 sj |
||
|
||
BS: One compelling reason for a god?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:06 PM "I meant, in response to the question, "maybe there isn't any compelling reason" TO believe...and actually, that is rather self-evident..almost a tautology, if you will. We are NOT 'compelled'." Wow I feel compelled to agree with you, Bill whoooo-HOOOOO! :-D See, there ARE such things as miracles. Thanks for clarifying. The "...there isn't any..." bit just didn't sit right, coming from you.... daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: GUEST,h h rrhj vjfpok Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:17 PM Secular humanism? Is that the answer to the world's religious strife? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM To the degree that any political or common decision is being made, certainly. The business of all political decisions is secular, and its best interests are humanistic. If we could cleave to those criteria only we'd be miles better off. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Donuel Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM It is said "Beauty will save the world" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM While this is NOT an argument in favor of theism, the following is worthy of reflection: SOUL For the soul is the beginning of all things. It is the soul that lends all things movement. Plotinus A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:56 PM Are humans hard-wired for faith? POSTED: 4:27 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007 Story Highlights• Scientist working to track how the human brain processes religion, spirituality • New field called neurotheology • Similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I just know God is with me. I can feel Him always," a young Haitian woman once told me. "I've meditated and gone to another place I can't describe. Hours felt like mere minutes. It was an indescribable feeling of peace," recalled a CNN colleague. "I've spoken in languages I've never learned. It was God speaking through me," confided a relative. The accounts of intense religious and spiritual experiences are topics of fascination for people around the world. It's a mere glimpse into someone's faith and belief system. It's a hint at a person's intense connection with God, an omniscient being or higher plane. Most people would agree the experience of faith is immeasurable. Dr. Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist and author of "Why We Believe What We Believe," wants to change all that. He's working on ways to track how the human brain processes religion and spirituality. It's all part of new field called neurotheology. After spending his early medical career studying how the brain works in neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, depression and anxiety, Newberg took that brain-scanning technology and turned it toward the spiritual: Franciscan nuns, Tibetan Buddhists, and Pentecostal Christians speaking in tongues. His team members at the University of Pennsylvania were surprised by what they found. "When we think of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, we see a tremendous similarity across practices and across traditions." The frontal lobe, the area right behind our foreheads, helps us focus our attention in prayer and meditation. The parietal lobe, located near the backs of our skulls, is the seat of our sensory information. Newberg says it's involved in that feeling of becoming part of something greater than oneself. The limbic system, nestled deep in the center, regulates our emotions and is responsible for feelings of awe and joy. Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God. He says there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power. Interestingly enough, devout believers and atheists alike point to the brain scans as proof of their own ideas. Some nuns and other believers champion the brain scans as proof of an innate, physical conduit between human beings and God. According to them, it would only make sense that God would give humans a way to communicate with the Almighty through their brain functions. Some atheists saw these brain scans as proof that the emotions attached to religion and God are nothing more than manifestations of brain circuitry. Scott Atran doesn't consider himself an atheist, but he says the brain scans offer little in terms of understanding why humans believe in God. He is an anthropologist and author of "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion." Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation. "Just like we're not hardwired for boats, but humans in all cultures make boats in pretty much the same way, Atran explains. "Now, that's a result both of the way the brain works and of the needs of the world, and of trying to traverse a liquid medium and so I think religion is very much like that." Atran points to the palms of his hands as another example of evolutionary coincidence. He says the creases formed there are a mere byproduct of human beings working with our hands -- stretching back to the ages of striking the first fires, hunting the first prey to building early shelter. Although, the patterns in our palms were coincidentally formed by eons of evolution and survival, he points out that cultures around the world try to find meaning in them through different forms of palm reading. Anthropologists like Atran say, "Religion is a byproduct of many different evolutionary functions that organized our brains for day-to-day activity." To be sure, religion has the unparalleled power to bring people into groups. Religion has helped humans survive, adapt and evolve in groups over the ages. It's also helped us learn to cope with death, identify danger and finding mating partners. Today, scientific images can track our thoughts on God, but it would take a long leap of faith to identify why we think of God in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:33 PM Hmmm. I think -- as I have mentioned before -- that looking for spirit in the prefontal lobe is like trying to find the story-teller in the phone by dissecting the chipset. You can make it complex, but you might well be looking in the wrong place. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Mrrzy Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:58 PM I think we had god beliefs before we had intelligence; children go through a stage, when they realize that they are doing things, of thinking that anything that happens must have been done. Then they outgrow that particular fallacy (the jargon term in psychology for that stage). I would think that as human intelligence evolved it probably mirrored that (O recapitulating P and all that), so we would have god beliefs thrust upon us by our physiology before that physiology developed the brain we have now. Not a reason for god, but a reason for faith. And faith can be looked for in the brain - there are those cool epileptic nuns too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:28 PM The business of all political decisions is secular... Someone needs to explain that principle to some of the people actually making those political decisions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:52 PM Belief in many things, including God, is an emergent behaviour of the human brain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Peace Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:34 PM 'It is said "Beauty will save the world"' She will? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:57 PM Religion is not genetic. Dawkins says that it's "mimetic" relating to "memes". It mirrors genes in that it has its own built-in replicating device. There are no Catholic, Christian, Jewish,Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian infants. A child has not genetically inherited any religion. It would be a form of child abuse to foist that on a child who should be allowed to make up his/her own mind. One compelling reason for a god is that we might study the effect of "memes" on society. (Mind you I didn't say there was a god.) Frrank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Fergie Date: 05 Apr 07 - 04:28 AM Frank, I wonder if Antonio Gramsci would have recognised the concept of "memetics"? but I think he would have uses the word "hegemony". Gramsci defined the concept thus "The term hegemony describes the process whereby ideas, structures, and actions come to be seen by the majority of people as wholly natural, preordained, and working for their own good, when in fact they are constructed and transmitted by powerful minority interests to protect the status quo that serves those interest." Fergus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:20 AM Memes are ideas that spread (the way genes spread, through reproduction with change); they don't have to be viewed as natural. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:43 AM The subject of memetics, after Dawkins and the like, is an interesting study. A lot of it is old wine in new bottles, but it has merit anyway. One of its concepts is the "viral" meme -- a concept or belief which, for whatever reason, infects those who are exposed to it and shifts their thinking. Some religious concepts have acted like viral memes, especially when they provide relief from some pre-existing cognitive dissonance. Mohammed's teachings acted like viral memes when they were injected into cultures that had hitherto been Zoroastrian (Zarathustrian) because they provided some answer to a need that the prior religion did not. Thinking of beliefs, concepts, and words in a memetic sort of way can be useful. It allows you to step back and assess the dynamics of a given idea or datum and evaluate it against whatever criteria you use for such things. I suppose in the final analysis, a meme is as valuable as it is useful to the host thereof. Religion, for example, has a number of interesting uses. It provides some perspective on quotidien affairs, provides a factor of hope, can be used to make self right and make others wrong, and is valuable in fending off mysteries and unconfrontable issues one is not prepared to deal with by erecting a temporary defense against the confusions around them. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM Oh, so that explains it all! I may not believe in much, but from this day forward I'll put all my faith in ME(mes)! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:16 AM oops forgot the ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:29 AM PS Most days I harmonize better with this poor deluded soul than with Dawkins. Both may be arrogant, but one at least tempers it all with artistic beauty, humility and love. It is a great consolation for me to remember that the Lord, to whom I had drawn near in humble and child-like faith, has suffered and died for me, and that He will look on me in love and compassion.... ... Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:00 PM Coming back after a few das... Thanks for offering yourself to experiment, LH, but I don't experiment on humans :) I come back to theories and what often is not understood in Mudcat discussions, not only by Little Hawk. There is no theory of evolution, only for historical reasons that term has been preserved since Darwin's time. After 150 years of observation and experiment, evolution is now a fact. Biology only makes sense when looked at with this knowledge. You can always find a PhD who still disagrees same as you can find still one (2?) professors who do not agree that there is global warming (as a fact, not looking at the reasons why) and think warming could be a measuring artifact. But for all others, these are facts. The interpretation of facts that's what theories are for and for predicting what happens under certain circumstances. There are many different theories of evolution (puntuated equilibrium being one) that do not at all agree with each other. Some are theories only about a small part of evolution, others are broader theories. All of them are most likely wrong in at least one detail. The theories about evolution will be very different 100 years from now. However, they will still try to explain the fact of evolution. Take planetary motion and gravity as an example. We now consider it as a fact (and not only as a possible theory) that the planets including Earth orbit the sun. This is not a theory but a fact. How that goes, there have been many theories some of which are now only interesting for historians of science. There has been the original theory by Newton. His theory didn't lead to stable orbits, so he postulated that God interfered from time to time to push a planet back into the correct orbit. Then there was what we now learn at school as the Newtonian theory though it has never been formulated by him. Laplace's Mécanique céleste improved Newton's math and led to the prediction of stable orbits. God's push was no longer needed. Laplace quipped to Napoleon about God as the "unnecessary hypothesis". Then there was Einstein who for the first time could what the old theories could not, namely explain the orbit of Mercury. One even could say that Einstein got rid of gravity (some people still believe in it, BTW) and replaced it by the idea that 4-D space-time is curved in the neighbourhood of (large) masses. A completely different theory but the facts (planets orbiting the sun) did not change. The quick acceptance of Einstein's theorie(s) came from this theory making the same predictions as the improved Newtonian for the outer planets but being able to describe Mercury's orbit much better. Some have tried to explain what gravity is (and not just accept it as given by Newton) and have postulated an exchange of gravitons... If we'd discover masses that do not curve space-time, we'd need a new theory but it still would have to predict the known facts of the solar system. The theories in science always come in plural and not in singular. They change and no single theory of today will be taught in 100 years as true. Einstein's theory is the best candidate for this prediction being wrong, BTW. But whatever the improved theories say, if they do not predict/describe the known facts they will not be accepted. Evolution, to come back to it, is among all biologists with the odd (Christian fringe) exception looked at as a fact. The exact mechanisms are not known yet known in detail though there are some really good guesses. There is no demand or need to "believe" one particular of these many theories. Scientific theories are not there to be believed but to be tested rigorously in the hope they are wrong. For we learn more from being wrong. But all these theories start with evolution as a fact. Creation Science or Intelligent Design have never even tried to be scientific theories. They make no testable predictions and only prey on those parts of evolution not yet fully understood. These two "theories" (as the authors admit in private communications with people they think are on their side) start with the assumption that the relevants parts of the Bible are literally true. The believers only try to find evidence for this idea, and most of the evidence is negative like "science can not yet fully explain...". That's the futile "God of the gaps" approach that is always on a permanent retreat. Outside of North America (perhaps only USA) and the Islamic World which is far more literally minded when it comes to the stories in the Koran, only a tiny fringe still doubts evolution. BTW, one last argument: The fact of evolution is neither a reason for nor against God, except in the minds of the religious fringe. One could easily consider evolution being God's way how to make the Earth (and perhaps many other rocks orbiting stars) seething with life. One particular literalist detail of religious belief, however, is just nonsense. But it may take some more time until that finds acceptance in the USA. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:36 PM Wolf: Well said! The notion of mass curving space-time has always intrigued me, because I find it disconcerting to understand what it is being curved "in". Perhaps it is being curved in the mind of God? Or will we someday again find that to be an unnecessary hypothesis? :D In any case it is a hypothesis that raises many more questions than it answers. Curved spacetime also raises questions about what "mass" really is, or perhaps more accurately what space actually is. Is mass a densification of space? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Bill D Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:41 PM Wolfgang left a lot to read just above, but he said a lot, also. It bears re-reading, and there are several points which are very often misunderstood. Read carefully the part about the difference between a 'theory' and a 'fact', and how changes in various details about some facts can lead to the mistaken notion that the fact (for example, evolution) is 'only' a theory. We, and all the other biological entities we see DID evolve...only the details are hazy. Other 'beliefs' ARE only theories, as we have no way, so far, to test their claims. If someone wishes to believe, as Wolfgang notes, that evolution IS "God's method", there is very little to say about it...except as I mentioned somewhere else about a program I heard on the radio..(paraphrased)."isn't it interesting that God chose as his method of creation, a process that proceeds as if HE were not there!" I don't expect my comments...or Wolfgangs, or Mrrzy's, or Amos's, or Frank Hamilton's,...or anyone else's to cause any committed believers to change their basic beliefs....but I do hope they will come a little closer to putting 'beliefs', 'facts', 'theories', and 'truths' into proper perspective regarding many issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 07 - 12:55 PM Sonnet 21/3/93 CDXLIX I seek for faith, but find only fair words That promise future bliss: I have not seen The hand of God on page. Yet, hearing birds In morning song, I search for what they mean. I seek for hope, but find only despair In all the pain religion brings. What gain, To suffer for my God? Can I repair The past, or alter others? Is that sane? I seek for love, but find I offer more Than Heaven sends me. Am I to believe That this is fair reward? Must heart ignore All passion, and suffer death, to receive? I seek, and do not find: Yet I still search, For what I have not found in any church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:13 PM BB, That is a fine and loverly poem, and well-made too. So here's the story. The Dalai Lama goes up to a hot-dog vendor and says, "Make me one with everything." The hot dog vendor, who has heard this joke before, makes him a hot dog with everything. The Dalai Lama gives him a twenty, and he puts it in his pocket. Surprised, the Dalai Lama says, "Hey, man, where's my change?" "Ah," says the hot-dog vendor. "All change must come from within." Thought you'd like it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Mrrzy Date: 05 Apr 07 - 03:33 PM Um - Creation Science or Intelligent Design have never even tried to be scientific theories. - heard of the Dover, PA case? Kansas? *sigh* sometimes I'm ashamed of my countryfolk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 07 - 05:21 PM If there were a God...why would that God only be found by going into some church? How could God possibly be so limited? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: John O'L Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:18 PM "isn't it interesting that God chose as his method of creation, a process that proceeds as if HE were not there!" Interesting perhaps, but not really indicative of anything at all. If he had chosen a system by which he was revealed as creator, what would that do for free will, trust, pretty well all human relationships in fact? There would be no reason to evolve above the level of a slug, would there? (Of course I am aware that this neither proves or disproves anything either...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:40 PM Bill D, you studied Whitehead - what if God isn't sort some sort of external controlling force? What if God is somehow the center, the essence of the process? - whether that process be life, evolution, love, death, or whatever. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Stringsinger Date: 05 Apr 07 - 07:54 PM Amos, interesting thought. "Religion, for example, has a number of interesting uses. It provides some perspective on quotidien affairs, provides a factor of hope, can be used to make self right and make others wrong, and is valuable in fending off mysteries and unconfrontable issues one is not prepared to deal with by erecting a temporary defense against the confusions around them." Sounds like a definition for a narcotic. Daylia, Dawkins is not arrogant. Read his book and find out why. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: bobad Date: 05 Apr 07 - 08:06 PM "If there were a God...why would that God only be found by going into some church? How could God possibly be so limited?" He's probably on the take just like the churches, hell everybody can use a little vigorish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Bill D Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:15 PM "Bill D, you studied Whitehead - ....." yep. And Whitehead is not easy to summarize. You ask the question, Joe.."What if God is somehow the center, the essence of the process? " For Whitehead, "... the center, the essence of the process.." is a pretty arcane concept called an "actual entity", which seems to be something like the current idea of 'quarks'..only smaller. The way Whitehead accounts for 'free will' is that at certain points, "actual entities" have options...or can be subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle...something like that. Thus, the 'process' (for Whitehead) is not rigidly determined by only physical laws. In several hundred pages, he tries to show how "Reality" is partly determined by a "Process" which has elements of 'freedom' AS part of its fundamental definition. (gee..its been ages since I tried to write this stuff precisely!) In any case, although 'the process' seems to have a component which partakes of some sort of 'variable possibility' (my term...not Whitehead's), the problem with your question would be in the formulation. Rather than "What if God is the....", we would have to ask "can we call this component (of reality) 'God'?". Of course, 'we' do...but the very language is loaded with imagery and preconceptions...and Whitehead carefully avoids that sort of label. My Master's thesis was to have claimed that only a metaphysics such as in Whitehead could even logically resolve the Free Will/Determinism controversy...but would stop short of claiming that it did actually resolve it. For me, just saying "What if God is...X..or Y...or Z" is loaded with assumptions...that there is a god, and that we merely need to figure out how to visualize him/it and refer to him/it. (remember that judge in Alabama who kept insisting that he ought to be free "to acknowledge God" by putting the 10 Commandments in public view? No one seemed to be able to explain to him that there were folks who didn't appreciate having 'God' as a given in a society which states that religion is optional.) so...there I go. Did I came anywhere near answering what you asked? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:24 PM How can what is infinite not "be there"? And how would you go about looking for it? You can't find that which is already everywhere, because it doesn't stand out apart from anything else. You can't find what is not separate (it can't be observed), nor can you define it, nor can you measure it or make any deals with it or appease it in any way...and there would certainly be no use in fearing it. You could deny it with no consequences...after all, what difference would your denial possibly make? If you don't believe in it, why would it care? It would be like a cell in your body not believing that YOU exist. Who really cares if the cell believes you exist or not? Only the cell cares about that! ;-) And maybe some other cells do too. If the cell in your body theorized that you were there and decided to worship you, it would probably get at loggerheads with other cells in your body that didn't believe you were there, and it would get into even worse fights with other cells who DID believe you were there, but had a rather different way of describing you. And that, to my way of thinking, pretty well sums up the foolishness of humans arguing with one another over "God" (pro and con). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: John O'L Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:38 PM I made a parable not long ago about my worm farm, but I think I edited out the bit about how some of the worms believed in my existance and others didn't, and the ones who didn't believe in me were going into the mulcher next Friday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:56 PM Heh! A lovely example. But you are evidently a somewhat insecure deity, aren't you? Besides, if you were the worms as well as the one in charge of the larger situation the worms are part of, you woundn't want to hurt them, surely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: John O'L Date: 06 Apr 07 - 12:55 AM Goodness me, no. I don't want to hurt the poor little thingy-wingies. All they have to do is worship me, and they'll be sweet, no worries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Apr 07 - 07:03 AM "isn't it interesting that God chose as his method of creation, a process that proceeds as if HE were not there!" YEs it is. I think Mozart would have understood this completely. He found his music within, welling up inside his heart and mind; then he used a process of creation (ie committing it to paper) to ensure it would proceed as he intended, even when HE was not there. As above, so below. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:20 AM Daylia, Dawkins is not arrogant. Read his book and find out why. Frank, I always like to preview authors like Dawkins, before I ingest their work. So, here's a few Dawkins Quotes and my responses to them. For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria If you want to believe that you are bacteria and descended from bacteria, go right ahead and fill your boots, dear Dawkins. Reminds me of a shamanically-inclined friend who believed his Higher Power was a lizard. He got the same response, from me. We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes. Our common ancestor with the chimpanzees and gorillas is much more recent than their common ancestor with the Asian apes--the gibbons and orangutans. There is no natural category that includes chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans but excludes humans." Ditto. Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. And ditto again. if you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. The trick is to want the right things, then science will provide you with the most effective methods of achieving them. Intersting how he neglects to mention that the very same thing can be said of religions. "I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. " Well, Dr Arrogance, I for one will not be waiting breathlessly for your personal explanation of the existence of life! Or waste a single penny of my hard-earned money on any of your best-sellers, or one more minute of my precious time on your rants and ravings. However, if and when you ever manage to demonstrate said explanation by using it to produce even just ONE simple, viable living cell -- WITHOUT using the genetic blueprint of another living cell in any way!!! -- when that day comes, I might be more inclined to give you the time of day. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:22 AM Or rather, the time of daylia :-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 07 - 08:33 AM Editorial from the Washington Post. I will neither agree nor disagree with it- but KisP. ****************************************************************** Answers To the Atheists By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A21 This weekend, many of the world's estimated 2 billion Christians will remember and celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ's actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin. Are these people a threat to reason and even freedom? It's a question that arises from a new vogue for what you might call neo-atheism. The new atheists -- the best known are writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- insist, as Harris puts it, that "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." That's why they think a belief in salvation through faith in God, no matter the religious tradition, is dangerous to an open society. The neo-atheists, like their predecessors from a century ago, are given to a sometimes-charming ferociousness in their polemics against those they see as too weak-minded to give up faith in God. What makes them new is the moment in history in which they are rejoining the old arguments: an era of religiously motivated Islamic suicide bombers. They also protest the apparent power of traditionalist and fundamentalist versions of Christianity. As a general proposition, I welcome the neo-atheists' challenge. The most serious believers, understanding that they need to ask themselves searching questions, have always engaged in dialogue with atheists. The Catholic writer Michael Novak's book "Belief and Unbelief" is a classic in self-interrogation. "How does one know that one's belief is truly in God," he asks at one point, "not merely in some habitual emotion or pattern of response?" The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes. In his bracing polemic " The End of Faith," Harris is candid in asserting that "religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each one of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others." Harris goes on: "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance -- born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God -- is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss. We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man." Argument about faith should not hang on whether religion is socially "useful" or instead promotes "inhumanity." But since the idea that religion is primarily destructive lies at the heart of the neo-atheist argument, its critics have rightly insisted on detailing the sublime acts of humanity and generosity that religion has promoted through the centuries. It's true that religious Christians were among those who persecuted Jews. It is also true that religious Christians were among those who rescued Jews from these most un-Christian acts. And it is a sad fact that secular forms of dogmatism have been at least as murderous as the religious kind. What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions. But as Novak argued -- in one of the best critiques of neo-atheism -- in the March 19 issue of National Review, "Questions have been the heart and soul of Judaism and Christianity for millennia." (These questions get a fair reading in another powerful commentary on neo-atheism by James Wood, himself an atheist, in the Dec. 18 issue of the New Republic.) "Christianity is not about moral arrogance," Novak insists. "It is about moral realism, and moral humility." Of course Christians in practice often fail to live up to this elevated definition of their creed. But atheists are capable of their own forms of arrogance. Indeed, if arrogance were the only criterion, the contest could well come out a tie. As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties. In " The Last Week," their book about Christ's final days on Earth, Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, distinguished liberal scriptural scholars, write: "He attracted a following and took his movement to Jerusalem at the season of Passover. There he challenged the authorities with public acts and public debates. All this was his passion, what he was passionate about: God and the Kingdom of God, God and God's passion for justice. Jesus' passion got him killed." That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 07 - 10:08 AM Dionne's polemic asserts it is drawing a conclusion from presented data, but I see no bridge between the data and the conclusion. Moral realism, and moral certainty, do not require the election of an external entity to be compelling. They DO require a commitment to ethics; and this requires a certains sense of spirituality, as opposed to the mode ofbeing self-serving meatballs. Dawkins is as earnest and passionate as anyone, in the service of human rationality. Harris gets a bit into armwaving, but both of them are under the duress of bucking major trends in their times, so I cut them some slack on that score. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Apr 07 - 10:28 AM If you want to believe that you are bacteria and descended from bacteria, go right ahead and fill your boots, dear Dawkins. - this isn't belief. It is fact. All life is descended from the first life forms, which were bacteria, and there are still more bacteria on Earth than any other life form, by far. Not belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Apr 07 - 10:46 AM All life is descended from the first life forms, which were bacteria..... ?? please explain how this might be, in any way, a "fact" (as opposed to a theory, hypothesis or simply an article of faith). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 07 - 10:51 AM Main Entry: fact Pronunciation: 'fakt Function: noun Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere 1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME 2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING 3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY 4 a : something that has actual existence 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality - in fact : in truth http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:03 AM a piece of information presented as having objective reality "Presented as". Ah. Thanks, bb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM As opposed to the existance of God, which has NO objective reality, but is a matter of Faith. Please note I did NOT deny the existance of God, just that it is NOT subject to objective determination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM BTW, if you can define what YOU mean by the word "God", I can tell you whether I believe in him/her/it/them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Bill D Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM *daylia*...your example of Mozart stretches the metaphor pretty far. The most obvious problem is that musicians can, and often do, interpret the instructions of composers pretty freely. Once a composer releases his 'creation', it either doesn't change at all (which 'God's' creation, the universe does), or it changes from outside influences, which reduces the relevance of the 'creator'. The real importance of the "...proceeds as though he wasn't there." idea is that, despite no real indication FROM a creator as to how we should behave or think1, we have built a complex set of doctrines...in fact, multiple sets of complex doctrines...all claiming to interpret the 'will' of this creator. The point has been made by others that most of these interpretations seem suspiciously to favor the interpreters. 1.(2000 year old parchment and subjective translation and interpretations of them are hardly clear directions) We were supposedly given a mind capable of thinking and understanding, 'free will' to use that mind, temptations, and a set of rules to see if we could, in spite of our free will, live within the rules...but we are also, by definition imperfect, so that breaking the rules is almost universal-- thus we ALSO have a set of rules about how to regain favor after our failures...thru confession, prayer, punishment, contrition, etc., etc. And thru all of these complex, often contradictory 'sins' and 'redemptions', we never get direct guidance from the 'rule maker'. To me, it just gradually became apparent that IF there were rules, and IF I had a mind capable of doubt, it would simply not be fair for a 'creator' to not remind me (us) now & then that he really, really means it!. As it is, my 'free' mind tells me that the absence of reminders casts doubt on the compelling force of the supposed rules.....NO...this does not mean that we are 'free' to do as we please and "do unto your neighbor before he does unto you", because there ARE rational reasons for not doing so. Society needs rules, but the rules need to be designed & adopted by the society, not imposed in awkward configurations from some interpretations of translations of problematical texts in almost forgotten languages from thousands of years ago. .............(Bill...why don't you just write a complete book and get it all out in an orderly fashion, and quit piling all this on THESE poor folks?) ...............(Oh, I really should, but I needed to start years ago, and I'm torn in too many directions...and besides...they asked!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:18 AM D., I presume if you repeat the experimental procedures which revealed the colony nature of cells you would find similar evidence of bacterial colonies aggregated into the composite organsim called a cell. This has nothing to do with spiritual issues; it is a biological statement of repeatable results. As to what the organizing principle is behind such strange behavior, that's a theory. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Bee Date: 06 Apr 07 - 11:42 AM Daylia, unless you are a creationist (are you?), I recommend you get thee to a library and check out a couple modern books about early evolution, and about the processes of evolution. You'll find it enlightening if you are even a little scientifically minded, and if you are firmly on the side of creationism and a 6000 year old earth, at least you'll understand what you're up against. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Apr 07 - 12:24 PM The Washington Post article was interesting and in my opinion full of flaws. Answers To the Atheists By E. J. Dionne Jr. Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A21 "While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ's actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This statement is inconsistent. If Christ didn't exist, how could he redeem a "fallen world"? If, hypothetically, he did exist, and it is a unproven hypothesis , what sin did he die for? Which ones? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are these people a threat to reason and even freedom?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, they can be. Here is why. If the world is sinful as they claim, their attempt to change those sins can lead to warfare and bloodshed. I reject the term "neo-athesim" because this position is nothing new. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- " Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- insist, as Harris puts it, that "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." That's why they think a belief in salvation through faith in God, no matter the religious tradition, is dangerous to an open society." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This certainty is what creates the intolerance because it does not allow for an opposing point of view. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This statement is pure sophistry and nonsense. There is not one atheist that wouldn't change his or her mind if any realistic scientific evidence could be show that a god exists. Freethinking and dogmatism don't mix. Religious "moderates" are frustrating because they haven't sufficiently addressed the concern of the extremist intolerance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Argument about faith should not hang on whether religion is socially "useful" or instead promotes "inhumanity." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It certainly should because faith has been the major component in divisiveness, bloodshed and intolerance. Also, a faith in the degradation of men and women as practiced in "the fall of man" is destructive, sick and essentially socially disruptive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- " But since the idea that religion is primarily destructive lies at the heart of the neo-atheist argument, its critics have rightly insisted on detailing the sublime acts of humanity and generosity that religion has promoted through the centuries." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dawkins and Harris do accept the fact that there are a lot of good religious people who do good works but they do not attribute these good works to their religion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- " And it is a sad fact that secular forms of dogmatism have been at least as murderous as the religious kind." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, this author doesn't understand the notion of Freethought. Stalin was not a Freethinker. A murderous dictator is most certainly dogmatic in a religious manner although they may not subscribe to the current institutional religious dogma. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason for this is clear, they have made up their minds and will admit to no alternative. Novak has been cited as a critic of atheism. (The man who outed Valerie Plame). He says that "Questions have been the heart and soul of Judaism and Christianity for millennia." These questions have enabled fanatics to unspeakable acts. Novak offers no proof for this following assertion. It's merely his own prejudice that allows him to make this statement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Christianity is not about moral arrogance," Novak insists. "It is about moral realism, and moral humility." Of course Christians in practice often fail to live up to this elevated definition of their creed. But atheists are capable of their own forms of arrogance. Indeed, if arrogance were the only criterion, the contest could well come out a tie. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freethinkers are not arrogant as he maintains. They are critical of irrational thinking. If we follow this argument to a logical conclusion, those who challenge any dogma are "arrogant". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- And yet it maintains its "certainties" above all other alternative ideas. The article goes on to state: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In " The Last Week," their book about Christ's final days on Earth, Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, distinguished liberal scriptural scholars, write: "He attracted a following and took his movement to Jerusalem at the season of Passover. There he challenged the authorities with public acts and public debates. All this was his passion, what he was passionate about: God and the Kingdom of God, God and God's passion for justice. Jesus' passion got him killed." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would suggest that there are distinguised biblical scholars who would question this idea. Bart Ehrman of North Carolina is one of those distinguished scholars who would question Borg, Dominic Crossan and any other self-styled authority on what really, really happened. No one was around to authoritatively know that this happened or didn't. Borg and Crossan are making it up as they go. Or they are basing their conclusions on a document that has gone through so many tortured changes that no one knows what the original version was like and no one can prove its accuracy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should be mentioned that Easter was originally a Pagan holiday like so many that were appropriated and modified by the Church for its own convenience to convert and control the laity. This article lacks any kind of real substance that can be taken seriously. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One compelling reason for a god? From: *daylia* Date: 06 Apr 07 - 06:04 PM The most obvious problem is that musicians can, and often do, interpret the instructions of composers pretty freely ... it changes from outside influences, which reduces the relevance of the 'creator'. Yes they do. Don't see how this "reduces the relevance" of Mozart himself though. And whether it's a "problem" or not is up to the composer (and/or conservatories, critics, audiences, publishers, editors, teachers, individual performers etc etc etc). You've described the natural course of events with any type of creation, I suppose. And it does correspond quite nicely, at a musical level, with the natural physical laws of random chance and chaos, with the biological/evolutionary mechanisms of genetic mutations, adaptations etc; and with time-honoured, universal religious/philosophical doctrines of free will. I agree with most everything you;ve said though, so again wow and WHOOO-HOOOO Bill! :-) .............(Bill...why don't you just write a complete book and get it all out in an orderly fashion, and quit piling all this on THESE poor folks?) ...............(Oh, I really should, but I needed to start years ago, and I'm torn in too many directions...and besides...they asked!) Yes! Go for it, I say! Amos, ya got me thinkin (as usual!), so thanks ... and Bee, no, I'm not a 'Creationist', if you mean what I think you mean by that word. |
