Religion and science do mix

132 comments from readers

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 10:01

I'm no creationist, but evolution and 14 billion years is based only on (very good) circumstantial evidence. Unless someone invents a time machine one cannot use absolutes such as "..that the world began in 4004BC. It is a theory, but it happens to be wrong..".

Creationists might just be right, though it seems highly unlikely. But 'highly unlikely' is not the same as a cold hard fact, of which science rarely offers. The same applies to the existence of a God: even Dawkins says that that is unprovable, though "unlikely".

Sam2008
18 September 2008 at 10:17

Just to note the young earth view is not one which all Christians believe in. Some people would describe themselves as Christians and other religions and believe some very strange things compared to the rest. These are obviously not the views of the whole. Seems to be that many people particularly in the media make a point about this view as it is the one that sounds the most absurd and as a result make Christianity seem far less plausible.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 10:31

I have an idea.

When all religions can agree on something ... anything ... then we can take that something out of RE and put it in the appropriate class.

The fact of the matter is that religions can't agree on anything, because it is all completely made up.

If we were to entertain all of the clap trap in the world in science class then there would be no room for science teaching. Teach science as it is.

Leave the doubters and their questions to the RE class where it belongs. A Christain (or variant thereof) can postulate that the earth is 4 to 6 thousand years old, and then hear from the teacher that there are literary thousands of stories of creation devised by man, there's is but one of them.

peter
18 September 2008 at 10:34

If evolution is still taking place why are we not seeing it taking place right now. Why in the last 100 yrs say have we not seen the chimp show signs of any improvement. How come when you look at flies and small lizards trapped inside amber look no different than present day species. Why throughout the age of man have we not seen most women become beautiful if the species of man is supposed to be improving!! Peter

Chris
18 September 2008 at 10:41

Religion and science can be mixed. Or not. They are entirely different things. If you want to try and mix custard and gravy you can, but you would have to be imaginative to justify it.

Religion is a belief system and way of life.

Science is a method that we use to test hypotheses.

So, to recap, entirely different things.

nawawimohamad
18 September 2008 at 10:46

Wait until the LHC provides us with some valuable data, then there will be something fresh and most recent information to discuss about. Keep your fingers crossed.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 10:52

Peter,

Please school yourself on what evolution is. There is a wealth of material available to you on the internet which will help answer your questions.

I can give you some short answers (I'm no expert):

- The ancient animals that you speak of will be different. They may appear superficially like modern animals but the will be different. Some animals have maintain their basic form for an awfully long time. Why? well because that form's fitness of purpose is still as valid today as it was millions of years ago.

- the proportion of beautiful women has not change because (well here's an obvious one) beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... not all of us are attracted to the same things. Even if we all were attracted to the same looking women, there are other factors which we pick our mates by.

-100 years isn't the key amount, it's the amount of generations. That's why in most cases we don't see evolution happening ... it's taking place over a long period of time. However if you do a bit of a search you will find thousands of documented examples.

river
18 September 2008 at 10:53

"My answer is to take religion out of RE lessons (or whatever they are now called) and integrate it with other subjects."

As an RE teacher, and by your definition practicing atheist, I have to disagree with this.

Good RE is about using religions to allow young people to explore what it is to be human, surrounded by other humans, the world and the culture in which we live.

RE is split into two parts, learning about religion and learning from religion. This is because you need to learn about something before you can learn anything meaningful from it. Its all set out this way in the curriculum.

You seem to be suggesting instead we just jump straight to learning from religion, in classes taught by non-specialist or even trained staff, without first learning anything about it.

That seems like a very dangerous approach, and completely at odds with the golden aim of RE to allow pupils to discover meaningful things about their own lives and experiences.

mnj.lim
18 September 2008 at 10:59

We should take religion out of the classroom. This includes atheism. Darwin's theory of biological evolution no more disproves the existence of God than evolutionary computing software disproves the existence of Man.

Matt.Leonard
18 September 2008 at 11:04

Dawkins and his fellow new-atheists feel quite happy to dabble in meta-physics whilst waving their science qualifications as giving them authority in that arena. It seems rather hypocritical and over-defensive for them to then demand that education should not include consideration how religious viewpoints and science can or can't be reconciled.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 11:05

Atheism is not a religion, nor is it based on faith.

The fast majority of atheists posit that without any evidence for the existence of a God, there is no cause to believe in that God.

If you run through this yourself, with say Zeus, then surely you must be an atheist yourself ... with respect to Zeus. Atheists hold that position with respect to all Gods.

peter
18 September 2008 at 11:12

To clatz ,

Im sorry but a real beautiful women is such that she pleases the eye to all who see her. Her perfect shape and form is a sight to behold. There is definatly a leval of beauty that with all who cast their enviable eyes opon such a female are only kidding themselves when they make the excuse about beauty being only in the eye of the beholder.

And what im saying is, the leval of that perfection in a human is long over due! if we are to believe in the improvement of our own species

Chris
18 September 2008 at 11:15

Matt, I have to say that if God does exist then it is scientists, like myself, that are studying his work in greatest detail.

So, science qualifications do give us some authority.

Agnostic is the only appropriate standpoint for a scientist.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 11:17

Peter, can you give me an example of one woman today that is attractive to all men? even all men in the world?

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 11:23

Chris, that depends on whether or not a supreme being proves his own existence, which is how religions define 'faith': in which case religious belief can be an appropriate standpoint for a scientist.

Chris
18 September 2008 at 11:25

lorriman, but since there is no evidence for God, or against the existence of God, then agnostic is the way to go.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 11:29

Chris and Lorriman,

I suppose technically I am agnostic. Gods could exist, and I can't rule that out, but I think it is highly unlikely so I consider myself an atheist.

A scientist can obviously be anything they like, but I would have though those that are theistic, must hold views that are counter to those of science, even if it a different field of science to that which they practice.

peter
18 September 2008 at 11:33

To Clatz

Well lets put it this way. there are far more plain Jane's out there and worse than there are even attractive. We have been on this planet a very long time and nature is still churning out the same ratio of only a very small minority of babes that really pleases the eye!!

Chris
18 September 2008 at 11:36

I think I should have said agnostic is the only obvious standpoint for a scientist. Like a default state.

I suppose that comes from the 'typical' characteristics that make a person a scientist. They tend to question things; in my experience, and probably by definition.

So you can have blind faith if you want. Or you can be determined that God doesnt exist. But scientifically you cant do a test that will support either position.

Matt.Leonard
18 September 2008 at 11:56

Chris, isn't the same true of string theory? Ie. you can't do a test that will support either position

Imman
18 September 2008 at 12:05

How can you not believe in God, when you see the daily miracles for all to see like the sun rising the sun setting, the earth rotating.

Think about has a human being ever been able to create a single living cell, they have cloned but not created, not even a fly!!!!!!

Chris
18 September 2008 at 12:17

Matt, I think the same is currently true of string theory. However, there is the possibility that might change in the future, and as the theory is developed. The same cannot be said of God.

Imman, your use of the word miracle is subjective. It only means something to you. For me, the sun should be there every day; if it wasnt there tomorrow, that might be closer to a miracle. Rotation of the Earth is something fully described by Newtons laws, so not a miracle to me. You are right, we cant do everything, or even very much, but that does not imply there is a God.

AntonyGray
18 September 2008 at 12:27

The author is so dismissive about the book of Genesis. It shows he doesn't understand it. The scriptures on the Tree of Knowledge is a wonderful metaphor how we as humans desire to be like God. His dersisory comments show no understanding of what an omnipotent, omniscient, being would be capable of. The author is an example of a feeble narrow minded human whose ego won't allow him to consider anything beyond the limits of his own intellect!

Matt.Leonard
18 September 2008 at 12:27

It seems Chris, that all you have done is to confirm the limit of science's remit. Your view that anything which can neither be proved nor disproved should not be believed is intriguing... should anything be believed until it has been empirically proved? Would it be reasonable on that basis for every father to want a paternity test on their children?

ft79
18 September 2008 at 12:29

Chris,

Agnostic and atheist are two different positions.

Gnosticism concerns knowledge and theism concerns belief.

Most people who call themselves atheists are also agnostics. Even the atheists who say they know there is no god are talking about knowledge in the tentative sense. Which can be updated by evidence or possibly in some cases a convincing argument.

The Wikipedia page on this has a lot of helpful information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

clatz
18 September 2008 at 12:37

Peter,

You are cracking me up :-)

I for one am glad there is both variation in the population, including looks and what people find attractive in others (including same sex).

If there weren't, then perhaps no one would ever find a thin geek like myself sexy. Fortunately someone does!

abdulhye89
18 September 2008 at 12:43

science in no way contradicts Islam, to understand religion, u have to use different approach because for Islam is a universal religion, for every man and woman for every day and age.

if you study Islam and science, you will see that many modern scientifc discoveries have already been mentioned in the quran, which was revealed to an illiterate person more than 1400 years ago. and know that the quran is not intended to be a book of science, zoology, geography etc.

why are some people so interested in tha past, and yet have no concern about their indiviual future. I.E. DEATH.

for EVERYONE OF US, death is a reality. but people do not give concern to this.

how a can a person of no religion claim 'NOTHING' happens after death when he has not been there and nor has anybody been there and come back to tell us. so there is no point showing arrogance of claiming to know what happens beyond death.

Islam has the answers, for if God did exist and produce this AMAZING UNIVERSE, then dont you think he has the answers to all our problems, queries and knowledge of the unseen and life beyond graves.

so we should turn to Islam for Islam is nothing but a confirmation of the ealier and orginal scriptures (i.e. torah, bible)

study Islam for you may discover things that you wont learn from media or present day corrupt muslim people and nations. and i testify there none worthyof worship except All-Mighty Allah alone.

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 12:45

Chris, the religious person is claiming proof, not just evidence. That he can't prove it to you doesn't matter: hypothetically it is reasonable for that person to be a scientist since the non-existence of a God cannot be proven, his faith may be authentic. It doesn't make any difference whether there is any evidence of a god or not.

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 12:48

Clatz:"A scientist ...I would have though those that are theistic, must hold views that are counter to those of science"

Why? So far that is only true of creationists, who are biblical literalists. But most of Christianity has never had a dogma that the Bible must be literally interpreted, and are open to big bangs and everything else.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 12:48

abdulhye89, can you tell me why Islam should be believed over any other religion?

abdulhye89
18 September 2008 at 12:54

science does not have answers to world problem, for science can not solve the moral problems of mankind.

so science and scientist should not claim to have authority of knowledge on the world especially their own views regarding relgion. for religion is not a field of science but a branch which affirms the aim, objective and nature of the relgion itself.

will science protect us from death?

will science solve economic problems?

will sciece solve moral problems and give people hope and vision for a corrupt free world?

will science save us from a hellfire or enter us into paradise?

will science give justice to a man who has murdered and causes chaos and corruption in land?

and will science reward the noble and charitable, good and modest people?

sciecne cannot give these answers and it is only Almighty Allah who has crerated us in perfect form, shaped us from a drop of sperm, and given us knowledge and judgement to see the reality, who can provide us with all the answers to guarantee us a better world and a safe and pleaurable destination in the life after we die.

this world is insignificant compared to a world to come. no one person can find complete satisfaction without religion/islam. this is a promise from Allah himself.

"verily, Onlyin the rememberence of Allah do hearts find rest" (13:28)

we are willing to accept certain ideas of science as a apart of God's creation, but never should we become arrogant to claim it is our own discovery and it is human development that caused this to be.

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 12:55

ft79:"Gnosticism concerns knowledge and theism concerns belief. "

Really not. Stop reading wikipedia, it's melting your brain. Agnostic was coined by TE Huxley, and means "Believing that it is impossible to prove the existence of a god". Wikipedia also has a totally scrambled definition of atheist: it disagrees with all real authorities. Religious belief is usually based on a God's proof of himself: ie. knowledge. The proper definition of 'faith' is not the OED "Belief without knowledge" which is an invention of modern philosophy, and makes religious people look pretty silly. It is actually "Assent to a god's revelation of himself", which is perfectly reasonable, if a god exists.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 12:57

lorriman, I choose the term theist, because they believe God has an active presence in the universe.

A catholic scientist may very well hold evolution to be true, but it is a version of evolution that differs from the scientific version. By that I mean that they hold that at some point in our evolution, we gained a soul. Or that evolution exists, but it is guided by god.

Other examples might be an astrophysicist which believes in the big bang, but also that god parted the red sea, or that praying to god helped ease the suffering of a friend with cancer.

I am trying to say that scientist may very well be a theist, and that has no bearing on how good they are as a scientist. However by definition they believe in some things that run counter to science. A good deal of scientists re-define their God to a point that really they are deists.

abdulhye89
18 September 2008 at 13:02

to Clatz:

first of all, this requires a sufficient understanding of the fundementals of religions/Islam and the course of human history.

second one should compare and analyse their commonalities and differences?

you can see that religions of islam judaism and christianity have some common ground. that is because we essentially are and have been the same religion because those chosen 'prophets' of God i.e. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad etc. all preached the same religion. it is over course of human reliogn and moral corruption did man change, edit and distort the scripture of bible and torah and others with thee exception of Quran. which confirms the previous and ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES.

***TO CLATZ: if you are not a peson of religion, then the notion of prophets and scriptures may seem alien to you. i wont be able to fully explain things from this comment box.... But i would be very happy to answer questions to the best of my ability and knowledge regarding Islam.... my email is abdulhye89@hotmail.co.uk...... dont hesitate to email me for queries, arguments, debate and analysis

peter
18 September 2008 at 13:04

To Catz

I dont care what you think you look like so long as your mother loves you! What i'm saying is that it if more mothers where all basicaly attractive to being beautiful there's a good chance we will all stand a chance of being loved by both mother and girl freind! So called evolution is taking its god damn time i say for the natural good of all of us!!

Matt.Leonard
18 September 2008 at 13:05

abdulhye89: "we essentially are and have been the same religion because those chosen 'prophets' of God i.e. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad etc. all preached the same religion."

But Christianity says that Jesus IS God, not that he's a prophet of God. Are you sure we are all the same religion?

mouran
18 September 2008 at 13:05

we need Faith to feel safer,

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that

one has not been proven formally and cannot prove

formally its "Dogma", means don't use ur brain just

beleive in, so when you became inside Religion Cage, you can use ur mind because you're already inside the cage.

the absurdity is (I want to ask you do U think that God

has low level of thinking to make many religions! or he

wants mankind to kill each others, or he cannot keep one religion for all mankind or or he wants to test semi-humans!!!, even they don't understand themselves today, just imagine Mankind in the past!!! so U think they're more intelligent!!!, somekind intelligence, used low level of Mankind thinking to get their goals, I've plain proofs, every thing in this universe is govern by science.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 13:09

abdulhye89,

Sorry if my comment seemed flippant, but I hope you realise that from my perspective all religions, whether that be those of the Aztecs, Myans, Egyptians, Norse, Hebrews, Greeks ... etc etc are the same. They all make promises/claims without a shred of evidence.

Yours might share the some claims of the Jews and Christians which is great (doesn’t seem to help you guys get along though). But how do they differ from someone telling me I have to follow Zeus? The strength of argument on both sides is the same.

mouran
18 September 2008 at 13:10

Good and Evil R just human being concept, yeah there r good and evil (mankind concept) for reasons one of it (mankind is an intelligent being) no way to live with each others without good and evil, each one will kill the others without good,,,,,or,,,, and without Evil there is no meaning to Good,,,,, no meaning to white if we didn't know black, to make "kind of conservation of species, else every one will kill the others for his interest,,,,"

human beings needs religion because they live in bizarre world so they need something to take it as a core of this life to feel safer.

mouran
18 September 2008 at 13:14

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that one has not been proven formally and cannot prove formally its "Dogma", means don't use ur brain just beleive in, so when you became inside Religion Cage, you can use ur mind because you're already inside the cage.

the absurdity is (I want to ask you do U think that God has low level of thinking to make many religions! or he wants mankind to kill each others, or he cannot keep one religion for all mankind or or he wants to test semi-humans!!!, even they don't understand themselves nowaday, just imagine Mankind in the past!!! so U think they're more intelligent!!!, somekind of intelligence, used Mankind low level of thinking to get their goals, I've plain proofs, every thing in this universe is govern by science.

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 13:16

clatz,

If a god were to exist then science would evidently have to allow for that, but that wouldn't make it any less scientific than before unless one hangs on a narrowed definition of science that excludes any non-material factors. But if one says that science is to understand nature b y measurement and observation (not necessarily), then non-material factors could have an observable effect, no? In other words a total separation between religion and science, as some insist, is not necessarily valid.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 13:21

Peter, that is weirding me out a little.

Studies have shown that males tend to pick partners that look like their mother, and females like those of their father.

That is a little creepy, but I suppose it makes some sense from an evolutionary perspective. You know your parents successfully breed, so the chances are that if you select someone similar to your mother, you partnership will be successful as well.

But I take that sort of study with a pinch of salt. Firstly I think my partner looks nothing like my mum (but I would say that wouldn't I) and I have seen plenty of cases of people bucking the trend.

mouran
18 September 2008 at 13:27

there is essencial thing we've to change our way of looking to Time concept, we need to rethink the curriculum, its very low it will not come up with real scientists, but pseudo-scientists like whom exist now adays, a real scientists make real progress not just saying nonsense.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 13:28

lorrimon.

I completely agree. However there still isn't any evidence of supernatural cause. If something is unknown (for example how an object has mass) then science must always look for a natural explanation (the higgs boson).

To say that God did it, when we can't explain something is to take a short cut, and doesn't serve the human race any good at all.

I do agree that if say God appeared in some form and swapped the order of the planets around before our very eyes then you have say "yup the dude is real". But he still wouldn't factor in anything we know about the universe (so far). He/it has been shown (so far) to be unnecessary.

ermick
18 September 2008 at 13:33

I think if you were to study the history of science and the history of Christianity you'd discover that SCIENCE has changed their story more often. Only 10 years ago they told us an Ice age was coming.. before that the earth was flat.. Scientists once 'proved' that women were simply incubators for the embrio which was completely contained in the male sperm.. I could go on and on. btw - If science is so brilliant, create life.

mouran
18 September 2008 at 13:33

if we're still insist on "we are all the same religion", I've to say "we are all the same stupidity" I think its useless.

ft79
18 September 2008 at 13:35

lorriman,

The page I referenced has multiple variants of agnosticism that are in common use. Huxlely's is 'strong agnosticism' and what I was talking about is 'agnostic atheism.'

The point I was making is that most people who call themselves atheists (agnostic atheists) feel they don't need to add the qualifier agnostic. This is because if you are a sceptical person you have to change you mind with good evidence or argument. There is no special case for a deity.

If the evidence for something is there you must accept it to remain credible.

'"Assent to a god's revelation of himself", which is perfectly reasonable, if a god exists.'

What is your evidence that it ('he'?) does?

clatz
18 September 2008 at 13:44

ermick,

Science is all about finding better answers, so yes some answers will be replaced, it means science is working.

Two second search gives me:

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Chris
18 September 2008 at 13:54

Matt, there should be evidence in science. If you want to believe without evidence, thats fine and really the basis for religion. However, it isnt science. Yes, science is very limited. Thats the way it works.

All this started because of the title of this article. Science and religion are very different things. There should be no argument! There is no need for either discipline to be defensive. Neither contradicts the other. You dont need to consider both at the same time.

kittykat
18 September 2008 at 14:16

From what i remember of my lessons in school (and it was only about 5 years ago) time spent on religion was either to long for some, or too short. Personally I think that there wasn't enough time to fully explore and learn about all the different theorys, but then again even if you were in school till your mid 30's you still would have covered everything. The RE class should (and my experience, didn't really) cover the cross over into the other subjects, with a little nod to the religious beliefs in said subjects, where appropriate. Why? As some one else said, if you wanted to get into the numerous religious views in a science class, there would be no time for science -that doesn't mean you shouldn't go into the subject having at least a basic knowlege of the religious veiw points (and not just the christian one -thats a bit biased in my opinion)

TimF
18 September 2008 at 14:30

Most of us probably regard most scientists as a bunch of geeks that we would rather not talk to at a party - yet when it comes to theories of what happened thousands and millions of years ago, we trust the majority scientific view implicitly. Luckily for the scientists who study the origin of the universe, hardly anyone else can even begin to understand the detail of their reasonings. I think the ground they are on is probably much less solid than most people assume. For example, they "invented" dark matter to make observations fit current theories.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 14:34

The problem with addressing religious aspects in a science class is that the person taking the class may not have any qualification to do so. After all they are there to teach science and can’t be expected to know the worlds religious doctrine.

I think the safest and most practical thing to do is to keep the science class strictly science. If someone asks how science conflicts with their particular religious doctrine then refer them to the head of RE. If a student thinks thunder is the result of Thor smashing his hammer (presumably on a cloud), then who is the teacher to say that it's a load of bollocks? They shouldn't have to. Teach the current scientific understanding; leave the tripe to whoever is responsible for propagating it (by that I don’t mean RE teachers, I mean parents, priests, imams etc).

mouran
18 September 2008 at 14:36

Mr clatz said "I completely agree. However there still isn't any evidence of supernatural cause." I'm sorry to say there is somekind of supernatural, LIFE IS NOT EASY AT ALL, proving this is very easy, you'll get me latter what for I said "I'm sorry", if you want the first hint make search on the web for this issue "scientific miracles in Quran", Quran is the religious book of arab muslim nomads of desert , its source not human nor from God, as I said the concept of good and evil is just mankind concept, intelligent entity behind it, I care about science only science, there scientific hints inside nomads book, not science but hints of science, almost of these scientific hints came to light later 50 yrs ago, science is my life something intelligent behind it's not God concept,,, its long details, inspite of all these every thing is govern by science even these aliens, they are using it in sorcery "alien (predator) will work to hunt muslims (the prey )" its kind of offering, whom behind muslim book promising muslims virgin Girls,,, and wine, there is something intelligent knew the characters of desert's nomads, hunting: the fundamental mechanism of the aliens power is the same of mankind, "what we can't understand doesn't mean has no scientific rules", what some pseudo-scientists saying about order came from disorder, chaos,,,,,, we've to change our concept about time, that time we can change our concept about chaos, random, disorder,,, concepts.

Chris
18 September 2008 at 14:46

Timf, I think dark matter was invented to fit observed fact; an example of the flexibility of science in fact.

mouran
18 September 2008 at 14:57

any way this universe has its rules these rules are our guide, be sure Mankind is the fittest of survive, our intelligence is unlimited but we still don't know how to use it even we still don't understand ourselves, psychology is full of mistakes not only this but in its basics, conscious, subconcious, unconcious mind , perception cognition,,,,,,,,!!!!! shit where is mankind, mankind should be intelligent entity!!!!!!!!!!!

mouran
18 September 2008 at 15:06

not every body has the ability to make undeniable logic even almost mankind unreasonable....

newton, Einsein had special way of thinking, not because he had special Brain but becuase his way of thinking, some scientists should learn from his way, instead of their absurdity, yeah he had some mistakes but who has perfection, we should be reasonable

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 15:28

clatz:"The fact of the matter is that religions can't agree on anything, because it is all completely made up. "

I don't think that's right. Most of them (christianity, islam and hinduism for example) have a personal god of justice, love, mercy, heaven and a hell. Looks like the same god to me. Granted they don't agree on a lot of significant details and some Hindus don't go with the personal bit, and sometimes they fight each other. But the fundamentals are the same. Hinduism is interesting in other ways : a trinity, angels and demons (the demi-gods), and the 2nd manifestation of the supreme being incarnates!!! They even have similar moral codes and ideas about sin to Christianity. As far as I am aware only fanatics and protestants definitively rule people of other faiths out of the possibility of heaven. Zeus, in so far as I am aware, wasn't defined as a supreme being.

As for evidence of a god: the number of people claiming to know such a being personally is definately evidence. Obviously it isn't any more than that, nor quantifiable, nor scientific. But it is evidence.

On the science front: the probabilities against the constants of the universe being right for any kind of order in the universe are so enourmous that it has inspired the search for a multi-universe theorem (Hawkings and others). Of course, there is another possibility....

I'm not a betting man, but if I were I wouldn't be betting on Dawkins. His infinitesimal likelyhood of a god isn't entirely accurate.

TimF
18 September 2008 at 15:47

Chris - so if observation doesn't fit theory, we add to theory without once questioning that the theory might be wrong? We should just admit that we have an unsolved problem rather than inventing something and pretending that we have solved it. Such pretense can unfortunately be rewarded with large amounts of government funding. People were looking for dark matter 20 years ago (with their funding) and STILL haven't found it!

Concerning flexibility - it was the "inflexibility" of the scientific community that effectively excommunicated Prof Michael Reiss.

Chris
18 September 2008 at 16:10

Yes, you make up an idea that fits observation; in this example dark matter. The science then takes over in that you have to do a test of your hypothesis. Thats called an experiment; it is the most fundamental aspect of science and why your statement about not questioning is incorrect.

Absolutely nothing is science if it doesnt agree with observation. And unexplained observation generates ideas (hypotheses) that are then tested by the scientific method; indeed this is where new science comes from. There is no admission of being wrong, just as there is no claim of being right. Its just the scientific method.

It is the same scientific method that gave you the computer you are using to send your comments.

mouran
18 September 2008 at 16:12

ask whom want to addressing religious aspects in a science class, to prove that the scource of this religions is their alleged God is the secure source.

those semi-humans "religious people" will not feel safe unlese attract others to their religion to feel safer and get more trust, when they go to the temple alone this thing will shake their faith, no one will waste his life nor time just only to accept you into their alleged paradise, be aware of dirty nomads.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 16:18

lorriman,

Seriously? there are thousands of god, hundreds of religions. Even within Christianity there is a multitude of different interpretations.

You could sieve for the bits that agree I suppose, but you wouldn't be left with much at all. Maybe something like the golden rule, but isn't that simply proof that we are human? The simplest explanation for the variation is that a geographically separated man has made up religions.

Or Gods have a perverse sense of humour.

rcoles
18 September 2008 at 16:23

To abdulhye89

To answer some of questions -

> will science protect us from death?

Yes, Science is already saving millions from death, look at the gloabl trends of life expectancy over the past 100 years, this is principally due to advancement of the econonmy and healthcare that has been made possible through the application of the scientific method.

>will science solve economic problems?

Yes, take for example the current crisis on wall street, this will not be a repeat of the great depression we saw at the beginning of the last century, the relatively "young" science of economics, will guide the actions that are taken and a disaster will be averted.

>will science solve moral problems and give people hope and vision for a corrupt free world?

To some extend, science is beginning to answer some of the questions about how morals come about ( and why by and large even atheists share similar ones ), by answering those questions, it should be possible to reduce the corruption in the world.. but a corruption free world is probably a impossibility.

>will science save us from a hellfire or enter us into paradise?

I'm not exactly sure what hellfire and Paradise are, but if you mean will science improve life for the all of mankind and avert disasters, then the answers is once again yes.

> will science give justice to a man who has murdered and causes chaos and corruption in land?

Justice is an evolved concept that we humans have to enable us to function effectively in larger societies.

Through the scientific study of the functioning of societies and the psychological issues of individuals involved , it should be possible to revise the justice seem so that it delivers the greatest benefit to the society as a whole, within in a free society.

Can you demonstrate how religion or your god, can answer yes to even one of those questions ?

steve
18 September 2008 at 17:05

the holy spirt is hovering and waiting to be asked to be used the victorians where to much into pagenisem thats why theres to meany arguments now ,for the kingdom of heaven is within you and if you understand these sayings you will never taste death

ADS
18 September 2008 at 17:46

Who thinks Clatz is weird? Wonder what he looks like? Post a picture of yourself . For it is pointless of you judging that Woman has not evolved into perfect looking creatures when you are hiding behind your computer spouting nonsense.

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 17:49

Klatz:"Seriously? there are thousands of god, hundreds of religions. Even within Christianity there is a multitude of different interpretations. "

Not on the fundamentals. Almost all are agreed. The biggest departure, currently, is that many Christians are questioning the existence of a hell. That has serious implications for the nature of a god, in terms of justice, in which case you get your way. But otherwise most of your hundreds of Gods are effectively the same God.

The proof of the pudding is the multi-faith prayer meetings at Assisi called by John Paul II, twice. He even said that Islam worships the same God, and the next Pope repeated it (it was in the news).

clatz
18 September 2008 at 18:00

ADS I don't really know what to say to that.

lorriman,

I think you are not considering all religions past a present. The gods of the Egyptians are no less valid than that of the Abrahamic faiths. They certainly worshiped them for longer!

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 18:29

clatz: well, yes, as with the Egyptians not all religions have a supreme being - some people just want to worship trees, after all - and as such are effectively non-theist in the usual philosophical sense, but those that do on the whole appear to mostly be talking of a being with the same fundamental attributes. And so the many-gods refutation of religion is a half-truth at best. And you know what Tennyson said of that "There is no blacker lie than the half-truth".

Interestingly even the Egyptians had a Pharoah who insisted on a supreme being, and tried to abolish the old gods. It didn't last.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 19:20

I do remember hearing something about that. Bad day at the office, we all have them :-)

I agree that monotheistic religions can believe in a being with the same fundamental attributes. However as you have mentioned there are polytheistic and other forms of religions which don't.

Monotheists might agree what God is like, but after that they pretty much don't agree on anything. I still stand by that.

I am don't care what people believe to be honest, my point is that religion can't have any place in the science classroom.

It's really the easiest solution.

We could flip it around, let's have local religious leaders come into RE class and explain how their beliefs match/disagree with science and then give their reasons. I wasn't lucky enough to have RE when I was at school but I do think it would be a good to learn other perspectives ... just not in the science class!

lorriman
18 September 2008 at 19:46

clatz: until a supreme being is disproved, which is supposedly impossible (Dawkins), there is the possibility of the natural world being influenced by such. That being the case completely closing science to that possibility is going to make progress very much slower than it should be, since much of what we observe will not be fully comprehensible. Since there is evidence in the form of people claiming to have personal contact, of such a being, albeit not of the scientific kind, it is highly dubious that religion should be excluded from science, let alone the science classroom.

clatz
18 September 2008 at 19:50

lorriman, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

But I have to say it's been a pleasure chewing these ideas over with you.

TimF
18 September 2008 at 20:40

Chris - I agree with you basically about how science works - that's cool. In the old days science used to be done by experiment, but lot of physics these days is becoming so obscure and hard to prove or disprove that it is debatable whether it is science or conjecture (hence the term "theoretical physics"). Someone has an idea that is either unusual or appealing in some way which can lead to a lot of interest, debate and, most importantly funding. Falsification of results to gain more funding is all too common (in my opinion). Billions of pounds are spent on ever more weird experiments (like the Large Hadron Collider) where there is a whole lot of initial excitement but in the end there is very little to show for it. Let's hope the LHC really does give us something, but I'm not holding my breath!

There was certainly a little science that led to the development of my computer, but there was also a whole lot of engineering. Before we get too carried away about science, we have to remember that many of the biggest breakthroughs come not by our abilty to figure things out, by accident or by good old trial and error.

Chris
18 September 2008 at 21:31

TimF, you are certainly correct about some research in science. Unfortunately it is necessary to 'dramatise' or make 'sexy' your ideas in order to get funding. One really god way to get funding is to get the public interested; doesnt really have to be of scientific merit. However, many of us are trained on such projects, and providing you use a scientific approach, your training is valid.

As for falsification, I hope not. Poor science yes, I see it every day; the worst being poor science performed on animals, in my opinion.

As for proving things, science generally strides to get evidence for a theory/model being valid within a given restricted set of conditions. Right and wrong in science are not very important. For example Einstein showed Newtons laws to be incomplete, but they are valid under many everyday circumstances and scientist rightly use them all the time. Of course QM means that Einstein is incomplete, but his ideas are also used correctly. Its just a mater of validity, rather than right/wrong.

As for science/engineering. Well science is the method used to understand and make the fundamentals. Engineering is the application of that science.

Trial and error doesnt play a part in science. Although discoveries can be made by accident, they have to be repeatable under controled conditions to become science.

As for the LHC, as a minimum we will get LHC2: the new 20bn pound experiment! That will be very useful!

TimF
18 September 2008 at 23:32

Some more general thoughts: the investigations of scientists have revealed some amazing things about the world and the universe. Some people look at these things and think "Wow, maybe there is an amazing God who made all this." In that sense, science declares the POSSIBILITY of the existance of a great creator. I can't see the problem in teaching this in schools unless, for some reason, we are very scared of that possibility. BUT science will never prove or disprove the existance of God for a very important reason. If science were to prove the existance of God, then the university student would have an unfair advantage over the poor starving child in Zimbabwe. In fact God wants to give the advantage to the poor, which is why there is more faith amongst them than there is amongst us rich arrogant westerners. Sorry, but God deliberately hides away from those who think they know it all and those who would hate him if they met him!

Allie
19 September 2008 at 01:45

i agree with peter! why is it that we haven't seen apes mature into humans over the last 100 years? this is junk! darwins theory doesn't make sense nor is it real! God created the world in 7 days and I believe that He is the only way to Heaven and thats a lot to belive for a 14 year old but i believe it!

James 2:22-24

Alex
19 September 2008 at 08:05

Peter says "It (ID) is a theory".

But that's the point, it isn't a theory. Not any more than Flat Earth or Cargo Cults.

Not any more than my "theory" that John Terry is a better centre back than Rio Ferdinand... actually I think my "theory" is more soundly based, with more peer review and better solid evidence to back it up, than ID wil ever be. Should we teach that in science class?

Peter has fallen for the ruse of the creationists within the Discovery Institute to "teach the controversy". Because, since there is no Theory of ID to teach, the Discovery Institute has decided that to get attention, they should "teach the controversy".

Of course there is no real controversy either: scientists are overwhelmimngly in favour of the ToE, and against ID (when they've heard of it).

But a "controversy" can be created by getting enough press attention, and getting a few confused journalists, like Peter and Melanie Phillips, to say: what's the problem? What's the controvery? Then they can get their lies broadcast and discusssed and maybe legitimised in the eyes of the public, if not real scientists.

In a democracy it's the opinion of the public that counts..... now they are just a step away from getting their religious "theory" taught in public (real public I mean) schools... Result!

Normally sensible journalists like Peter Wilby should go no nearer to these people than an extra-long barge pole, otherwise he becomes their stooge.

lorriman
19 September 2008 at 09:12

Clatz: I suppose we shall have to disagree. Ah well. By the way I'm not really arguing for teaching religion in the classroom: just that everything is interconnected, and if religion is authentic, which is possible, then it may be a factor worthy of a mention. Even art and music, for example, have their place alongside science, not mutually exclusive to it. Philosophy precedes science, and religion potentially precedes philosophy.

lorriman
19 September 2008 at 09:24

er... I meant "...religion in the science classroom"

clatz
19 September 2008 at 09:25

Allie,

You are welcome to your beliefs, and actually it's a good question to have. I think Peters ones were good questions as well. But as I tried (and it would seem failed) to show, was that there are Scientific answers for them.

One thing to get your head around is time. 100 years is not enough time (generations) to see significant physical changes in an animal that lives around 40 years and breeds from the age of 8. If you think about humans, there have been changes we have seen over the course on a hundred years, not in how people look, but in how we can combat some disease. Did you know some people are resistant to HIV? In areas where HIV infection is rife, these people will be the ones that are able to reproduce more often and support their offspring, therefore passing on their HIV resistant genes. The amazing thing is that this is a very recent discovery, it’s happening now!

Perhaps you could write all of your questions down on a piece of paper and then see what answers Science has for them, and importantly what evidence Science has to back itself up.

Here are some interesting articles to get you started:

Evolution in lab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_exp...

Rapid Evolution: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.ht...

Recent Evolution in Humans: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_...

ADS
19 September 2008 at 10:39

TimF-You are a wise young,man. What exactly are the scientists afraid of? Will the 'proof' of a Great creator perhaps make them null and void? Scientists view religion and foremost the idea that there is perhaps a creator/a great mind, greater than theirs hard to fathom. Nor do they wish to seek him but only to ridicule and disprove. It only leads me to believe that they wish to be known and treated as 'gods'. They provide 'answers' that people subscribe to and that to me is the true reason they FEAR the notion that creationism be discussed or taught in science class.

clatz
19 September 2008 at 10:53

"sigh"

Chris
19 September 2008 at 11:22

ADS, please let me reassure you that science will never be afraid of God. The reason being that science is independent of God. Even if we knew God existed, science would continue the same; it is just our method to model nature.

We, as scientists, are unable to invoke God in our models. Lets try. I have a theory about the motion of planets about the sun: God powers the motion. Now, lets use that theory: what happens next? Answer: God decides.

You see I didnt get any answers. Using Newtons laws I can get the answers. So you see, with or without God science continues as it always has.

Science is not about reality. It does not tell us about reality. God may do everything and we will never know it. But, using science, we can model that reality and make quantitative predictions that are useful. Thats it. The end. Nothing more. No threat to religion. Independent of God.

Science is about modeling reality, not explaining it, whether God did it or not.

lorriman
19 September 2008 at 12:48

Chris, that really doesn't work when dealing with intelligence. If astronomers completely discount intelligent aliens messing with planets and blackholes then some of their observation will end up seriously hindering their endeavours. And you don't need a god for that. Many scientific disciplines need to factor in the actions of intelligent beings. Evolution, for example, is currently having a quite anomalous time with us humans due to modern science.

Anthropologists from a far off future might end up thoroughly confused if there were not enough evidence of technology, which is conceivable if unlikely, assuming another long dark age.

It may have even already happened.

Add a god, as yet not disproven, to the mix and you are asking for very slow scientific progress, unnecessarily. For example the probability of life beginning is supposedly very slight even given 14 billion years and a huge universe. And so Hawkings and others are searching for a multi-universe theorem as it is the most reasonable scientific possibility (among many non scientific possibilities, ie that this is a Matrix-like simulation). They could be wasting their time, and a lot of time it is, and all due to their presumption that there are only scientific explanations. Of course they are not qualified to research other possibilities, but nevertheless...

Chris
19 September 2008 at 13:09

lorriman, if you search for scientific explaination then thats all you can possibly get.

If you want a different explanation then you have to look elsewhere. Thats a perfectly valid thing to do, it just isnt science thats all.

Matt.Leonard
19 September 2008 at 15:37

I have found myself coming more round to your view Chris, that religion should be kept out of the science classroom. However, this is unfortunately used by some as a justification for instead teaching materialism, an equally metaphysical viewpoint. You are wrong, Clatz, to claim that God has been shown to be unnecessary. In scientific terms he has been shown to be neither necessary or unnecessary. Science, has reached levels of abstraction when viewing issues of existence (both at the upper level with the universe, and at the lower level with fundamental particles and wrapped-up dimensions) beyond which it at least seems likely that much further observation and accurate conception from a human standpoint is possible. Yet there is plenty of reason to speculate that there are further levels of reality, which science can legitimately speculate on but not legitimately pronounce on. Now considering that the orthodox (ie. non-deistic) Christian world-view is that God is necessary because he upholds the very existence of the universe and the laws of physics by which it runs, there doesn't seem any basis for a claim that God is unnecessary on the basis of science.

Matt.Leonard
19 September 2008 at 15:38

Sorry, when I said 'beyond which it at least seems likely' I actually meant 'beyond which it at least seems unlikely'

lorriman
19 September 2008 at 15:53

Chris, science doesn't exist in such a vacuum as you you seem to be suggesting. If a non-material force could exert itself on material things then the sensible (and non-presumptuous) scientist keeps that in mind, which is the mental equivalent of mentioning it in the science classroom.

clatz
19 September 2008 at 17:33

Matt.Leonard I am not wrong.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. It explains how we got here, and how it is possible that something complex – like humans can come about through a gradual process of natural selection. If you hold that theory to be true then you must acknowledge that God's influence is not required. That is what I was referring to.

As far as I am aware I have said nothing, absolutely nothing about whether God is required to explain anything else. If I have, well then please consider this a correction. I can't know that God is not required of course because I don't know everything, nor does Science. However Science does not fill the gaps in knowledge with "God did it". It doesn't get you or I anywhere.

Chris
19 September 2008 at 17:40

lorriman, science is done under controled conditions. So you are wrong.

If there is unpredictable influence from external source, the observation is not repeatable, and therefore no new science results.

Remember always that nothing is scientifically accepted without being able to repeat it under controled conditions.

Of course there are cosmological observations that might never be observed again. They might imply some new science, but that will always be conditional on the assumptions, no external influence for example, hold.

You are clearly not a scientist. You have your ideas, but they fall beyond the method of science.

clatz
19 September 2008 at 17:45

Matt I think I found what you were referring to:

"lorrimon.

I completely agree. However there still isn't any evidence of supernatural cause. If something is unknown (for example how an object has mass) then science must always look for a natural explanation (the higgs boson).

To say that God did it, when we can't explain something is to take a short cut, and doesn't serve the human race any good at all.

I do agree that if say God appeared in some form and swapped the order of the planets around before our very eyes then you have say "yup the dude is real". But he still wouldn't factor in anything we know about the universe (so far). He/it has been shown (so far) to be unnecessary."

Did you catch the SO FAR bit?

I think you owe me an apology.

abdulhye89
19 September 2008 at 18:52

Hello, can some one please answer me these questions because i think it might clarify alot of answers.

If there is no God and no judgement, no Heaven and Hell. Then what is our purpose in this world, What are we trying to achieve.

If its money, wealth, houses, cars, nations, civilisations, then dont you know we will all one day leave this behind. so for what purpose are we here. if we gonna die one day or another, one way or another, then why all this grief. why is life so precious.

nothing except a higher prupose (i.e. religion)gives real meaning to our lives.

THERE IS NO SENSE OF JUSTICE OR MEANING WITHOUT RELIGION, GOD AND jUDGEMENT.

a person will kill many people and before authorites catch him, he can kill himself. how will this person recieve justice. that is why Islam says that God will restore full justice on a day which we know as Judgement Day. where all humans beings will be recompensed for their deeds, with punishment or pleasure.

a God-consious man who tries to please god will never do anything like this, he will always be aware that God is ever watchful over him and every deed he does he will be repayed. this is why God-consioud people will lead a life with better morals etc.

WHAT WILL STOP A THIEF FROM STEALING, FOR IN THE EYES OF A THIEF, HE WILL BENEFIT FROM THE POSSESION THAT HE SETALS.

you really need to think about this. why are we in this world, what gives meaning to our lives. we will leave all our families, wealth and posessions when we dies and all we take to the life after death is ONLY our deeds.

Somebody tell me if he has knowledge, what will happen when we pass away. if you say nothing, then that will be an incentive for a murderer, criminal to commit as mine crimes for he knows that there is no real consequences.

he can escape the authorities, police and judge but in the eyes of Islam, God is ever watchful over him and know fully well what he conceals.

Science will not answer this question, nor will one find real meaning or purpose in ones life if he ONLY considers science. please research Islam

www.islam-guide.com

http://www.ymsite.com/books/tui/tui.html

abdulhye89
19 September 2008 at 19:00

*****TO Matt.Leonard *****

With regards to your reply. I can say that the Islam perspective on religion in relation to Judaism and Christianity is this:

- God created human beings unique to other creatures by giving them freedom of thought, will and judgement - with the condition that he uses these faculties of reason to recognize his real God/Lord/Master

- So initially man was set on the right path with Adam having been taught directly from God on how to live his life on earth.

- Over the course of human history and with the aide of Satan (this is different story), man had deviated from the path of truth which is based on the Oneness of God, and all forms of moral corruption became rampant

- however God did not let the later generations live in utter disregard of the truth, so he sent qualified chosen individuals to be his prophets/messengers to bring the people back onto the path of truth (i.e. that none is their Lord except Allah and only He should be worshiped), and these individuals include Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Soleman, Joseph, Jacob etc. and including Jesus (Peace be upon them all). They all preached the same message that none should be worshiped except the One True God

- Of course, the prophets did their job but later generations deviated from their call and thus became separate religions not consistent to the message and mission of the prophets.

- Moses came and the followers of the religion out of their own faults introduced innovations, edited the scriptures and distorted the meanings, they thus branched out and became known as Jews (for in essence the prophets all preached Islam which stands on the basis of the Oneness of God)

- Jesus came to preach the message of earlier prophets and to bring the Jews back onto the true path, but like the Jews, later generation of Jesus followers elevated this Prophet of God to be God himself and thus they branched out and became known as the Christians. Even their scriptures were changed and distorted, yet no originality of the scriptures remain for us to abide by

- Muhammad (Peace be upon him) came as the last and final Prophet to preach the message of all of earlier Prophets and to bring the Jews and Christians as well as polytheists to the worship of the One True God, and he did. God also revealed to him the Quran which is essentially a confirmation of all earlier original scriptures including bible and torah, for they have been subjected to change and distortion by people.

- Hence you will not find any consistent torahs or bibles if you pick any two from any two parts of the world. Whereas Allah has promised for himself that the Quran will not change or be edited and you will not find any 2 Quran from any two part of the world which is inconsistent. I challenge you that.

As for the current problems of the world, the western world has seen decline in religion because the nature of their belief which is Not based on truth has not been able to provide for all aspects of Life. The current situation in middle east and Muslim world is not good but that is not because of religion but because of a lack of religion. Many Muslims have left the ideals of Islam and do not practise it. Hence the problems have arisen.

- As for other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, they are made up religions with no sound basis, based on conjecture and idle fancies.

Original Christianity and Judaism is Islam itself, whatever you want to call it. But Christianity and Judaism as we know it today is not consistent with Islam because they have branched out from the call of truth by the Prophets themselves. Hope that answers your questions.

*********So Jesus (peace be upon him) is not the son of God, but only a highly esteemed prophet who along with other prophets including Muhammad did in their time preach the same message..

******* TO clatz **********

I would disagree with your point that religion make false promises. I would suggest that you study the Quran and the biography of the life of Muhammad. Like I said, the Quran is neither a science nor economic book. So you have to approach it differently from a science book, and lose the biases that you may have. Economists will always look at a situation form an economic point of view, a businessman will always look at a situation from a business and profit point of view. So it will help if you look from a neutral point of view.

Any who.... the Quran is the greatest miracle and evidence of Gods existent, if you read my first comment I would have mentioned one or two, but God talks about the big bang more than 1400 years ago in the Quran and it was only discovered by modern scientist with the latest technology no more than a century ago. God talks more than 1400 years ago about the mountains acts like a peg on the earth to keep earth firm. And this was only known by modern geography's using hi tech technologies not so long ago. God talks more than 1400 years ago about as you rise up in the atmosphere, you lose oxygen and find difficult to breathe, and this was known not so long ago with aeroplane as opposed to somebody who never reached 50 meters of ground.

Secondly, there would only ever be one true religion and all others must be false, hence you cannot put all religions in one basket. Islam has arguments for atheists, believers in other religions including polytheists etc.

I cannot explain everything to you, but I will not mind if you would like to discuss in further detail or from a root level. Please email me if you have any questions or anything on abdulhye89”hotmail.co.uk

***** TO rcoles *************

First of all you did not even prove any of my answers, and left me 100% unconvinced of your argument

Tell me, has science REALLY protected us from death. EVERY SINGLE living creature that has ever set foot on this earth has or will leave the earth. Where is Hitler, Kennedy, Mussolini, Gandhi, queen Victoria I, Henry 8th, and Tutankhamen ......... the list will go on. Every single person in this world today will also meet the same fate, DEATH.

Science will not solve economics problems, for there will always be poor people, unemployed etc.

It will not solve moral problems and never fulfil justice. Nor will science ever make this land perfect, for every single thing in form declines. Trees, humans etc.

I cant answer every question about Islam, nor can I present a full view of Islam. All I can say observe the heavens and the earth, observe living creatures including humans, observe morals and conduct, observe life and you will discover answers that even science cannot answer. If you have any questions, please email me on ***abdulhye89@hotmail.co.uk

clatz
19 September 2008 at 19:26

abdulhye89,

Now your at it! Where did I say religion makes false promises?

We have to remember that this thread is about whether religious perspectives should be headed in a Science class and I think the very conversation we had is ample evidence that it shouldn't.

What is our purpose? I can't speak for anyone else, and I am no philosopher - so my answer is bound to be pants, but here goes.

My purpose is to love my wife, my family and my friends. I have a responsibility to them and society to be good and try to live life well (work hard be faithful etc). I also try to live by the golden rule.

In your example I think that if justice is not served in this life (by the law) then this person will be judged by those that know him, and his deeds.

The flip side of that is that I hope I will live on after death, but through those that know me and my deeds ... so far nothing of note on that front I am afraid.

Sorry for the cheesiness, but hey, I warned you.

Alex
20 September 2008 at 01:32

"It is impossible to understand history, music, art, architecture and literature without understanding the role of religion. The same applies to science, which proceeded for centuries within an intellectual framework based on faith."

It is far from impossible to understand science without religion. Sure, religious beliefs motivated a lot of scientists (and some even today), but you do not need religion to understand it. It's not like history where you learn about historical events and what caused them (religion in some cases), or the others that you mention where understanding the subject requires you to understand the motivations of the past experts of them. Science is not an "art", it is a science. You don't need religion to understand science. The need of religion to be taught can only be for those who are scholars of the "history of science". Those types of people need to know the motivations of our scientist ancestors. Not those just wishing to learn the science. Hell, alchemy was a motivator for Issac Newton: should we teach alchemy in physics classrooms then?

abdulhye89
20 September 2008 at 01:38

to Clatz:

sorry if i sounded like i was attacking other views, i wasnt and i didnt mean to if i did. i respect other peoples view on religion, Islam and life. i am also not trying to start a vicious arguement and sorry if i did seem like it. i hope u forgive me.

i was simply given my view on the world from a religious aspect, as you have given your views from a "scientific aspect".

in my opinion i dont think religion is a small issue, and i think scientists and educational authroities should not neglect religion in science class - for religion is not inconsistent with science, for Islam ( i can speak of ) supports science. i also do not agree with some notions of science (or exagerated versions of it).

as a believer in islam, i have come accross many verses from the Quran (which as we know came from a Divine book revealed more than 1400 years ago, and to an illiterate person) which shows and provides key important evidence on creation, on geography, zoology, physics etc. all which has been discovered recently by proffesionals using hi-tech equipment.

hence religion should be part and parcel of education.

----i take the point back where i said that you claimed 'religion made false promise' - sorry, i misintepreted it.

tace care!

abdulhye89
20 September 2008 at 01:45

to Clatz:

one more point on a personal level, and i would appreciate your opinion. you said :

- - "In your example I think that if justice is not served in this life (by the law) then this person will be judged by those that know him, and his deeds. "

in what ways will other peoples judgement affect a criminal when he is in his grave? we can remember a person as being bad, but how can we assume that this will affect him. if he is not physically being tried for his crimes physically (i.e. in his grave) surely he has gotten away with???? so justice cant be served if we consider no God. so what is the answer, if religion is not considered?

Alex
20 September 2008 at 01:45

abdulhye89, no science doesn't solve moral problems (well technically it does adhere to good morals anyway), nor has it cured death. However, neither has any religion cured death (or even attempted) or promote good morals. In all the holy books there are many many contradictions over morality (first it's against murder, then its for killing people they find immoral), and of course religon has a messed up belief system overall. Like the 4000BC thing.

But science does solve economical problems. Firstly, ECONOMICS is a science. Secondly, look at the modern world. The World Wide Web (the thing that allows you to comment on this article for goodness sake!), the television, computers, electricity, energy technologies, food technologies. Evolution itself is providing answers to medical problems. So don't ever say that science has done nothing for us. Religion hasn't and couldn't give us what we have today. Science may not have cured death, but it hasn't not cured death (who knows one day?), and it has prolonged life. Germ theory, transplants, vaccines, etc etc. Before science, people prayed to God to save them from their illnesses. God never answered, and people died in their thirties.

lorriman
20 September 2008 at 02:41

Chris"lorriman, science is done under controled conditions. So you are wrong."

Sorry about that, prof. Six of the best? Let's say our aliens are meddling in the same fashion with all black holes: your presumption in conjunctuion with your method, will stop us discovering the secrets of the universe. Let's take a real example: an ordered universe is improbable, therefore there must be infinite universes each with different constants. This is what your fellow presumers think (Hawkings etc).

A real science doesn't meddle with presumption.

Douglas Chalmers
20 September 2008 at 07:16

You actually don't have an answer, Peter Wilby, because you think that religion is something to do with "time-honoured rituals" celebrating/commemorating "births, marriages and deaths" alone. That actually has little to do with why Christianity or any other religion was founded.

All religion except for Buddhism and Confucianism specifically believe in a Creation and a Creator deity and that is their core ideology and they exist primarily to propound that. Now, since the acceptance of "the big bang" as the true origin of the Universe, science is also a propounder of Creationism. That, of course, has nothing to do with evolution here on Earth or elsewhere in the cosmos.

Obviously, there must also be an Original Cause behind the advent of the big bang which has also been described as more likely to be a kind of hum than an actual explosive bang. Thus, "in the beginning there was the Word (of God)...". That then, is far beyond any concept of a patriarchal male deity as (a) deities are human constructs, and (b) male and female only came into existence after the big bang or the Original creation.

Buddhism and Confucianism also have well-defined and ancient "time-honoured rituals" celebrating/commemorating "births, marriages and deaths" but, even for them, that is neither the sole reason they exist nor their only function. As with the Abrahamic religions, they had their Enlightened founders who set out a path which would lead their followers towards their own enlightenement.

That people curtailed their quest for enlightenment and became bound by blind worship and craven fear and begging instead of becoming masters of their own destiny is another story. But the same can apply to a blind science the advocates of which are not necessarily practitioners of science themselves but seek to dictate what may be regarded as science and even how people should think about scientific discovery of the Great Reality formerly know in a more limited sense as God's Creation.

Thus TRUTH is ever restricted or diminished by the limitations of our own thinking. So utterly convenient then to simply state that teaching what is "known", true or otherwise, is "consistent" rather than expedient for the purposes of one's own comfortable denials and refusals. Searching for Reality is usually found to be uncomfortable and leads us on many strange and potentially frightening paths. We either accept that as our future or find ourselves compelled to return to a more basis mentality.

clatz
20 September 2008 at 09:02

abdulhye89, don't worry I you have not offended me :-)

Taking my Science hat off for a second ....

I was trying to answer your question (let me paraphrase it) : If there is no God, what is the purpose of living, why should we be good?

I stated that in my world view the bad man that dies without experiencing justice in this world, may not experience justice in the next (I have no evidence that there is a next world, so I don't know).

However I tried to show why I believe we should be good anyway. I don't go out and murder, steal and rape, even though I think it is unlikely that a God or Gods exist. I tried to show you why that is the case.

Our views on the purpose of life might disagree, but I guess the good thing is that we probably hold many similar values (besides the value of a cold pint on a hot summers day :-) ).

Science hat back on ....

But as I say it's not really relevant to this conversation. As I have said it should be kept out of the Science classroom. There are many good reasons why, not in the least is that it is unfair to expect a Science teacher to have to discuss religion or anything else that isn't Science.

How would you expect a Science teacher to field questions on Lay lines, Crystal Healing, Horoscopes, talking snakes, UFO's, unicorns etc etc without the possibility of offending someone, or even with authority?

It's complicated, unfair and unnecessary.

Chris
20 September 2008 at 11:16

lorriman, what?

The multiverse problem is a 'public interest' idea that comes from Quantum mechanics. It is not testable, and so is not useful in science.

Yes, 'medling' could stop us discovering. For example those with a low IQ that destry field of GM crops stop the science. But then science as a method does not fail; the failure is stupidity. Any unpredicatable external interaction will stop the science, that much is too obvious even to say.

Perhaps you simply dont understand things so you resort to truisms. Why dont you just ignore science until you understand it. I think your life would be hard though because you would need to turn out your electric lights, sell your car, turn off the computer, never watch TV, stop buying from shops where goods are delivered by modern trnsport, avoid modern farming methods, stop using modern medicine........

Martin A
20 September 2008 at 11:21

These fascinating issues are explored in a new collection of essays, The Edge of Reason? Science and Religion in Modern Society (Continuum, 2008), which gives voice to social scientists, natural scientists and theologians whose experience encourages a new, more forgiving dialogue on this crucial societal issue, even as they still disagree on metaphysical issues.  The diverse group of authors include prominent figures such as Louis Wolpert, Ian Reader, John Hedley Brooke, David Sloan Wilson, Michael Shermer, Mary Midgley, and Steven Mithen.

ADS
20 September 2008 at 11:46

To Chris. A cool, calm response with humility. Are you sure your a scientist:) ? I just really believe the knee jerk reaction and furore that the majority of the science fraternity incited against Dr Reiss was uncalled for but extremely predictable. When I read many of the quotes from major figure heads in science, clearly in anger of any such debate . It made me just think that even though scientists believe they have answers they, for me and obviously countless others are just not enough. Where God provides comfort and rest for his people. In not just their hour of need but as part of their daily lives. Science merely is a cold instrument in opposition of what I and many believe is the source and power of the creation of the world. Please, if you have some time google Dr David Walker (Oxford Bible Church) or even contact him for probing. An academic and man of God. Very interesting how he ties his analytical with spiritual.

Chris
20 September 2008 at 12:57

ADS, science does not opose religion, although some scientists might; not me,

The drama over Reiss is probably more a reflection of the way science and religion clash than anything he did. There is no need for any of this clash, but for some reason both 'sides' get defensive.

I would just say again that there is no room in science for religion. But the same is true of football, there is no room in science for football. Of course, if the scientist wanted, he/she could play footbal after a hard day at the lab. But when in the lab you do science, not ball kicking.

So football, religion, science: three different things.

Does anyone think there should be an article titled science and football do mix? That makes as much sense as an article about science and religion do mix In my mind.

Douglas Chalmers
20 September 2008 at 14:04

# nawawimohamad - 18 Sept: "Wait until the LHC provides us with some valuable data, then there will be something..... to discuss..."

Looks rather like "keeping their fingers crossed" underground in Switzerland didn't work after all, nawawimohamad. It broke down and is offline for two months.

Or did it? Its hardly likely that a magnet malfunctioned at this stage and caused a ton of liquid helium to leak. Maybe the Large Hadron Collider actually did "create" something itself which caused some damage to the magnets, etc???

In that case, they have succeeded in their experiment but have perhaps been unable to record what happened. Was it a mini black hole - or a strangelet - or what???

TimF
20 September 2008 at 15:05

Has anyone checked out what the creationists are saying about the scientific evidence for what they believe? All I hear is the constant mantra "science and religion don't mix" and "creation has no basis in science". These phrases seem to come mostly from Brits who seem to want to constantly reinforce their position by saying such things often enough and loud enough. It seems the creationists are saying there is evidence that the earth, the sun and the whole universe is much younger than we thought. Has anyone read this stuff or have we all rejected it out of hand? (Try Googling "evidence for creation" for example!)

Jim991
22 September 2008 at 04:56

A theory is not speculation. It is an explanation of a phenomenon based on evidence and observation. So all creationists who say that "evolution is still just a theory" are demonstrating a lack of understanding regarding what a theory is in science.

Religious explanations of how the universe came into existence are thus not genuine theories, because they are not derived from evidence. A scientist formulates his theory after observing the evidence while a religious believer simply tries to find evidence to back up his religion's creation story. Intelligent design idiots employ what is effectively the scientific method in reverse in their "creation science".

Matt.Leonard
22 September 2008 at 12:56

Clatz: "He/it has been shown (so far) to be unnecessary."

I don't owe you an apology, because I was alerting you to the fact that this is a nonsensical statement. There's a fairly big difference between science so far having neither shown something to be necessary or unnecessary (which I expect will always be the case in relation to God), and science having so far shown something to be unnecessary. Because science hasn't shown something to be necessary, doesn't for a moment mean that science has shown it to be 'so far' unnecessary. Science wouldn't have explained very much if that had been a common attitude.

clatz
22 September 2008 at 13:40

Matt,

You have quoted and attacked the last sentence of my post, which might be nonsensical, but I don't think that is fair characterization with respect the rest of the post.

I am trying to say that so far, we have not needed to invoke God in explaining the natural world (I used the term universe - perhaps known universe would have been better and for me means the natural world). So it is in that sense God has proved to be unnecessary.

You must agree that this is true, or alternatively please provide an example where it is not.

mouran
22 September 2008 at 14:20

Religion and science do mix?

we need Faith to feel safer,

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that

one has not been proven formally and cannot prove

formally its "Dogma", means don't use Ur brain just

believe in, so when you became inside Religion Cage, you can use Ur mind because you're already inside the cage.

Bonehead always weak, that's why he looking for God to feel safer "his mind not up to face this bizarre world", Mr. semi-human be a real human do you think that God will test semi-human like you, this is nonsense the concept of good and evil is just mankind concept, every body should know, we did nothing in science, even we didn't open the gate of science yet, to make a real Artificial Intelligence we've to know what's perception unit, cognition as all, even our concept about perception, cognition,,, whats exist now a days is not Intelligence at all.

Matt.Leonard
22 September 2008 at 15:30

I don't agree Clatz, that he has in any sense proved to be unnecessary. You can say that God hasn't been needed in order to explain the natural world, but all of our explanations for the natural world are incomplete, even for the portion of the universe which is known. A scientific mindset would seek to increase knowledge, however for you lack of knowledge would seem to equal proof of non-existence for everything we would not know.

The rest of the post which you refer to I agree with, however your final sentence imposed a meaning with which I disagreed, and from your defence of your position it sounds as if you also disagree with now. If you prefer to use the word 'attacked' that's fair enough, but I would generally say it's unnecessary to go emotive when I'm just doing what the facility is designed for and what we all including yourself are doing.

clatz
22 September 2008 at 15:59

Matt,

Yes attacked to is too strong, I also shouldn't have demanded an apology ... I regretted that as soon as I sent it.

Our explanations of the natural world might be incomplete, or some of them might be complete BUT either way none of them rely on God or the supernatural - making them redundant to the explanation and so unnecessary.

My post mentions that we cannot rule out a time when we will need to factor in a God or the supernatural ... and I gave an example of the sort of scenario that might happen. I am only talking about the models we have so far.

I hope that I am starting to make a little sense here. Does anyone else get what I am saying?

23 September 2008 at 12:21

How relevant is the following ?

RELIGION’S

Religion’s like a journey

we travel to and fro.

Religion’s all wrapped up with

other creatures as we go.

Religion’s journey’s endless.

It’s infinite in scope.

Religion’s all to do with

those beliefs which help us cope.

Religion’s journey’s life-long –

a sentence we receive.

(Whether or not we know it,

we become what we believe !)

Religion’s “things we practise”.

(Perfection’s not our boast !)

Religion’s all the things we do

and feel and treasure most.

Religion’s journey’s pers’nal,

yet urges us to share

religion’s past and present

with whoever dares to care.

[Graham Shepherd / 20.06.84;

pgshep2000@yahoo.co.uk ]

Ricky Cosmos
23 September 2008 at 21:20

Matt

"It seems rather hypocritical and over-defensive for them to then demand that education should not include consideration how religious viewpoints and science can or can't be reconciled."

If you read Dawkins, especially the God Delusion, I think you will find that he very much does think (I have never read anything of him demanding anything in any of his books) that education should include these considerations. He just things it wrong that kids get brainwashed with nonsense.

TimF
24 September 2008 at 01:14

In 1874, the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge was opened. It was headed up by Professor James Clerk Maxwell. Over the entrance of the laboratory was written the words 'The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein' - a quote from one of the psalms in the Bible. (A modern translation says "Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them.") Science is about discovering what God has made, but science can't be used to prove that God made it!

I have been thinking about dark matter since I maligned it in one of my previous postings. Dark matter and dark energy (I have discovered) are essential to the Big Bang Theory. They show us that there is an "unseen realm" all around us, so the Big Bang Theory probably supports Christian belief more than it contradicts it. Because of the very nature of dark matter and dark energy, we are unlikely, through science, to ever know more than very general details of them. And yet this realm is apparently essential in the formation of galaxies! Does this unseen realm have order like our own and does it have living beings? According to the Bible, there is an unseen spiritual realm and the biggest spirit is the invisible

God. I encountered this invisible God for the first time in between my A-levels and studying at the Cavendish Laboratory (although I'm into computer programming now).

At one point the New Testament says "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." There is a hint in that last phrase that perhaps "what is seen was made out of what was NOT visible" (e.g. dark matter or dark energy).

Chris
24 September 2008 at 11:20

Matt, can you have an evidence based faith? Im not sure about that.

Also, your idea that anything in science supports Chritianity is not correct. While it may not contradict Christianity, support is a different thing. Support can only come from a proper test having apropriate power, critical regions, a specified null hypothesis....

Matt.Leonard
24 September 2008 at 14:21

I'm not aware of either saying you could have an evidence-based faith or that science supports Christianity.

gnuneo
24 September 2008 at 22:12

to pare the science/religion debate down to the absolute essentials, i would make this distinction between them:

Religion is that which you believe.

Science is that which you question.

if you "believe" in something, then you have "faith" in that something, whether material or value. If you "believe" that C is the universal constant, or if you "believe" that information can transcend C (the speed of light) as some models of QM apparently demonstrate, or if you "believe" in the 'Clockwork Universe' with no supernatural being, then that is part of your religious beliefs. Religion is not just restricted to State recognised cults, nor does it need to have God, Gods or Goddesses. It is quite simply what the individual believes.

in comparison, the truly scientific attitude is that of questioning. It is an attitude that denies belief, it is an attitude that requires an open mind, it is an attitude that never believes it is "correct", that all assumptions are temporary, that even the existence of the Questioner themselves should be sceptically examined.

once you look through this model of science/religion, much becomes clearer.

compare now atheism and agnosticism: atheism states categorically that something called "God" does not exist - although it tends not to define what this "God" refers to. Extreme atheists claim that there is nothing beyond mere material reality, that everything we are or can be is limited and defined entirely by the material world - genetic determinancy, closely related to its equally repulsive cousin, behaviourism.

Agnostics take the correct scientific position, and say that they "are not sure" - they are open to the possibility, even if they regard it as a small one. Equally, some scientists, despite having strong experiences of supernaturalism, or "God" (Gods/Goddesses), also maintain an attitude of questioning, and remain scientific, far more so than the religious atheists, who "believe" "God" does not exist - not only is "believing" something to be anti-scientific at core, but they are also "believing" something they will openly admit they have, and can logically have, NO proof of whatsoever!

so that chops up the fundamentalists such as dawkins, and it is a small tragedy that he and his fellow fundies have not been 'outed' for these religious beliefs, and their religious zealotry excommunicated by the Scientific bodies around the world. The damage this fanatic has done to the credibility of Science is incalculable.

as for "ID in the science classroom" - what a load of bollox.

1. School is there for the students to learn, to interact and play with new ideas, to learn how to compare, to critique, to create logical structures, to experience, to open their minds to the amazing world & universe that we live in. School is NOT there so the current generations can brainwash and enforce its current beliefs into the next generation. So ID should be banned, and evolution enforced? Which form of evolution, lamarckian, or darwinian? Other models? What should the science teacher say if a child asks about ID? Should they lose their job if ID is mentioned in the classroom? Why is ID so threatening to the whole basis of Science it cannot even be discussed?

especially when most models of ID i have heard of accept evolution anyway!

the answer: because this is a fight between two belief systems, two religions, two 'reality tunnels'. This is not a fight between science and religion - despite the appropriation & misuse of scientific language by one camp - it is a straightforward religious battle.

Richard Dawkins is the Grand High Ayatollah of the Temple of Atheism, a fanatical, exclusionist, narrow-minded bigoted fundamentalist religion, largely originating from Judeo-Christianity belief systems (as Dawkins himself admits, his "atheism" only covers JCI notions of "God"), and behaving much as the Catholic Inquisitors did in previous centuries - barring only the violence, murder and rape that those peace-loving, gentle Christians engaged in, but most definitely including the intimidation, aggressiveness, fanaticalness, single-mindedness and polarisation. And considering some atheists/behaviourists go as far as saying that religious belief [sic] is in itself a sign of mental aberration, and that people who display such behaviour should be incarcerated/chemically lobotomised, forcefully if necessary, then perhaps the violence, murder and rape will also attach itself to this stray Christian cult.

sianmac
25 September 2008 at 11:51

Gnuneo

"...barring only violence, murder and rape..." Just those wee things, eh? I would love to see an accurate tally of the number of deaths caused by religious zealots since it's/their advent...Millions and millions and millions...

Absolutely astounding how hysterical the religious get when someone clever points out a few truths. If they are so satisfied with their god and their faith, why are they so easy to intimidate and upset?

Not believing in God is not a religion.

Clatz, if you tune in again; you were very clear, extraordinarily patient, in fact, downright heroic. Keep it up honey.

Matt.Leonard
25 September 2008 at 12:24

sianmac: "I would love to see an accurate tally of the number of deaths caused by religious zealots since it's/their advent...Millions and millions and millions..."

Prior to around say the 18th-19th century there wasn't really such thing as secularism. And there were still evil people around. And since everything was done in the name of God, so was their evil. After that time, funnily enough the rise of secularism hasn't caused any great reduction in evil, in fact probably the opposite as people cast off the shackles of having to worry about any judgment for their actions.

gnuneo
25 September 2008 at 14:40

sianmac: perhaps you could try to improve your reading skills?

"Just those wee things, eh? I would love to see an accurate tally of the number of deaths caused by religious zealots since it's/their advent...Millions and millions and millions... "

if you read my post again, you will see that "religious" zealots are not limited to the JCI, but also include such zealotry as marxism and maoism.

secular religions? You bet your ass, and ones willing to massacre untold millions to achieve their 'Paradise on Earth'. The High Modernist, materialist, objectivist, has caused perhaps as much as, or even more, human unhappiness and misery than the various non-secular religions, which bearing in mind the horrors that pretty much all of *those* have brought with them, is frankly stomach-wrenching in the extreme.

"Absolutely astounding how hysterical the religious get when someone clever points out a few truths. If they are so satisfied with their god and their faith, why are they so easy to intimidate and upset?

Not believing in God is not a religion. "

riiight - however i am a *secularist*, even though i do regard it as extremely likely there is more to Life than material reality, so that leaves you without a flame-leg to stand on really.

and whilst "not believing in a God is not a religion" (which i grant), what i actually said was that "Believing in the non-existence of a God is a religion".

in fact the difference is between agnosticism (the former), which i had already stated as the correct standpoint for Science, and atheism (the latter), which IS a religious standpoint, as it is an expression of Faith.

and i note with amusement this phrase;

"If they are so satisfied with their god and their faith, why are they so easy to intimidate and upset? "

considering how upset you are with me for insulting Dawkins. After all, you are so upset you didn't even bother to check if your upset was valid. :)

"Prior to around say the 18th-19th century there wasn't really such thing as secularism. And there were still evil people around. And since everything was done in the name of God, so was their evil. After that time, funnily enough the rise of secularism hasn't caused any great reduction in evil, in fact probably the opposite as people cast off the shackles of having to worry about any judgment for their actions."

actually, "evil" does not exist, except as a subjective perception. People do however behave badly, and i regard it as unlikely that people 'behaved well' because they were taught to be afraid of the priests (and their tame psychopathic Gawd). In fact, such repressed and powerless populations tend to be hothouses of misery, with most of the load of abuse being heaped upon the weakest and poorest - generally women and children.

we hear little of these people, but current research shows in medieval Europe, under the tight control of the Church and its associates in the Aristocracy, these people had an incredibly miserable existence - in good part because the Christian Church blamed women for sin, somewhat similar to Talibanesque beliefs.

but secularism in and of itself is not enough to improve society, it can after all be hijacked by various zealots such as atheists, marxists, high modernists, behaviourists, and other anti-humane fanatics, but what it *does* do is give the flexibility of culture necessary to allow for a society to freely develop.

"After that time, funnily enough the rise of secularism hasn't caused any great reduction in evil, in fact probably the opposite as people cast off the shackles of having to worry about any judgment for their actions."

Buddhism is a secular philosophy (although it does not deny the existence of higher realms of Consciousness), yet its practitioners make most Christians look and act like Satanists. People can be trained to be afraid of "judgement", or they can be trained to use their innate moral guide to better living, socially, and individually.

Fear, whether of Deities, murderous and bigoted priesthoods, or all-powerful dictators, rarely creates the conditions for decent, humane and evolutionary societies.

clatz
25 September 2008 at 17:09

gnuneo

Source: http://atheism.about.com

"There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this. There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god."

/End Source

I disagree with your statement that Atheism is a religion. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Richard Dawkins has framed it by asking where he stands on the probability of the existence of God:

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

I consider myself to be a 6, and it is interesting that on his site of the atheist respondents (6 or 7) 71% consider themselves a 6. So although you can say some Atheists posit that there is no God, the majority don’t.

Where do you consider yourself to sit on the scale?

Chris
25 September 2008 at 17:48

Matt, sorry, that should have started TimF. I didnt know I was that bad at spelling.

gnuneo
25 September 2008 at 23:40

clatz:

"The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this. There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.""

i see. Ever wondered if the reason why non-atheists find fault with the blending together of agnosticism and atheism? Or do you not see that your definition there, which *may* be 'accepted' by most "complete" dictionaries, but very clearly to any right-thinking person makes the two definitions, that of atheism and agnosticism, synonyms? In fact they are not, as your scale makes semi-clear. An atheist has the religious position (religious because it depends upon BELIEF, ie FAITH) that something called "God" does not exist. An agnostic does not have beliefs one way or the other, although they may have a strong bias.

i think most, who are not atheists, can see there is a difference between the two. Could you lay out for us the difference as *you* see it?

"Where do you consider yourself to sit on the scale?"

i find the entire scale to be far too limited. It is not (for me) a difference between "God" (however that is defined), and "non-God", which is an entirely JCI limitation, but an entire range of possible metaphysical systems, involving Consciousness, subjective, objective, egoic versus selfish models (jung), external versus internal consciousness (as many modern magicians say, whether or not the God(ess) exists externally or is in the subjective consciousness, what matters is if there are effects that can be measured), notions of Brahma, Capra's interpretation of QM (involves universal consciousness, similar to Jung's 'collective subconsciousness'/synchronicity), Castenada's 'plant/animal consciousness', and a myriad of other systems that would probably be meaningless to you if referred to.

put simply - i don't fit on the chart.

however, as i have spent this amount of time answering, may i ask you a question?

you call yourself a 6 (...I AM NOT A NUMBE... sorry! :D ), which is a de facto atheist, so please - can you define for me what exactly it is that you believe does not exist?

because i also don't believe in "a bloke on a cloud handing out stone tablets", and oddly enough, neither do the vast majority of JCI believers! (for pagan/buddhist/taoist/hindu/voodoo etc, the entire question is entirely meaningless to anyway!)

frankly, Thou Art God, and if you don't get that, it makes further, higher level discussion very hard to achieve. Sorry, don't mean to sound snubbish about the