculate how much water was removed. If you use the highest mountain on earth, the missing water is equal to 3.1 times all the water now on earth.

It doesn't take faith to do the math.

Christianity doesn't want you to do the math. Christianity wants you to start from the assumption that the story is credible. "When I was a child, I thought as a child."

What I'm saying is, don't ignore the possibility that Peter was a murderer running a disreputable End of the World cult, and everything he told people about Jesus was a lie. Why? Because Judaism was competing with two other religion, the cult of the Roman Emperor and Greek mythology. All of the supernatural elements in the story of Jesus had already appeared in those other religions. The Star of Bethlehem? The comet that appeared in the sky when Julius Caesar's spirit was raised to heaven. Jesus preaching to those who died in Noah's Flood? The journey of Hercules to the underworld to locate the spirit of his dead wife.

I've done my homework. I've read the Bible. I don't believe a word of it because the story is not credible in any sense... except as an attempt to create a Jewish mythological hero to compete with Hercules and a deified Caesar.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:55:35 GMT

To William Hays

Here is just one argument about your flood theory that I found:

Some who dismiss the idea of a global flood do so because they say the Flood would have had to rise as high as Mount Everest, because Genesis 7:19 says the waters covered "all the high hills." Mount Everest peaks at 29,035 feet (8850 metres), and they say there is not enough water on earth to cover such a height.

This is actually a straw man argument. Creationists do not claim that the Flood covered Mount Everest to its current height (see below). Those who accept the local-flood theory have to admit that the flood must have covered Mount Ararat, because that is where the ark landed. Mount Ararat is now 17,000 feet (5182 meters) high. In the local-flood theory, it would have had the same height before as after the Flood. But waters do not form a cube 17,000 feet high, which seems to make the local-flood theory illogical. The Bible tells us what happened:

Psalm 104: 6-9

* 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

* 7. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

* 8. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

* 9. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

This passage tells us that mountains rose and valleys sank during the Flood. Mount Everest rose up during the Flood, so the Flood did not need to reach the height that Mount Everest is today.

There is enough water on earth for a global flood. If the earth was smoothed out, the water in the oceans would cover it to a depth of about 8,813 feet (2.6 kilometres). This does not include the water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, and other sources. They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (600-900 metres). In reality, the Flood would only need to be a little over 7,000 feet (2.1 kilometres) deep.

So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.

The result is that, based on the amount of water on earth, and observed tectonic forces, there was the potential to quickly raise mountains. So the global Flood of the Bible is theoretically possible.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:39:47 GMT

Thanks for the info, Bob. I think you've contributed something important to our discussion of Faith.

You said (from a Creationist site):

"So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood."

Do you see the problem? The question is not whether it was possible for that to happen. The question is whether it DID happen.

Religion teaches you to think in the wrong way. In religion, you ask "Is it possible? Do I believe it?" and you never reach the real question, "Did it actually happen?"

You also said, "At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days."

Except... there are other mountains in the same area, and they all would have had to rise several thousand meters at the same time. How does flood water raise a mountain? Well, it can't.

From a site: Nepal offers an amazing topographical variation with altitude ranging from 70 meters to 8,848 m just within a span of 193 km. This area is home to eight of the world's ten highest mountains including Mt. Everest (8,848 m)." That's a LOT of rock to move several thousand meters in a few days.

You site said, "Based on the amount of water on earth, and observed tectonic forces, there was the potential to quickly raise mountains. So the global Flood of the Bible is theoretically possible..."

The person who wrote this is wrong. He grew up under the Christian system, where science is considered the enemy. He was taught to place his beliefs first, and never listen to the opinion of legitimate scientists who cast doubt on his faith. I'm sorry you thought it was credible enough to post, but it does demonstrate the problem.

Your beliefs about the possibility of a Great Flood are worthless. So is the nonsense on a Creationist site. He doesn't want to find the Correct Answer. He only wants to invent a Fantasy where he tricks you into thinking, "Oh, it was possible... so I can just ignore the scientists who said it didn't happen."

As I said before, the best I can hope for in this discussion is for you to realize that "People lie" is always an explanation worth thinking about.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:02:44 GMT

To William Hays

Ahh...let me see if I got your argument down:

"it was possible that the flood happened, but that doesn't count because religion teaches you the wrong way to think, because it was a lot of rock to move so it can't happen, and creationists are just trying to trick you, and even though it is possible..I should just believe the scientists that said it isn't possible"

.....................

I have to disagree with you.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:40:44 GMT

No, Bob, that's not even close to my argument. I said a global flood was NOT possible. Nor did our current mountains rise thousands of feet in a few days. I said Christianity asks you to believe stories in a book, stories that were written for a religious purpose and have very little truth in them, and you never learn the correct way to test for Truth. Let me explain what scientists actually say:

Mount Everest owes its great height to the collision of the Indian subcontinent and Asia some 50 million years ago. Much like a car crashing head-on with a truck, crumpling occurred when the two continents met and the result was the creation of the Himalayan Mountains. Prior to the initial collision between India and Asia, the vast Tethys Sea existed between the two. The sea disappeared, a victim of plate tectonics, but its presence before 50 million years ago is recorded by scraps of oceanic crust preserved in the southern Tibetan plateau. At 29,028 feet, Mount Everest is five miles up — about the cruising altitude of a jet airliner. And it's creeping skyward 3 to 5 millimeters with every passing year. (end)

The process that created Mount Everest is continuing today. It had nothing to do with a flood. I know Creationism has taught you not to listen to legitimate scientists, but that's wrong. Just remember, scientists aren't passing a collection plate, asking you to contribute to their building fund.

The future of faith

Bob — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:01:41 GMT

to William Hays

How do you know there was not a cataclysmic event that raised mountains more quickly than usual? You don't. How do you know Christianity is stories? You don't. How do you know that no legitimate scientists are Christians? You don't. Either way, God would not even need to use natural processes that you could determine scientifically, because He can work outside the bounds of physical laws since He designed them. End of story.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:41:28 GMT

Reply to: "God would not even need to use natural processes that you could determine scientifically, because He can work outside the bounds of physical laws since He designed them. End of story."

I suppose Christianity teaches you to think this way.

Invent an imaginary God, then pretend that God doesn't have to obey any physical laws, and then live in a world of Total Fantasy that has no bearing to reality.

This is the Core Problem with Christianity. The attitude that you can say "End of story" like Harry Potter waving a magic wand, and whatever you believe will be true.

The end of the story is that Christianity was and is an End of the World cult that predicted a general resurrection of the dead before 110 AD. And it didn't happen. That's how I KNOW. All of the myths and fables about salvation and resurrection are just window dressing to recruit new members into the cult. You fell for it. Now you've got to unlearn a lot of the lies before you can escape.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:46:22 GMT

To William Hays

Where did you get this idea that everything that exists falls within the framework of scientific testability?

In any case, statements like "And it didn't happen. That's how I KNOW" are certainly not scientific, so what viewpoint are you coming from anyways? Where is your proof? Your opinion about what Christians think, is not scientific proof of 'no flood'. Observing how mountains currently change height is not scientific proof of 'no flood' (Note: and my argument was never that mount everest was raised to it's current height in a few days, you just kind of went with that).

Have you explored at all what 'non-scientific' evidence exists for Christianity?

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:43:33 GMT

To William.

By the way. The Bible did not predict the end of the world happening before 110 A.D. That's how you do not know.

Why, in any case, do you keep bringing up Christianity? The question is whether God exists, not whether Christianity is the true religion. One thing at a time.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:21:51 GMT

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened
24:34 Truly I say, this generation will by no means pass away til all these are fulfilled. Heaven and earth will pass away..."
Matthew 16:28 "For the Son of Man will come with angels and reward each according to his works. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death til they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

   If you skim over this, you might miss the importance of "heaven and earth will pass away." That's called the End of the World. The Day of Judgment and resurrection of the dead were all part of the sales pitch. The New Testament was written decades after the cult began, and of course the deadline was pushed back several times.

    There is no question whether a God exists. Of course there isn't any such thing as a God. I already tried to explain that to you. Just remember that religion - not just Christianity, but everything that uses the term "god" - is an Act of Deception. They want your money. They want you to tithe, or donate to the building fund, or whatever they call it, but it all boils down to the same thing. They're selling you a STORY. God is a STORY, not reality.

    The facts prove it.

The future of faith

ekim — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:30:37 GMT

It's alll so easy, you believers have a need for thinking "when I die I was good enough to go to this place called heaven," even though you were everything the bible states you should not be but you justify it by saying well J esus died for my sins, you repent over and over but never change, you leave the church on sundays and curse the other drivers as you go down the street, curse the illegal aliens , drink to excess and are downright unforgiving to anyone who does not believe what you do.
The creators of religion knew this and knew if they put the fear of hell in you you would believe even though you would not be good enough to enter heaven thus christ was put into the bible.Fear and fear alone drives you folks who fear hell which also does not exist, you create your own hell.

Control of the masses is why religion was created.and every agrument against religion was thought about and countered by these wise men to control the religious.

The future of faith

Bob — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:49:52 GMT

To William

Matthew 16:28 was referring to the transfiguration in Matthew 17....my "New American Standard" version of the Bible does not have 'heaven and earth will pass away' what version are you using, and what other references do you have? Now about 'the facts proving God does not exist', what facts? If this was an established fact, it would not have been posted as a topic for discussion on this site.

The future of faith

Bob — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:10:52 GMT

To ekim

On the contrary. The bible teaches us that 'not' good enough. No Christian is 'good enough' to go to heaven, we are merely forgiven. And it's better to sin, realize that it's wrong and want to change for the better (not to go to heaven, but out of gratitude for God and the recognition that His way is better)...than it is to sin all I want and to think I am good enough the way I am (which is what non-Christians think).

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:41:00 GMT

Rather than be drawn into an argument, I'll just point out that ghost stories are fun, scary, and kids seem to enjoy them. Same goes for stories about transfiguration and resurrection.

Matthew 17 Jesus was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared, talking with Jesus..."

By the year 30 AD, Moses had been dead for... a long time. Which makes him a ghost. And if a story tells me that the ghost of Moses appeared and was talking to Jesus.... why in the world would I do anything except laugh and say, "I don't believe in ghost stories. Not in that way."

Ghost stories are part of the con game. The victims are gullible people who never learned how to test reality, and refuse to admit that dishonest people LIE and make up stories in order to fool, amuse, deceive... a long list of possible motives. In this case, after a Roman general named Titus destroyed the Temple at Jerusalem, the people wanted so other guarantee of the power of their god YHWH. The stories about Elijah and the coming Messiah, sometimes known as the Son of Man, in the Books of Enoch were dusted off and given a new cast of characters. Now the Son of Man became another name for the ghost of Jesus, who had been bleached white by a heavenly light (transfigured?) and stood with famous ghosts like Moses and Elijah... can't you see what this is? This... nonsense?

The future of faith

Bob — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:54:10 GMT

To William

Is that your argument? It sounds like stories so therefore, it must not be true?

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:20:33 GMT

I'm talking about a Method, a process. How do you TEST whether a story is true or not? Science designs experiments designed to test a single aspect of a hypothesis. Christianity teaches you to rely on the credibility and authority of a written text that is known to be wrong. No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say, the method you use to tell Truth from Lies needs to be replaced. It never gives the right result. It leaves you vulnerable to wild ghost stories without any crediblity.

   Every valid test has come back with the same result. There is no God. God is a myth or a story invented by people to explain why life exists on earth (we have better explanations now) or ease the pain when people die (they will return in new bodies at the resurrection at the end of the age) or to fool people into donating money and dying as martyrs for a cause..

  The Book of Acts describes life in the early Christian church. 4:32,34 "... neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common... for all who possessed a house or land sold it, and brought the proceeds to the apostles..."

   Christianity started with the death of Jesus at the hands of the Romans. A few decades later, new Christians born in Rome were told to sell any houses or property they owned and give the money to the apostles. You can try to justify this, but The Thing Speaks For Itself. Peter and others used a Story about Resurrection to FOOL non-Jews into giving them money far beyond the dreams of poor fishermen from Galilee, on the promise that the world was about to end, and only those who followed the Son of Man would be rewarded when the dead were resurrected and judged.

   Have you learned that a STORY is not credible until there is Solid Proof that it deserves credibility? There is no evidence for a God, so no one should believe in a God UNTIL such proof exists. Not a Con Man's lovely story about "the birth of a Divine Child without a human father or stained by sin," but.... PROOF.

   Assume all stories are false UNTIL they are proven to be True. Also, assume all stories about ghosts contain some element of willful LYING.

  That's my argument. Thanks for asking.

The future of faith

Bob — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:51:09 GMT

To William

So are you saying that you only believe in things that you have personally proven?

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:12:06 GMT

Bob, I think I explained my argument. I'm talking about the difference between Faith and Science.
   Science is a body of knowledge that grows over time. If the Hubble Space Telescope takes photos of a distant galaxy, I don't have to go into space and take the photo for myself.
   Faith is a BAD thing. Faith means you ignore the scientific evidence. Faith means you place an old and unreliable story over experimental evidence. My point is, you need to TEST the different sources of information. Creationist websites are not very credible. The NASA site is. It's OK to say religion is full of lies and myths and science is not. Just because religion is bad, it doesn't mean science is equally bad.
   When you make a list of the possible explanations, you need to consider the MOST LIKELY explanations first. At the top of your list. The possibility that accounts of the resurrection of Jesus were LIES told decades after the event, in order to lure new victims into an End of the World cult, is the Best Explanation for the New Testament. It explains why the world didn't end in fire as predicted in 2 Peter 3.
   I sense that you're trying to play a game with me, to make me admit something that you THINK will grant you permission to believe nonsense. It won't happen.

The future of faith

Bob — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:44:48 GMT

To William If you didn't go to outer space to take the photos yourself, then how do you know they aren't lying to you with a fake photo? After all, people lie (to use your own argument here).

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:21:12 GMT

I think I answered that one. You have to come up with a TEST, and use it to decide whether people are lying to you (or not). One of the tests is Motive. Do they have a REASON to lie? In the case of photos from the Hubble telescope, I can't think of any good reason why someone would go to the trouble of faking them, and thus my TEST says they are credible.

    Using the same Test, religion fails miserably. First, the first Christians like Paul were deeply disturbed individuals. Paul was convinced that his previous religious beliefs about resurrection had been confirmed by the "first-fruits" of Jesus coming back from the dead, and he persuaded hundreds to join his cult. Today, in Christianity, it's not considered lying if you tell people what you believe, even if you have no legitimate reason to think it is true. For example, when Benny Hinn says he has brought people back from the dead while filming his television program.

   Science has the safeguards in place. Science TESTS their statements against Truth. Christianity doesn't. Christianity only tests it against a Belief, or an Ancient Text. (Or, in Hinn's case, whatever he can get away with.)

    As I said before, the photos from the Hubble telescope are CREDIBLE, for dozens of excellent reasons. Look up a definition of "science" and you'll be amazed at how it works. Stories about the dead coming back to life, conversations with ghosts, prophets lighting up with transfiguration or levitating into the clouds, all of these are NOT credible. Because stories... are stories.

    Find your own test. Don't use mine.

The future of faith

Bob — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:26:32 GMT

To William.

So when one scientist disagrees with another, how do you decide which one you believe?

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:36:15 GMT

Bob,

It would save a lot of time if you would simply look up what "science" means.

   How do you decide? You (ie, science) perform more experiments and collect more data until you find out which scientist was Correct. Many great scientific controversies have been resolved in exactly this manner.

   In science, it is NEVER a question about "which one you believe". Only religion cares about "believers" and "beliefs" because they're going to pass the collection plate. Science cares about finding out the Facts.

    Religion has taught you to ask the wrong questions. I've mentioned that before.

    Now, let me ask you a question. Humans share a common line of descent with other mammals and, to some extent, all animal life.

    If you can trace your ancestry back in an unbroken line to a mammal the size of a small rabbit, or to an even earlier lifeform that doesn't meet out standards for being classified as "mammal"... at what point did humans acquire the ability to survive death? Was there one parent-child situation where the child suddenly became "God-like" and the parent wasn't?

    That's why Christianity hates science. Evolutionary theory doesn't allow for the possibility that some part of an animal survives death. There is no evolutionary reason why the trait should suddenly appear. So, give me you explanation and let's see if it holds up. I'm betting it won't.

The future of faith

Bob — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:38:13 GMT

To William

Ok, I looked up science. About your question to me, I haven't been indoctrinated into 'believing' in the evolution religion, so I reserve the right to keep an open mind. The kinks are not worked out with evolutionary theory, so something better may come along, when people aren't forced to interpret all of their observations based on that one hypothetical framework. And, I don't hate science at all.

The future of faith

Helena, Long Island, New York — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:31:49 GMT

I believe God is the Creator and he has a plan for his universe which is evolving. I am excited about the discoveries in science that shows the inter-relatedness of everything in the universe. This is an exciting time to be alive. Christianity is not opposed to science. We know that when the scientists discover more of the mysteries, the order and the magnificence of the universe it will lead more and more to the wonder of the Being who set it all in motion.

The Christian religion is a revealed religion. Our truths have been passed down to us through the Bible and Tradition and interpreted for Catholics by the teaching authority of the Church. The Church is not saying that there is only one way to live and evolve. But Catholics believe Jesus has given us a blueprint, through the Church, which if followed will enable us to fully mature as human beings.

There is a lack of knowledge, today, about what it means to be a Catholic and a member of Christ's Mystical Body with its rights, priveleges and responsibilities.

I have had an interest in other religions all my life and I have been enriched by different expressions of faith, including quantum theology. God and science is not opposed.

The future of faith

Jim,Erie,Pennsylvania — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:24:58 GMT

this is my first time reading and responding to this blog so i will lay it on the line. i think there is plenty of room for interaction between religion and science. a quick look at the facts.

it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the earth is old (relatively speaking of course) on the order of billions of years. this proof is found in the magnetometer readings taken during the past 50 years. the flip of the magnetic poles of the earth has been recorded by the movement of the tectonic plates. I will leave the deeper scientific explanations of this proof because of a lack of time.

the king james bible has the age of the earth at about 6000 years(give or take a few hundred years)

why the disparity?

at the time the bible was written, understanding of the world and its processes were crude compared to today. symbolism was a very powerful input back then and helped to fill in the gaps between knowledge and belief. therefore, in my opinion, we are an evolved species. we are in a constant state of change and we are still changing. of course this change does not happen before our very eyes. evolution is very slow and driven by our environment. there is no reason to believe that we have arrived at the end of our evolution. down the road several million years we may find that evolution and religion will join together and all our questions will be answerable. i wish i could be there.

The future of faith

Bob, Downers Grove, Illinois — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:23:09 GMT

Religion has and always will be a major source of trouble for mankind. The instinctive search for our Creator probably has allowed man to develop a society without the strong constantly killing off the weak, but it will also slow down our evolutionary advance. A belief in God is no different than a child's belief in Santa Claus. Once a child starts asking him or her self some tough questions the belief in Santa quickly fades. It is not a pleasant thought but yet what is,is.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:57:40 GMT

Helena said, "The Christian religion is a revealed religion. Our truths have been passed down to us through the Bible..."

    That's one opinion, but I think using "revealed" and "truths" in the same paragraph is hilarious, not to mention wrong. The Bible is a Story, and NOT Truth. Let's start with:

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit." And the earth brought forth () the tree yields fruit. So the evening and morning were the third day.

1:16 Then God made two great lights, the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light..."

   Should we accept this as a Revelation of Truth from the Creator of the universe?

   The Revelation that trees were bearing fruit on the surface of the earth BEFORE the sun, moon and other stars existed? Is that the kind of Truth that your God revealed? Why would the Creator of the universe get the facts so very, very Wrong?

Helena said, "There is a lack of knowledge, today, about what it means to be a Catholic and a member of Christ's Mystical Body with its rights, priveleges and responsibilities."

   Are you suggesting I would qualify as a more intelligent person if I can recite chapter and verse of that silly con game? Anyone can announce they have a Revelation from God. Anyone can announce the world will end when their Savior returns from the dead, or those who don't belong to a certain group will be punished with Eternal Torment by an all-loving and all-merciful God. But it doesn't make any sense. Seriously. You should recognize this as a cheap con game - although, at the going rate of 10% of your gross income, maybe cheap isn't the right insult. If you want to TEST whether those alleged Revelations actually came from God, I consider Genesis 1:16 to be 100% conclusive proof.

The future of faith

Mark Graham, Covington, LA — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:16:11 GMT

Science constructed a hammer. God dictates that we use it to build homes for those who have none, and that we not use it to kill someone in a jealous rage.

The future of faith

Bob — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 06:08:28 GMT

To Jim

I am a little skeptical about your statement about the earth's age... I went to google and the 1st thing I clicked on was from this link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp....

I have also read some stuff regarding problems with radiocarbon-dating, so I will remain skeptical for the moment.

....................................

To Helena

I believe God is the creator too and that the Bible is His Word. The Bible says that we are saved by faith alone, apart from works. Doesn't the Catholic Church teach that not just faith, but that works are also required to obtain salvation?

..............................

To (Bob from Downers Grove)

Mankind has and always will be a problem for mankind. Religion is just one of many tools for men to abuse. About the Santa Claus comment, did it hurt so bad that you don't want to take any more chances that someone fools you?

...........................

To William

For someone that doesn't believe, you sure like to pick out a lot of bible verses to throw around. You make it sound so conspiratorial. I am surprised you aren't more skeptical of the claims of evolutionists. Can you really imagine that everybody out there is lying about religion to get your money, but then can't imagine that the science community is also capable of promoting certain agendas? Or even just that certain incorrect assumptions or hypotheses could become dominant in the scientific community? If God had created everything, it makes sense that He would use consistent building blocks. That consistency itself could be confused with evolution.

The future of faith

cheyenne, philadelphia — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:41:57 GMT

As someone who has been working in the strip club industry for many years, I have met many types of people. And I do feel that mankind has not evolved very much and yet they act as if so sophisticated. It's hard to believe in a god in such an environment. Even though at the same time you really hope there is one because that's all you have. Even meeting people outside of the club, they are fast to make judgments about me just based on my job and never really get to know me. Even if mankind wants world peace, it will never happen. You can observe this by watching how man mates. We are still animals. Even the ones who think they are "enlightened". For many, place a few attractive people in front of them and watch their reactions. And sex is still such a 'taboo' subject and religion makes it so. The most high class, 'proper', 'sophisticated' well educated person can have some of the most bizarre fetishes and other things they will not show to others. Given the 'dark' viewpoint of the sex industry, they feel safe to disclose such information they would hide in the outside world. Mankind becomes such animals and primitive. And many show much disrespect. Even couples that go. Not all but many. And even the ones who claim to be 'religious'. In fact, they can be the worst. Jesus believers don't follow his golden rule in here. They think it's an exception. Somehow people believe walking into the environment, god ceases to exist. It becomes a vacuum. You can messure and compare religious belief and science, add a basic foundation of human sexuality and I don't see how anyone can believe in a god. I grew up in a good home. I was catholic. I got involved in the stripping industry because I want my independence and not rely on someone to take care of me. It gave me my independence. But at the same token I can't tell you for sure about god and karma. Perhaps there is such a thing. I still haven't been able to find myself a partner that I want to keep or who will stick around. Judgments sets in and I'm still left with my independence. But at the same time, it might be my own mind that prevents me and in the end I don't want one anyway. Even though human nature sets in and you do crave for affection. And with priest and nuns making vows of celibacy, you can see how human nature sets in then too no matter how much they prey or believe in god. You hear stories of priest molesting little boys. And religions that keep women as a slaves to men.

I have a hard time with religion now. I'm not even into the new age thing anymore and I've tried that. Still a part of me wants to believe. As the one person has stated, it's like believing in Santa Claus. Even though you grew out of it when you grew up and learned the truth, a part of you still wants to believe because of the whole fantasy idea and when everything was beautiful and more magical when you were blind.

I went to school for video. And how much more fun it was to watch TV and movies before I knew how it was all created when I was just an observer. After a while it becomes just a business and I guess like the religious people who gotten involved on the other end and went in blind, now start to see it as a business. And like the movie/entertainment industry, we know what it's really like on the other end and when we got there, we just want the blind to keep walking in the fantasy. Because there is something much more beautiful when you are naive. Keep the wool over your eyes, because you won't like what you will find and know the truth. You always want to go back to the innocence but can't. But if you must ask and know, we'll tell you.

The future of faith

Alan Boyle — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:25:37 GMT

Wow, Cheyenne, that's a powerful posting there. You manage to combine two of the top topics on people's minds: sex and religion.

I'm sure you get all sorts of judgmental reactions, from religious types and others ... about how you need to repent, how you need to get out of your situation, etc., etc. I'm not going to go there. But it certainly sounds as if the cosmos owes you a break.

This a forum for observations on science, exploration, innovation, the wonders of life and the universe (and yes, sometimes religion, because that's part of the cosmic adventure as well). It's not an advice column. That being said, I hope you will find an opportunity that takes you into a brighter spot in life.

It really sounds as if you're seeking that brighter spot ... I hope you have an outlet where you can discuss these deep thoughts without having people judge you or turn you off. Thank heavens you haven't turned cynical about the search. That's what makes your posting so powerful, and maybe that's what will ultimately give you the power to break through the darkness.

The future of faith

Mike, Eagle River,Wi. — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:46:18 GMT

In the future I'm sure that our present belief in God will be looked at very much like we currently look at the ancient Greeks and Romans belief in many different gods. I'm sure their belief was just as strong as ours is today but it is still just a belief. No proof what so ever. Let's face it, most people believe whatever they were taught as kids. As long as most of the adults around them are telling them the same things over and over again it is not surprising that such strong beliefs are generated. That does not,however, make them correct. the standard answer when confronted with a question which threatens your beliefs is ,of course, " God works in strange ways".

The future of faith

Bob — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:16:59 GMT

To Cheyenne

God is real. He loves you. What you are saying really confirms what the Bible says about men. The hypocrites that judge you and 'look good on the outside' need to be forgiven just like you and I do. By the way, you can be saved and be assured of heaven by simply asking Christ, confessing you need His forgiveness. This is permanent, and can't be taken away from you. You don't have to go to church to get it, you don't have to give money, you can't lose it by not going to church, and you don't have to maintain it by not sinning (you couldn't anyways), you don't have to do what a preacher tells you, you've already got it. Don't wait until you stop sinning (that will never happen). Don't let your pride make you feel like you are being too hypocritical, because you are not sure you can give up some sin. You will still sin, and you will still be hypocritical. He died to save sinners. Once you've done this, now try to seek to understand what God wants from you (learn the Bible) and learn to obey Him (not to go to heaven...because you are already going there if you accepted Him) but to please Him and love other people.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:28:30 GMT

To Cheyenne,

    We've been talking about con games. Not authentic belief, but dishonest people who actively recruit new victims. Christianity has taken this to a new level. Here's the offer: "If you confess that you need Jesus, then after you die, you will be brought back to life in a resurrection." The clever trick is, they don't ask you for money (wait for it) until you're dead. They ask you to leave your money to the church in your will.

   Bob said, "you don't have to give money." That's the beauty of the con game. They can tell you that. It's a LIE. Their entire religion is based on lies, and the biggest LIE is that their con game works in stages. During the initial stage, often called "love bombing," they offers hugs and encouragement, but always conditioned on "accepting Jesus as your Savior." Why? Because after you've made that commitment, they can ask you for anything.

    I am terribly disappointed in Bob. I thought he was honest, but his entire pitch was dishonest. He KNOWS some of those things are not true. He knows Jesus did not die to save sinners. Jesus died because he was born around 4 BC, and everyone born at that time died more than 1,900 years ago.

   The biggest LIE is "go to heaven... because you are already going there if you accepted Him." Please do not take Bob's word for this, or the Bible's word for this. Think it out. How does Bob KNOW what will happen to you after you're dead, or what standard a God would use to admit you to heaven? There is no way he can know. He's simply LYING, and he expects everyone to nod their heads and never question HOW he knows this.

    Christianity is a deceitful LIE. At the very least, it's the LIE that you have to accept some "Savior" before the Creator of the universe will love you. Look around at the world. Do you see any conditions or strings attached to sunsets, or air, or raindrops? Christians like Bob are trying to SELL you something you already possess.

   Look at his definition of "sin." He says "Don't wait until you stop sinning, that will never happen." Believe me, you have NEVER sinned. You have to question his Honesty. He starts by asking you to assume that you have broken some law handed down by a God, and I promise you, that has NEVER happened. No one has committed a Sin, because a God has never given us a definition of Sin. Only Christianity has done that, and Christians are dishonest. They're conning you. Once you take a step back and try to understand what Bob is doing, it's pretty obvious. He's trying to sell you an Imaginary Friend... and who needs to buy an Imaginary Friend like Jesus, when you can invent your own any time you want?

   I apologize for taking the conversation off-topic, but I know what his game is.

   You said, "Even though you grew out of it when you grew up and learned the truth, a part of you still wants to believe because of the whole fantasy idea and when everything was beautiful and more magical when you were blind." Well, that's why the Con Game continues to work. Of course they create a Fantasy that sounds much, much better than reality. We all do that. The danger comes when they attempt to recruit you into a cult with lots and lots and lots of ridiculous rules... a cult where they get to make up a definition of "sin" and pretend it comes from some legitimate source. A cult where nuns take a vow, not of celibacy, but to become the brides of a man who died 1,950 years ago? To give up having children and families so they can serve as the Brides of Christ? It's one thing to have an Imaginary Friend, but you shouldn't marry him.

The future of faith

Bob — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:40:13 GMT

To William

John 1:12 says "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name"

There is no con here, and I am not lying. It's a FREE gift...FREE for anyone who receives it from God in privacy. It's between them and God.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says "For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works that no one should boast."

I truly believe this. I would rather Cheyenne knew God, and never gave a dime of her money....then not know him and give a million bucks. I am saying talk to God, not me or some church. If He is not really there, then nothing will happen and I am wrong. If He is there, then Cheyenne will know Him and then it is you who is lying and perpetrating the con game William. God loves you too William, and the offer is there for you.

Romans 1:18-23 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

The future of faith

Greg Walker, Kirbyville, MO — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:42:47 GMT

For one to be spiritual does not dictate that they be religious. They are two different things entirely. People can practice a dogma and yet not be truly spiritual or of the spirit. Likewise one can be deeply spiritual and not practice any form of religion. The misunderstanding of this has people trying to measure science versus spiritual but then actually referring to religion for their basis for spirituality. If we untangle these two then we are able to broaden our ideas of what God might be. He could be Light or some other form of Energy that we do not understand. In which case science would be short sighted to dismiss His existence. After all we have to admit that science does not or has not totally explained the infinite existence of the universe and yet it seems to exist. Why then is it so unacceptable that God may exist and we just do not understand His infinite power. If you are always praying just to understand His will and an ability to help perform it, then you need not be disappointed. For science to attempt to measure spirituality when actually measuring religious concepts is a big waste. For science to even attempt to measure spirituality makes less sense than a truly spiritual person trying to deny science, just because they do not understand certain principles. There are many things that science has not come near explaining, yet we know they have happened. Science itself would no longer exist if all it did was believe in absolutes that could be seen. It must believe in things that are not always obvious and therefore they require some further investigation; otherwise it would have no reason for existing itself. There are many things that still have not been proven, God's existence is only one.

The future of faith

Diana, Muscle Shoals, AL — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:53:39 GMT

To William,

You sound pretty angry at Christians and I don't know where this anger is coming from, but I can tell you that Christianity is not a cult and true Christian churches are not after anyone's money. Christians give their money willingly to help their churches function and to fund programs that help people with food, clothes, medicine, utilities, etc. Sounds terrible doesn't it?

If you run up on a church that's forcing their members to give money or forcing anything for that matter, try another church. They've lost sight of their goal.
The ridiculous rules you talk about do not come from Jesus. Again, if you come across a church with ridiculous rules, try again. Jesus had 2 main rules: Love the Lord your God with all you Heart, Soul, Mind, & Strength; and Love you neighbor as yourself. That's it!

You said Christians say you have to accept some "Savior" before the Creator of the universe will love you. That couldn't be further from the truth. The Creator of the universe loves us all the same . . . Christian or not. In fact, I really believe that He came to live with us for a while to show us how to live & He died so we could live blameless with Him in Heaven.

I know this is easier for me to believe because I was brought up in a Christian family, but there is something in all of us that wants this to be true. What could be better than a world filled with people who treat others the way Jesus did? Maybe that empty feeling people have & that wish to find the truth was placed in all of us by God & only he can fill it. Again, he's not going to force it on anyone. . . you have to ask.

You wonder how people can believe in Christianty, but I wonder how you can so wholeheartedly believe it's a lie. Has someone told you this(meaning you believe them)?

God gave you an intellect. . . use it to try to disprove the Bible. The Bible is historical fact and more & more scientific discoveries are proving that.

Try talking to God (even in your anger)and ask Him to come into your life if He's real. You might be surprised.

The future of faith

John H, Washington, DC — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:24:47 GMT

Clearly at present, science and faith are, for the most two separate of thought. However, these two areas are pointed in the same direction. Everywhere you read in the headlines about science and faith. There are orgainzed faiths, though few, that actually embrace science such as the United Metaphysical Churches. Any true faith not only embraces the disciplines of the physical world (science) but the positive attributes of all other faiths as well. Think about it. Everything in the Bible can be explained scientifically once the fields of science and Neuroscience formally accept certain occurrances, one being Divine mediumship.

Ironically, everyone want to debate the beliefs of Creationism vs Evolution. At the end of the day it is not either/or, but simply they BOTH occurred and continue to occur/exist today. Knowing the order of these terms is paramount, for the first 4 words in the Bible are, "In the beginning, GOD..." After the creation of the physical world all the events and changes that have occurred in it is evolution or energy that exists within everything that causes change. Therefore it could be said God enery IS evolution, or simply, change. Those that are unwilling to change simply cannot accept the fact that when we learn something new, it can conflict with teachings associated with our upbringing. Only after you're willing to remove some degree of ego and open your mind, can you then realize that before you can accept a new philosophy, you first may have some "unlearing" to do. Don't take my word for it folks, the most profound example of this was demonstrated by those individuals who crucifed Christ. They simply refused to believe he was Way Shower/Messiah, etc as HE did not fit their preconceived/wrong expections of what He should have been. Are we still not doing the same, on some level today???

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:47:57 GMT

Diana said, "If you run up on a church that's forcing their members to give money or forcing anything for that matter, try another church."

Do I have to post a definition of "con game"? A con man NEVER forces a mark to give them money. He CONS them out of it. By making up a clever story so the victims believe they are giving the money voluntarily. (Just like you said.)

You said, "Try talking to God (even in your anger)and ask Him to come into your life if He's real. You might be surprised."

That's just the con game talking. Seriously. You've fallen in with a group that talks so much about their Imaginary God, they might actually think they've talked TO him. Stop trying to recruit new victims and step outside of this group, and maybe you'll understand why people like me (and author Sam Harris) are so upset with Christianity. ie, people who think that talking to a God who never answers is a sign of how intelligent (ie, faithful) they are. Well, come to think of it, maybe it is.

In the Christian religion, you have to accept Jesus as your Savior before the Creator of the universe will love you. Or, more precisely, Jesus wants to save you from an evil God that tortures non-believers for eternity. That's what the religion says. Think about it. And please, don't insult MY intelligence with another sales pitch.

The future of faith

Bob — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:36:46 GMT

To William

You are wrong. Jesus died for us BECAUSE God loved us. It doesn't make sense to say that we have to accept Jesus for Him to love us. If He didn't love us first, He never would have sent Him to die in order for us to be saved.

William, you are just not being logical at all. Your arguments are akin to saying something like "buses are orange, and carrots are orange, so buses must be carrots"

..............

To Diana

You are right on, sister!!

The future of faith

Diana, Muscle Shoals, AL — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:57:40 GMT

OK William,

You seem to be a master of twisting people's words & insulting their intelligence. I didn't say the church makes you believe you are giving your money voluntarily. I actually do contribute voluntarily because I know where the money is going & I am thankful that there is an institution that is willing to provide for the less fortunate in my community. No mind games, no deceit, no lying. I've been fortunate enough to see some of this money in action & it changes lives. I don't personally have the contacts to find the legitimate needs in our community & am grateful my church does. I wonder where your obsession with giving to the church is coming from.

And you say I'm trying to recruit new victims when I challenged you to talk to God. What possible benefit could I receive from your coming to know God? I'm not going to take your money.

My reasoning for challenging you was that I know there is a God & that he's waiting for you to open your mind & heart and let Him in. And believe it or not, I care about your soul because you matter as much to God as I do. And I know what it feels like to have Him in your life & I wish that for everybody.

How do I know He exists?

First of all, there's no way that I can believe that the beauty and intricate perfection of creation just happened. The idea that there was an explosion that evolved into everything that exists implies that there was something that exploded. I can't explain how God was before time, but you also can't explain where that original matter came from either. See where we are both using some faith here?

Second, I know God exists because I've felt Him . . . an overwhelming sense of warmth & peace that comes at a time when peace should be the furthest thing from my mind. This is not something you get from meditation or God-less spiritual self-discovering practices. I'm an intelligent person & have a very logical reasoning process. I approach things skeptically so I know where doubt comes from, but feeling God's presence is beyond explanation.

You say we talk to a God that never answers. You're wrong. He's answering you in this blog, but you won't listen.

Finally, you again state that You have to accept Jesus for God to love you. God loves you right here, right now & always will. If you don't feel it, it's because you refuse to accept it.

Here's Christianity in a nutshell:

  God is perfect and holy and cannot allow sin in Heaven.
   Man is sinful because God does not force us to do his will . . . we have a choice.
   Man will never achieve sin-lessness on his own.
   God sent His perfect son, Jesus, to take our sins upon Himself so we could be forgiven by believing in Him. He paid the price so we could live in Heaven with Him.

So, we don't have to believe in Jesus to get God to love us. We do have to believe in Jesus to be forgiven.

The future of faith

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:42:41 GMT

Bob,

  Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps you can explain one more thing?

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast down to hell in chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment

2:9 ...the Lord knows how to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. (end)

  So, when the Day of Judgment arrives, the unjust will be punished? By God? How about...

1Corinthians 15:12 (Paul writes) Now if christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not sleep but we shall all be changed at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible... (End)

  According to Paul, a resurrection of ALL the dead will take place at the sound of the last trumpet, the Day of Judgment..

Matthew 12:36 (Jesus said) "For every idle word men speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be condemned..." (end)

  Now do you see my problem? On the day of judgment, all the dead will be raised in new bodies, and God will have a chance to demonstate his love and forgiveness. But the Bible (ie, Christianity) says God is going to judge and condemn. Why? Sounds kind of unbelievable, doesn't it?

Matthew 10:15 (Jesus said to his disciples) "And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words... it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!" (

The Truth is, Peter and the NT authors invented a God who seemed more concerned with punishment than love. Peter borrowed a concept from Greek mythology...

   "Below heaven, earth, and hades is a deep, gloomy place called Tartarus, a pit or abyss used as a dungeon of torment and suffering. While almost all the dead were said to go to Hades, the gods cast the very worst mortal sinners and immortal enemies into Tartarus for endless punishment. As a place of punishment, it is similar to the Christian Hell, Judaic Gehenna, pagan Netherworld, Hindu Naraka, Chinese Di Yu, and Islamic Jahannam. In The Iliad, Zeus asserts that Tartarus is "as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth."

Now, Bob, here's my problem. If God created the universe and everything in it, why would there be a group of humans destined for eternal torment? Isn't that a choice, and thus a clue to God's nature?

   Or, is it just a clue to the nature of the early Christians who embraced this Day of Judgment because it agreed with their philosophy?

   The idea of a Savior means that humans need to be saved FROM something, doesn't it? Sure, you can tell me YOUR philosophy, but go deeper. Try to explain what it MEANS. If our planet has 2 billion Christians, that means condemnation for 2/3 of humanity, or 4 billion people. If a God loved us, why are 4 billion souls going to be resurrected in new, perfect bodies and then condemned to eternal punishment in a dark underworld?

   Sure, it's fun to play in this Imaginary World occasionally, but the people who invented the resurrection and Day of Judgment were just making up a story. Agreed?