On God and Science

[cwta eugene]

There have been a few stories lately where Man, it would seem, is playing God. Just in the last three days, I have had two stories pop up on my Yahoo Mail homepage concerning such things. The first was a story about scientists being close to creating artificial life out of non-living matter. The second was a story concerning the progress of a "big-bang" machine somewhere in Europe. At this time, there seems to be alot of people questioning their religious beliefs due to these advances in science, believing that God and Science cannot co-exist. Many in the religious community define "miracles" as only being an unexplained working of God and therefore, once proven to be scientific by nature, the so-called miracle, as there definition defines it, ceases to be a miracle. Take this theory regarding the Biblical Plagues On Egypt for example and how they can be explained by science:

(plague 1—water turned into blood, fish died)
The redness in the Nile could have actually been pollution caused by volcanic activity, specifically that of Santorini, which erupted around 1500 B.C. and whose ash is found in the Nile region. The silt could make the Nile turn blood red, and would also render it undrinkable. Heavy rains in the red-soiled area of Lake Victoria could have caused reddened water to wash downstream.
Alternatively, a red toxic algal bloom (red tide) could have produced large quantities of toxins that would kill fish.

(plague 2—frogs) Any blight on the water that killed fish also would have caused frogs to leave the river and, probably, die.

(plagues 3 and 4—biting insects and flies) The lack of frogs in the river would have let insect populations, normally kept in check by the frogs, increase massively.

(plagues 5 and 6—livestock disease and boils) There are biting flies in the region which transmit livestock diseases; a sudden increase in their number could spark epidemics.

(plague 7—fiery hail) Volcanic activity not only brings with it ash, but brimstone, and also alters the weather system, occasionally producing hail. Hail could also have occurred as a completely independent natural weather event, with accompanying lightning as the "fire".

(plague 8—locusts) The weight of hail will destroy most crops, leaving several insects and other animals without a normal food source. The remaining crops therefore would become targeted heavily, and thus be destroyed by swarms of locusts which would otherwise be distributed rather thinly. Or the locusts could have increased due to a lack of predators. Even without these explanations, swarms of locusts are not uncommon today.

(plague 9—darkness) There could be several causes for unusual darkness: a solar eclipse, a sandstorm, volcanic ash, or simply swarms of locusts large enough to block out the sun.

(plague 10—death of the firstborn) If the last plague indeed selectively tended to affect the firstborn, it could be due to food polluted during the time of darkness, either by locusts or by the black mold Cladosporium. When people emerged after the darkness, the firstborn would be given priority, as was usual, and would consequently be more likely to be affected by any toxin or disease carried by the food. Meanwhile, the Israelites ate food prepared and eaten very quickly which would have made it less likely to be infected.

Now, my question is, why can't the science be an act of God? In other words, why can't God be the originator of the "big bang"? Why couldn't he have caused a volcanic eruption that set forth the chain of events in Egypt? Why not? As a Mormon, we are taught to believe that our progression of knowledge is eternal until we one day know everything and thus become a God ourselves, creating planets and ruling over those planets. As a God, we will use the laws of nature, but the highest law of nature. Thus, while it seems unreasonable to us now that somebody can walk through a wall or be two places at once, someday we will know the scientific reasons behind why it would be possible to do so with the right know-how and, furthermore, be able to apply that knowledge ourselves if we so desire (many will choose not to progress). So there is always going to be people on Earth who have taken the progressions of others and built upon it to the point that, perhaps, eons from now, if our Earth was to last that long, you would see people walking through walls and, most likely the concept of walls would cease to exist because of it. It doesn't mean that God was not the originator of it all or that "miracles" have ceased to exist, only that our definition has changed to "explainable working of God".

I'm not trying to be preachy here, just putting forth a belief of mine that helps put everything into context for me. If your one of those who struggle with the whole God vs. religion thing, perhaps these views will help. Thanks for reading my novel and please share your thoughts.

[Idisaffect]

my question is, why can't the science be an act of God

It can be. God can be anything you want "him"to be. God could be a woman, for example. Or a 50 headed serpent with 100 eyes. For Sarah Palin, god will be the provider of a 30 billion dollar pipeline to Alaska. It's possible god created evolution. It's not possible to understand why. Maybe we're all gods' guinea pigs.

[mosespa]

I've never seen any reason why God couldn't be the originator of science. I've always thought of our scientific laws as being God's Tools. Our whole system of science is merely a catalogue of God's Toolbox.

I've maintained for decades now that science and religion say the same things...it's just that each gets so hung up on it's jargon that it's ridiculous.

People who try to use science to disprove the existence of God simply don't want to accept the responsibility of leading any sort of "moral" life. They want to be able to go through life thinking that there's no ultimate accountability for anything that they do so that they can do whatever they like without having to think/worry about/deal with any sort of consequences.

In other words...people who try to use science to disprove the existence of God are trying to live their lives without having to acknowledge Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction.

In short...they're the biggest hypocrites there are. They're even betraying the system they claim to live by which they say disproves the system that they say isn't true.

[PublicImage]

Is there a decent reason to assume that a god did 'cause science'?

[mosespa]

Depends upon your definition of "decent reason," I suppose. Is there a "decent reason" NOT to think that?

I think it's funny that many people who decry the religious for basing everything around an old book often base their "faith" in science upon old books.

Books containing the results of experiments that they never try for themselves...they just take the word of the person who claims to have performed said experiment and gotten said results.

At least many of the religious DO actually try to practice what their book suggests.

[PublicImage]

If I was unaware of the concept of the universe being created by a god, I don't think I would take the assumption that it has a divine creator just to give an unprovable answer to the question of its existence (and, of course, it cannot be categorically disproved, so any discussion of empiricism with regards to religion is quite irrelevant). I cannot see a reason to take up the belief that a god created it when there are so many alternatives that are based on empiricism rather than rationalism, and provide much more fluid answers than rationalism. If I cannot think of a reason to assume that a god created the universe, then it can only logically follow that I also cannot think of a reason to assume that a god created science.

Why should people run scientific experiments that have already been done countless times to re-affirm their own beliefs? And how is it less credible to believe something like Darwinism in this day and age, basing the belief on what one has read in books, without performing experiments to test the theory independently? I think the comparison with religion is fallacious. Darwinism, even before scientists other than Darwin started assessing it, had been tested over and over for more than twenty years before any of Darwin's findings were published. It isn't as though he based The Origin of Species on a few experiments. It was an on-going process that holds a lot of validity, and has since been tested by other scientists using newer technology (DNA analyses, for instance) that re-affirms everything that Darwin theorised without being able to use such solid evidence that has been uncovered over the last 50 or so years.

I don't see any reason to run my own experiments rather than putting some trust into people who know far more about the subject than I do. Not only would mine be comparatively inconclusive, but I think that a person who has a Ph.D in Biology would do a much better job of it than a prospecive Philosophy undergraduate, and would come up with far more reliable and scientifically-informed results than anything I could do.

And surely, if you want to believe that God created science, you will agree that the scientist is the one who should be trusted to evaluate things on a scientific level rather than, for instance, a philosopher? After all, they are simply discovering things that God created, but managing to back up their theories with extensive research, basing their beliefs on empiricism rather than rationalism. Suggesting that everybody who has a belief in scientific theories should go out and test them to ensure that they are correct seems absurd to me, particularly in the light of your comment about religious people putting what is transcribed in their holy books into practice. Science and religion are not comparable. I cannot think of a single religion that bases its teachings on extensive research rather than rational belief, whereas every credible scientific theory IS based on research, not just rational thought. They are very different.

And now to address an earlier issue.

People who try to use science to disprove the existence of God simply don't want to accept the responsibility of leading any sort of "moral" life. They want to be able to go through life thinking that there's no ultimate accountability for anything that they do so that they can do whatever they like without having to think/worry about/deal with any sort of consequences.

What gives you the impression that a person cannot come up with a set of ethics without the necessity of divine guidance? Aristotle believed in the Prime Mover. He thought of it as the creator of the universe, but held the point of view that, despite being the creator, it is unaware of its creation, and has no input whatsoever into the likes of morality. However, Aristotlean ethics serve as the basis for a large bulk of Catholic teaching, mainly due to the revival of his works by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and it would be quite ridiculous to suggest that Aristotle did not have an elaborate ethical system and a set of moral rules by which to live his life. Yet he had no divine guidance in coming up with it; he gathered his ethics from rational thought.

The same can be said of anybody who believes that the universe was created by the big bang. The big bang itself obviously has no say in how humans think or act; the ethics come from the humans themselves.

But how much does all of that matter if each country has its own set of categorical laws? They, ultimately, determine what a person can or cannot do, regardless of their ethical views. Besides which, in a multi-cultural society, there will be conflicting ethics from followers of different religions, as well as those of secularists, in every-day situations; despite this fact, it is still imperative to follow the law. So what value do morals really have if they can be undermined by the legal system?

[mosespa]

1. I cannot see a reason to take up the belief that a god created it when there are so many alternatives that are based on empiricism rather than rationalism, and provide much more fluid answers than rationalism.

2. If I cannot think of a reason to assume that a god created the universe, then it can only logically follow that I also cannot think of a reason to assume that a god created science.

3. Why should people run scientific experiments that have already been done countless times to re-affirm their own beliefs?

4. And how is it less credible to believe something like Darwinism in this day and age, basing the belief on what one has read in books, without performing experiments to test the theory independently? I think the comparison with religion is fallacious. Darwinism, even before scientists other than Darwin started assessing it, had been tested over and over for more than twenty years before any of Darwin's findings were published. It isn't as though he based The Origin of Species on a few experiments.

5. It was an on-going process that holds a lot of validity, and has since been tested by other scientists using newer technology (DNA analyses, for instance) that re-affirms everything that Darwin theorised without being able to use such solid evidence that has been uncovered over the last 50 or so years.

6. I don't see any reason to run my own experiments rather than putting some trust into people who know far more about the subject than I do.

7. Not only would mine be comparatively inconclusive, but I think that a person who has a Ph.D in Biology would do a much better job of it than a prospecive Philosophy undergraduate, and would come up with far more reliable and scientifically-informed results than anything I could do.

8. And surely, if you want to believe that God created science, you will agree that the scientist is the one who should be trusted to evaluate things on a scientific level rather than, for instance, a philosopher? After all, they are simply discovering things that God created, but managing to back up their theories with extensive research, basing their beliefs on empiricism rather than rationalism. Suggesting that everybody who has a belief in scientific theories should go out and test them to ensure that they are correct seems absurd to me, particularly in the light of your comment about religious people putting what is transcribed in their holy books into practice.

9. Science and religion are not comparable. I cannot think of a single religion that bases its teachings on extensive research rather than rational belief, whereas every credible scientific theory IS based on research, not just rational thought. They are very different.

And now to address an earlier issue.

People who try to use science to disprove the existence of God simply don't want to accept the responsibility of leading any sort of "moral" life. They want to be able to go through life thinking that there's no ultimate accountability for anything that they do so that they can do whatever they like without having to think/worry about/deal with any sort of consequences.

10. What gives you the impression that a person cannot come up with a set of ethics without the necessity of divine guidance?

11. Aristotle believed in the Prime Mover.

12. He thought of it as the creator of the universe, but held the point of view that, despite being the creator, it is unaware of its creation, and has no input whatsoever into the likes of morality.

13. However, Aristotlean ethics serve as the basis for a large bulk of Catholic teaching, mainly due to the revival of his works by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and it would be quite ridiculous to suggest that Aristotle did not have an elaborate ethical system and a set of moral rules by which to live his life. Yet he had no divine guidance in coming up with it; he gathered his ethics from rational thought.

14. The same can be said of anybody who believes that the universe was created by the big bang. The big bang itself obviously has no say in how humans think or act; the ethics come from the humans themselves.

15. But how much does all of that matter if each country has its own set of categorical laws? They, ultimately, determine what a person can or cannot do, regardless of their ethical views. Besides which, in a multi-cultural society, there will be conflicting ethics from followers of different religions, as well as those of secularists, in every-day situations; despite this fact, it is still imperative to follow the law. So what value do morals really have if they can be undermined by the legal system?

1. Empiricism once fluidly proved that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. It is flawed...it is based entirely upon the accepted view of the world as it is understood by the majority of humans at any given era.

2. Ah...but that's YOU, isn't it? And, as I'm sure you yourself will readily admit, YOU are not the final arbiter of what is and what is not.

3. Because if they don't, then they are operating on faith, aren't they? They're trusting (having faith) that those who documented the experiments actually did perform them correctly and obtained the appropriate results.

To me, a scientist who doesn't perform experiments himself, but relies instead on the documentation of others who came before him, taking it as truth without validating himself, has NO business, imo, mocking others who operate on faith.

4. I don't particularly think any belief system is more or less credible than any other...except maybe Pastafarianism.

5. And technology is infallible, isn't it? Which is why I sometimes have to shut my computer down by pressing the power button when it freezes up.

Tell you what, I'll go ahead and take the bait (that you may not even be aware that you are offering here) and throw in the notion that technology is a tool of the devil and will give the results that he wants people to operate on.

Let's see where that takes us.

6. So...is it fair to say that you see no problem in operating on faith rather than examining concrete evidence for yourself?

If so...why are we having this discussion?

7. Yes...but that PhD in biology is only as good as the current scientific data...which is subject to change as we progress and find out that things we once accepted as hard truth are flawed. Kinda like that whole flat earth thing from earlier.

The problem with a PhD holder (as I see it) is this...they are products of what I call intellectual assembly lines. They are taught to think a certain way by people who have a vested interest in seeing that line of thinking continue.

8. No, I don't agree with that, because humans are imperfect...they are flawed and tend to accept the things that they WANT to accept. God, we are told, is perfect. I trust HIM over any human.

Reportedly, Gregorian Monks "created" music. Should all music then be monotonic (as the Gregorians had it?) Should we ignore polyphony, harmony, dissonance and all the other possibilities thereof just because the people who invented music didn't mention all of that other stuff?

Perhaps that's not a satisfactory comparison...I'm not really sure that I understand the point you're trying to make here.

9. You cannot think of a single religion that bases it's findings on extensive research rather than rational belief? According to the Christian religion, Christ didn't begin his ministry until he was about thirty. That gave Him thirty years to live...to experience...to research, if you will.

10. Because they're a PERSON and prone to believing things that benefit their whims over believing things that are actually beneficial.

Need I remind you of my notorious view that humans are weak? That they would rather live comfortable lies than deal with uncomfortable truths?

11. So did Ayn Rand. She considered it a class of human, though.

12. What sort of creator is unaware of it's creation? Sounds to me like Aristotle was suggesting that people need not be aware of the consequences of their actions.

13. Using Catholicism as an example is not a good argument to me. I consider Catholicism to be merely Satanism disguised as Christianity. Come to think of it, I consider pretty much all Christian denominations to be that.

Who's to say that Aristotle didn't have divine guidance? Perhaps he was emulating the Prime Mover who was unaware of it's own creation by refusing to be aware of it guiding him.

Just because he never acknowledged it in his writings doesn't mean he wasn't aware of it's influence.

To the best of my knowledge, Aristotle never documented his bowel movements, either...are we then to assume that Aristotle never shat?

14. The fact that facism took over Germany and is about to take over the US and any other country that it can get a foothold in says to me that people aren't particularly concerned with ethics...they're just looking for a way to get through life on the path of least resistance. They're looking for the easiest way out...which often actually circumvents ethics.

15. Legislation and morality are two different things. You cannot legislate morality. The moment you try, you are committing an immoral act because you are trying to compel people to comply with a specific set of whims by using force if they don't follow.

God doesn't expect you to be compelled to obey his laws. The threat of eternal damnation is not God using force...it is a choice that is set before you.

You make your own choices and you get what you deserve.

[Idisaffect]

humans are imperfect...they are flawed and tend to accept the things that they WANT to accept. God, we are told, is perfect. I trust HIM over any human.

We are told.... by humans who are imperfect.
You trust a god that a group of imperfect humans told you was perfect. Trusting HIM is trusting them.
You certainly wouldn't come to the conclusion that god is perfect based on what you see going on around you every day. A beautiful sunset doesn't make up for all the suffering.

[PublicImage]

Ah, it looks as though this could become this month's "long-winded posts" thread.

1. Empiricism once fluidly proved that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. It is flawed...it is based entirely upon the accepted view of the world as it is understood by the majority of humans at any given era.

2. Ah...but that's YOU, isn't it? And, as I'm sure you yourself will readily admit, YOU are not the final arbiter of what is and what is not. :D

3. Because if they don't, then they are operating on faith, aren't they? They're trusting (having faith) that those who documented the experiments actually did perform them correctly and obtained the appropriate results.

To me, a scientist who doesn't perform experiments himself, but relies instead on the documentation of others who came before him, taking it as truth without validating himself, has NO business, imo, mocking others who operate on faith.

4. I don't particularly think any belief system is more or less credible than any other...except maybe Pastafarianism. :lol:

5. And technology is infallible, isn't it? Which is why I sometimes have to shut my computer down by pressing the power button when it freezes up.

Tell you what, I'll go ahead and take the bait (that you may not even be aware that you are offering here) and throw in the notion that technology is a tool of the devil and will give the results that he wants people to operate on.

Let's see where that takes us.

6. So...is it fair to say that you see no problem in operating on faith rather than examining concrete evidence for yourself?

If so...why are we having this discussion? :D

7. Yes...but that PhD in biology is only as good as the current scientific data...which is subject to change as we progress and find out that things we once accepted as hard truth are flawed. Kinda like that whole flat earth thing from earlier.

The problem with a PhD holder (as I see it) is this...they are products of what I call intellectual assembly lines. They are taught to think a certain way by people who have a vested interest in seeing that line of thinking continue.

8. No, I don't agree with that, because humans are imperfect...they are flawed and tend to accept the things that they WANT to accept. God, we are told, is perfect. I trust HIM over any human.

Reportedly, Gregorian Monks "created" music. Should all music then be monotonic (as the Gregorians had it?) Should we ignore polyphony, harmony, dissonance and all the other possibilities thereof just because the people who invented music didn't mention all of that other stuff?

Perhaps that's not a satisfactory comparison...I'm not really sure that I understand the point you're trying to make here.

9. You cannot think of a single religion that bases it's findings on extensive research rather than rational belief? According to the Christian religion, Christ didn't begin his ministry until he was about thirty. That gave Him thirty years to live...to experience...to research, if you will.

10. Because they're a PERSON and prone to believing things that benefit their whims over believing things that are actually beneficial.

Need I remind you of my notorious view that humans are weak? That they would rather live comfortable lies than deal with uncomfortable truths?

11. So did Ayn Rand. She considered it a class of human, though.

12. What sort of creator is unaware of it's creation? Sounds to me like Aristotle was suggesting that people need not be aware of the consequences of their actions.

13. Using Catholicism as an example is not a good argument to me. I consider Catholicism to be merely Satanism disguised as Christianity. Come to think of it, I consider pretty much all Christian denominations to be that.

Who's to say that Aristotle didn't have divine guidance? Perhaps he was emulating the Prime Mover who was unaware of it's own creation by refusing to be aware of it guiding him.

Just because he never acknowledged it in his writings doesn't mean he wasn't aware of it's influence.

To the best of my knowledge, Aristotle never documented his bowel movements, either...are we then to assume that Aristotle never shat? :lol:

14. The fact that facism took over Germany and is about to take over the US and any other country that it can get a foothold in says to me that people aren't particularly concerned with ethics...they're just looking for a way to get through life on the path of least resistance. They're looking for the easiest way out...which often actually circumvents ethics.

15. Legislation and morality are two different things. You cannot legislate morality. The moment you try, you are committing an immoral act because you are trying to compel people to comply with a specific set of whims by using force if they don't follow.

God doesn't expect you to be compelled to obey his laws. The threat of eternal damnation is not God using force...it is a choice that is set before you.

You make your own choices and you get what you deserve.

1. Really? From what I have read, the idea of a widespread belief in a flat earth is a historical factoid. I think you'll find this short article quite interesting:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html

I've looked for research to suggest that the majority once believed (through 'evidence') that the earth was flat, but I still haven't found it.

2. No, of course I am not. I'd be more wont to thinking that that is the job of the law, ultimately.

3. Yes, they are putting 'faith' into scientists. But why should that be wrong? The faith in science has a logical foundation, and because thousands of new experiments are being made every single day, it is fair to put some trust into a proveable theory until it can be proved wrong. A bit like "innocent until proven guilty", I suppose. There is no reason not to believe in these things until they actually can be refuted with evidence.

4. It is difficult to compare science with religion, and I don't think it is fair for anybody to make comparisons between the credibility of religions and science. So I suppose I'll agree on that point to an extent. There is no religion that has less credibility than another. However, there are scientific theories that will have more credibility than others. Take the Large Hadron Collider as an example; the scientist who tried to take CERN to court to prevent the experiment from being carried out is a retired German chemist who has no logical basis for his belief that it could somehow bring around the end of the universe; on the other hand, the people who are working on the experiment are experts in the field, and can - empirically - refute his claims that a black hole created by the LHC might bring around the destruction of the planet. In fact, they have already proved it. But they haven't denied that black holes might be created, and are actually hoping they are, because they would potentially be able to prove theories that have already been made about black holes to be fact. He just blew it completely out of proportion without considering the facts, which is why he had no success in preventing the experiment from being carried out.

5. Certainly, technology has its flaws. But it is still extremely useful, as can be proved by sequence alignment, which has been around without flaw for years. If we stop trusting technology because it can be flawed, we might as well stop trusting humans. Just because some are flawed does not mean that all of them are!

Feel free to believe that. But I still cannot see a single reason why I should subscribe to it.

6. Yes, it is. Because other people have (and constantly are) providing research for and against the theories that I believe. It is faith with more to be founded upon than ancient scripture, and regularly needs to be reviewed (as all faith should be, I think).

Scientific 'faith' and religious 'faith' are not the same thing.

7. Of course it is only as good as the current science. And that is the point; people who gain a Ph.D will invariably go on to research the field in more depth and challenge established theories, as well as potentially coming up with new ones. Without them, there is no current science. Thus, there is little point in trying to refute the importance of scientific theories if trust cannot put into the endless lines of research that keep theories up-to-date and re-evalute whether or not they should be believed. This just links back to my "innocent until proven guilty" analogy. The point of current science is to assess the validity of theories as new means of proving or disproving them come into existence; the ones that are disproved can be forgotten and discredited (or better yet, continually researched by other means to challenge the challenges posed by recent research. Categorical statements are, after all, impossible to make in science in such a short time span).

Ther is no doubt that some of them will continue the old school of thought, but there will inevitably always be postgraduates who develop their own ideas and pursue them further. Besides which, it is necessary for the same lines of science to be continually re-evaluated, because, as you have pointed out, theories that were once accepted can be disproved. So, surely research should continue so that new methods can test whether or not it is still worth investing trust into these theories.

8. The point that I was trying to make is that it is fallacious to assume that anybody who puts their 'faith' into science should be required to run their own experiments in order to hold such beliefs. A scientist, regardless of any flaws the human may have, is more suited to such things than a casual atheist with a passing interest in science. I certainly wouldn't want to run experiments of my own because I know that they would not wield satisfactory results; my methodology would be untrustworthy because I have no thorough understanding of I should go about trying to prove (for example) the existence of dark matter, and nor do I have the funds to run such an experiment. It only makes sense to evalute the research of other people who have read extensively on the theories they are putting to the test, and who do have the funding to present reliable results.

As for the question on Gregorian monks, I don't think they created music. There are references to music in Ancient Greek literature which pre-dates the Gregorian chant. However, I can imagine that the Gregorians were the first people to notate music. But it is quite different. On to the question itself - I don't think that anybody would deny other aspects of music just because the original notated music is monophonic. As I have said throughout the argument, scientific theories are continually being tested and re-evaluated, and new questions are being raised. I don't subscribe to the view that a theory should just be accepted as soon as it has a bit of empirical backing, but should keep being questioned. Much the same can be said about music; the Renaissance composers started to develop their own systems rather than sticking to the Gregorian traditions. Scientists develop their own theories instead of sticking to other people's ideas if they think they can be refuted. There is always room for development in these fields, and everything should be re-assessed as often as possible.

9. By that logic, every other human of that age will have as much experience as Jesus Christ. What did he research during that time that puts him on a higher level than other people? I'm not trying to refute his ideas, but I don't see why they should be held in a higher regard than anybody else with thirty years of experience's ideas. The Bible was written by people, after all. Flawed people (and Jesus was a person, therefore he was flawed). What makes it any more reliable than science?

They are both the works of flawed humans. The main difference is that science continually acknowledges that its views should be challenged and tested, whereas the Christian tradition never changes, despite the state of the world continually going through social metamorphoses. The society in which Christian ethics were dictated is entirely different to modern societies, and some (but certainly not all) of the ideas are out-dated, only really working in the old society. The fact that the New Testament was written just proves that religions CAN accept that change is sometimes necessary. But it doesn't really matter now, since there are so many sects that it is quite difficult to ascertain exactly what a modern-day Christian believes in.

10. Then why should a human-written text such as the Old Testament be trusted by anybody if Aristotlean or Platonic texts on ethics cannot? Surely the writers had their own interests in mind when telling people that it is actually divine command, and not just their own set of imperatives, if your view on humans is to be accepted.

I'd say that the idea of eternal nothingness after death is more of an uncomfortable thought than that of an afterlife in heaven. What about atheists who see their truths as uncomfortable ones? Darwin is just one of them. His theory terrified him, according to the biographical works of his that I've observed, but he still accepted it as the truth on the basis of his research. So even if he was wrong (one hundred and fifty years since his work was published and all scentific research since then only supports), he was subscribing to an uncomfortable lie, not a 'comfortable lie'.

11. I don't know anything about Ayn Rand so I cannot really give a reply to this point.

12. The creator is unaware of its creation because it 'just is', as Bertrand Russell said of the universe. It created it, and that is all that matters; it is not a rational being. I don't think it is fair to suggest that Aristotle thought people should be unaware of the consequences of their actions, otherwise he would never have written the Nicomachean Ethics or the Eudemian Ethics. He evidently thought ethics are extremely important.

13. What is there to suggest that he did have divine guidance? Neither question has an answer, because it is not proveable either way.

If he did believe that he was being guided by divinity, I highly doubt he would have written that the Prime Mover has no control over what happens in the universe. In fact, I am quite sure he would have mentioned it if he believed since the majority of Greeks did believe that humans could make contact with gods. Anyway, there is no point in talking about what Aristotle didn't write in trying to assert his beliefs. If he didn't write about something, then he most likely didn't think it worthy of discussion. During such an important time in history for discussion of divinity and ethics, there is little doubt that he would have mentioned if he believed it!

14. Well, that just serves as a testament to the laziness (both intellectually and physically, judging by the obesity rates nowadays) of humans in general. Just becase people are too lazy to consider things ethically does not mean that they cannot. It signifies their unwillingness to accept that they aren't the only people in the world who matter. People are selfish. Oh well.

15. Indeed, morality and legislation are two very different things. But the two can be interchangable - just look at Roe v. Wade. The law, in that case, was directly related to whether or not it should be legal to end a human life. Obviously, this is directly related to the "shall not kill" commandment, and allowing abortion does go against God's commandments. So the law can have an impact of a person's morality, whether or not people like that fact.

The threat of eternal damnation is simply a wonderful form of scaremongering, in my opinion. It makes me happy to be a nihilist.

[henno]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

[cwta eugene]

I also cannot think of a reason to assume that a god created science.

I'm no good at deductive logic, hence my thread count over the last four years, but here is my attempt.

When I stated God to be the originator of it all, what I meant was that God is the first to start things into motion, not necessarily that he created the science itself. There seems to be certain things God cannot do like make evil cease to exist or, atleast for the Christians among us, do away with the need for an atonement. Likewise, I do not believe God can do away with science. Science, the need for an atonement, and evilness have always existed with God.

Why then is the science itself not praised higher than the one who uses it? I think this would be the same as praising a certain black Fender Strat more than the guitar player himself, but the only way you could stop there is in believing that Plato's World Of Forms exists and it exists here; in other words, that the guitar is what it is and was never anything else. But it wasn't always a guitar. You would have to praise the wood that made up the neck, the tree that yielded that wood, the seed that sprouted the tree, the soil that held the seed, the sun and water that nurtured the soil, the hydrogen molecules that make up the sun and water, and on and on and on. And that is just one piece of the guitar, the neck. Furthermore, if the guitar is to be praised alone, it should sound the same regardless of who plays it, right? When we look around at things of this world, it seems to me that the one using the science should always get the credit. Michaelangelo takes the praise with the "Sisteen Chapel" rather than the paint, lines, and forms that make it up. If not, all art would be the same. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa would be no more praised than my drawing of another woman if I were to use the same techniques, paint, canvas, etc. that Da Vinci used. All credit should go to the one using the science.

I also wanted to start this thread as a reason to believe miracles happen today, only that our definition of miracles has changed. The fact that I had crooked legs once, received numerous operations, and now have straight legs, is, to me, a miracle. Yes it is explainable, but all credit eventually leads back to God.

[mosespa]

1. We are told.... by humans who are imperfect.
You trust a god that a group of imperfect humans told you was perfect. Trusting HIM is trusting them.

2. You certainly wouldn't come to the conclusion that god is perfect based on what you see going on around you every day. A beautiful sunset doesn't make up for all the suffering.

1. I don't trust the God that they worship. You see, I have come to the conclusion that ALL religions are getting it wrong...that they are actually defeating their own purposes.

2. It's not about sunsets...it's about the time I was able to see for the first time how suffering is actually a necessary component of a "perfect" world.

You see...in a dualist world, everything must have an opposite in order to exist. Nothing can exist in this world without an opposite to help define it.

Thus, suffering is necessary in order for joy to exist.

The occasional nine-year-old girl must be raped and murdered in order to cast into sharp relief how wonderful it is that all the other nine-year-old girls weren't raped and murdered.

In order to have dry, you must have wet. In order to have black, you must have white. In order to have comfort, you must have discomfort. In order to have joy, you must also have agony. In order to have nice people, you must also have madjed...I mean, douchebags.

Everything...let me say that again...EVERYTHING is balanced in this world. For every thing, there is the "opposite of that thing."

It is my opinion that this cannot happen by mere chance due to the simple SCIENTIFIC fact that there are infinitely more states of chaos than there are of order.

For this entire world to have evolved, or come into being randomly or whatever terminology you wish to use ENTIRELY BY CHANCE may be possible...but it's highly improbable.

I'm not here to change anyone's beliefs. If you don't wish to believe in God...that's your business.

The way I see it, "Heaven" (whatever it may be) will be a lot less congested without you lot around.

0. Ah, it looks as though this could become this month's "long-winded posts" thread.

1. Really? From what I have read, the idea of a widespread belief in a flat earth is a historical factoid. I think you'll find this short article quite interesting:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html

I've looked for research to suggest that the majority once believed (through 'evidence') that the earth was flat, but I still haven't found it.

2. No, of course I am not. I'd be more wont to thinking that that is the job of the law, ultimately.

3. Yes, they are putting 'faith' into scientists. But why should that be wrong? The faith in science has a logical foundation, and because thousands of new experiments are being made every single day, it is fair to put some trust into a proveable theory until it can be proved wrong. A bit like "innocent until proven guilty", I suppose. There is no reason not to believe in these things until they actually can be refuted with evidence.

4. It is difficult to compare science with religion, and I don't think it is fair for anybody to make comparisons between the credibility of religions and science. So I suppose I'll agree on that point to an extent. There is no religion that has less credibility than another. However, there are scientific theories that will have more credibility than others. Take the Large Hadron Collider as an example; the scientist who tried to take CERN to court to prevent the experiment from being carried out is a retired German chemist who has no logical basis for his belief that it could somehow bring around the end of the universe; on the other hand, the people who are working on the experiment are experts in the field, and can - empirically - refute his claims that a black hole created by the LHC might bring around the destruction of the planet. In fact, they have already proved it. But they haven't denied that black holes might be created, and are actually hoping they are, because they would potentially be able to prove theories that have already been made about black holes to be fact. He just blew it completely out of proportion without considering the facts, which is why he had no success in preventing the experiment from being carried out.

5. Certainly, technology has its flaws. But it is still extremely useful, as can be proved by sequence alignment, which has been around without flaw for years. If we stop trusting technology because it can be flawed, we might as well stop trusting humans. Just because some are flawed does not mean that all of them are!

Feel free to believe that. But I still cannot see a single reason why I should subscribe to it.

6. Yes, it is. Because other people have (and constantly are) providing research for and against the theories that I believe. It is faith with more to be founded upon than ancient scripture, and regularly needs to be reviewed (as all faith should be, I think).

Scientific 'faith' and religious 'faith' are not the same thing.

7. Of course it is only as good as the current science. And that is the point; people who gain a Ph.D will invariably go on to research the field in more depth and challenge established theories, as well as potentially coming up with new ones. Without them, there is no current science. Thus, there is little point in trying to refute the importance of scientific theories if trust cannot put into the endless lines of research that keep theories up-to-date and re-evalute whether or not they should be believed. This just links back to my "innocent until proven guilty" analogy. The point of current science is to assess the validity of theories as new means of proving or disproving them come into existence; the ones that are disproved can be forgotten and discredited (or better yet, continually researched by other means to challenge the challenges posed by recent research. Categorical statements are, after all, impossible to make in science in such a short time span).

Ther is no doubt that some of them will continue the old school of thought, but there will inevitably always be postgraduates who develop their own ideas and pursue them further. Besides which, it is necessary for the same lines of science to be continually re-evaluated, because, as you have pointed out, theories that were once accepted can be disproved. So, surely research should continue so that new methods can test whether or not it is still worth investing trust into these theories.

8. The point that I was trying to make is that it is fallacious to assume that anybody who puts their 'faith' into science should be required to run their own experiments in order to hold such beliefs. A scientist, regardless of any flaws the human may have, is more suited to such things than a casual atheist with a passing interest in science. I certainly wouldn't want to run experiments of my own because I know that they would not wield satisfactory results; my methodology would be untrustworthy because I have no thorough understanding of I should go about trying to prove (for example) the existence of dark matter, and nor do I have the funds to run such an experiment. It only makes sense to evalute the research of other people who have read extensively on the theories they are putting to the test, and who do have the funding to present reliable results.

As for the question on Gregorian monks, I don't think they created music. There are references to music in Ancient Greek literature which pre-dates the Gregorian chant. However, I can imagine that the Gregorians were the first people to notate music. But it is quite different. On to the question itself - I don't think that anybody would deny other aspects of music just because the original notated music is monophonic. As I have said throughout the argument, scientific theories are continually being tested and re-evaluated, and new questions are being raised. I don't subscribe to the view that a theory should just be accepted as soon as it has a bit of empirical backing, but should keep being questioned. Much the same can be said about music; the Renaissance composers started to develop their own systems rather than sticking to the Gregorian traditions. Scientists develop their own theories instead of sticking to other people's ideas if they think they can be refuted. There is always room for development in these fields, and everything should be re-assessed as often as possible.

9. By that logic, every other human of that age will have as much experience as Jesus Christ. What did he research during that time that puts him on a higher level than other people? I'm not trying to refute his ideas, but I don't see why they should be held in a higher regard than anybody else with thirty years of experience's ideas. The Bible was written by people, after all. Flawed people (and Jesus was a person, therefore he was flawed). What makes it any more reliable than science?

They are both the works of flawed humans. The main difference is that science continually acknowledges that its views should be challenged and tested, whereas the Christian tradition never changes, despite the state of the world continually going through social metamorphoses. The society in which Christian ethics were dictated is entirely different to modern societies, and some (but certainly not all) of the ideas are out-dated, only really working in the old society. The fact that the New Testament was written just proves that religions CAN accept that change is sometimes necessary. But it doesn't really matter now, since there are so many sects that it is quite difficult to ascertain exactly what a modern-day Christian believes in.

10. Then why should a human-written text such as the Old Testament be trusted by anybody if Aristotlean or Platonic texts on ethics cannot? Surely the writers had their own interests in mind when telling people that it is actually divine command, and not just their own set of imperatives, if your view on humans is to be accepted.

I'd say that the idea of eternal nothingness after death is more of an uncomfortable thought than that of an afterlife in heaven. What about atheists who see their truths as uncomfortable ones? Darwin is just one of them. His theory terrified him, according to the biographical works of his that I've observed, but he still accepted it as the truth on the basis of his research. So even if he was wrong (one hundred and fifty years since his work was published and all scentific research since then only supports), he was subscribing to an uncomfortable lie, not a 'comfortable lie'.

11. I don't know anything about Ayn Rand so I cannot really give a reply to this point.

12. The creator is unaware of its creation because it 'just is', as Bertrand Russell said of the universe. It created it, and that is all that matters; it is not a rational being. I don't think it is fair to suggest that Aristotle thought people should be unaware of the consequences of their actions, otherwise he would never have written the Nicomachean Ethics or the Eudemian Ethics. He evidently thought ethics are extremely important.

13. What is there to suggest that he did have divine guidance? Neither question has an answer, because it is not proveable either way.

If he did believe that he was being guided by divinity, I highly doubt he would have written that the Prime Mover has no control over what happens in the universe. In fact, I am quite sure he would have mentioned it if he believed since the majority of Greeks did believe that humans could make contact with gods. Anyway, there is no point in talking about what Aristotle didn't write in trying to assert his beliefs. If he didn't write about something, then he most likely didn't think it worthy of discussion. During such an important time in history for discussion of divinity and ethics, there is little doubt that he would have mentioned if he believed it!

14. Well, that just serves as a testament to the laziness (both intellectually and physically, judging by the obesity rates nowadays) of humans in general. Just becase people are too lazy to consider things ethically does not mean that they cannot. It signifies their unwillingness to accept that they aren't the only people in the world who matter. People are selfish. Oh well.

15. Indeed, morality and legislation are two very different things. But the two can be interchangable - just look at Roe v. Wade. The law, in that case, was directly related to whether or not it should be legal to end a human life. Obviously, this is directly related to the "shall not kill" commandment, and allowing abortion does go against God's commandments. So the law can have an impact of a person's morality, whether or not people like that fact.

The threat of eternal damnation is simply a wonderful form of scaremongering, in my opinion. It makes me happy to be a nihilist.

0. COULD become? Already has, methinks.

1. I'll read that later. I AM aware that the whole "flat earth belief" thing may have been a fallicy. But I notice that you don't address my point about the once widespread belief that the sun revolved around the earth (wasn't Copernicus put to death for suggesting otherwise?) which COULD be "empiracally proven" by using the evidence of your own two eyes.

2. Which law? The law of science? Or the law of man?

It doesn't really matter in the end...because, the way I see it, the law is created by man...and that which is created by man should NEVER have dominion over man.

But that's just my belief.

I think "The Law" is a creation of money and power hungry morons who want to enslave all of humanity...much like organized religion.

3. Why should it be wrong, then, for people to put their faith into a God that created everything? I mean, if it's okay to put your faith into something as weak, fragile, inconsistent and transient as a man; what's wrong with putting your faith into something GREATER than a man?

There is no reason, imo, NOT to believe in a religion just because it cannot be proven right or wrong.

You see...if you really get into spiritualism, it's the greatest truths of this world which are paradoxical. The fact that God cannot be "proven" NOR "disproven" is all the "proof" I need that He exists.

But that's just me. Some people would much rather hold out and hold out and hold out until one side or the other can be irrefutably demonstrated.

They'll be waiting a long, long time.

4. Unfortunately, should the empiracally justified scientists at CERN be wrong...and they DO create a black hole which wipes everything out...there will be no way for anyone to say "Told Ya So"...unless there's an afterlife, of course.

5. You don't consider mortality a flaw? Because I kinda do. If something can pass away, it is irrelevant. It is only the things which transcend death, which transcend transience that are important, imo.

All humans are flawed because we all have the capacity to be douchebags. NO ONE is perfect, Roger. Hate to be the latest one to emphasize that fact to you...but it is a fact, if only because we all die.

Of course, to MY way of thinking, that's the only GOOD thing some people have to offer...the fact that they WILL die eventually.

So...if you believe that to stop trusting technology, one might as well stop trusting humans; don't you think it's kind of a corrallary that to stop trusting religion, one might as well stop trusting humans? Because to those who don't believe in a God, Religion is a creation of humans.

I'm really interested in hearing what you've to say about that one.

6. They are to me. Because your scientific textbooks are simply ancient scripture from my viewpoint.

Darwin's "Evolution Of The Species" is an arcane, archaic scripture that requires faith in order to make sense.

7. Right...but here's my thing: Until those theories are proven wrong, they are shoved in the face of anyone who doesn't believe them...including the guy who ultimately proves them wrong.

When they are then proven wrong, it becomes apparent that those who believed in that theory really didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground as far as that specific area goes.

Yet they are the ones YOU (just for example) trust...simply because they haven't been proven guilty yet.

And then when they ARE proven guilty, it becomes apparent that it was YOU (again, for example) who put your trust into someone who really wasn't trustworthy at all. You were duped.

In the end...science is all theory. Anything that can be proven today can be disproven given enough time. Science is transitory...and as I've said earlier, to me that makes it irrelevant.

Going back to my flat earth theory example (even though it may be historically inaccurate,): today the earth is flat...tomorrow it's round...the day after that, it's actually a sphere...the day after that, it's an irregular sphere...the day after that, it may actually be revealed to be a dodecahedron.

Those who believe in the flat earth theory today and die before it's revealed to be round have wasted their lives (imo) by buying totally into something that is not true. I am NOT one of those people who believe that "perception determines reality." I believe in a reality which exists completely independently of one's whims, wants, dreams or desires.

Thus, to spend your life vehemently defending and propogating a line of thinking which ultimately proves to be false (even if it's not within your lifetime) does not mean that you invested your life into a truth. It means you invested your life into a lie.

And according to the laws which you admire so greatly, ignorance is not an excuse for anything.

Trying to be a "good samaritan" by taking a starving, freezing stranger into your home only means that you've still committed the crime of aiding and abetting when it turns out that they're actually a mass murderer on the run from the law. Your ignorance of their status as a murderer does not exempt you from the law against aiding and abetting.

8. Sure...until they're proven to have been unknowing charlatans.

On the point of continual questioning...I could not agree with you more. However, unlike many "Christians" (for lack of a better term,) I also believe that that applies to religion.

The ONLY things that I take on "faith" are the notion that there IS a God and that He has provided a way for me (and anyone else who cares to be bothered) to attain a state of immortality.

The ONLY reason that I accept those things on faith is because there is no way to prove or disprove them. Which, as I've stated before, strongly suggests to me that they must be true.

As for all the rest of whatever's in the scriptures...well, I chalk much of it up to simple common sense and the rest of it is just someone trying to get something over on someone else OR misunderstanding something but writing it down anyway.

I think it's funny that many Christians view the Book of Mormon and the Apocryphal texts in this manner: Well...the Bible says "anyone who adds or removes from this book is doomed to eternal damnation, so these other texts are false."

But what they don't take into consideration is that that was stated in the book of Revelation and refers ONLY to the book of Revelation because the Bible as it is currently known had not yet been collated.

The Bible was put together in an almost arbitrary fashion by people whom I am convinced had ulterior motives at heart. Now, to me, this doesn't mean that the information contained therin should be utterly discounted. It just means to me that it should be questioned.

After all, it was once part of a Rabbi's job to be able to give FIVE different interpretations of any verse of the Torah. This strongly suggests to me that scripture is not meant to be taken LITERALLY, but subjectively...it's open to interpretation.

9. To begin with, you're right. Anyone who lived for thirty years SHOULD have the same experience level. No argument there.

However, according to Christian theology, Christ was not "merely" human. That's what gives him the edge, you see.

Indeed, the changes of society (and the fact that there IS a New Testament) dictate that a stagnant theology is doomed to die out. Yet, 2000 years later, Christianity is still around. Largely, I feel, because it IS somewhat malleable.

It's believed that the information in the New Testament does not necessarily contradict any information in the Old Testament in any way except one:

Instead of having to abide by over 600 rules in order to gain access into Heaven, you now only have to abide by one:

Believe.

Of course, WHAT you believe in is rather important. It's said that you should believe that Christ was the Son of God and that He was sent to provide the means for anyone who believes in Him to attain entrance into Heaven at the end of days.

But that's all one has to do now...believe in that.

I also find it amusing that so-called Christians (who are supposed to emulate Christ) run around trying to cram their belief down the throats of others while totally overlooking that fact that their own Bible states that when Christ healed a leper, His first words to the leper afterwards were "tell NO ONE of this."

Christ wanted to keep it on the down low.

Christians don't notice that by and large.

Go figure.

10. It can't be proven, though; can it? So, how uncomfortable which something that cannot be KNOWN to be fact be?

And, it's only uncomfortable if you take what happens to one after death into consideration. Many people tend to take that "uncomfortable lie or truth or whatever you wish to designate it" and turn it into an excuse to do anything they wish in this life.

The relative discomfort of the notion of eternal nothingness in an afterlife means very little when it mandates that you can do whatever you wish in THIS life and there is no afterlife to worry about.

11. She was atheist. You should check her out...you'd probably enjoy her non-fiction more than her fiction, though.

12. Or he just wanted to make sure that he himself couldn't be held responsible for suggesting that such things don't matter. Despite my comparatively advanced age, I wasn't there when Ari was doing his thing, so I've no idea what his motives and inspirations were. I can only speculate...and my speculations are (admittedly) coloured by my relatively dour view of the human condition.

13. Just like the existence/non-existence of God and an afterlife. Hmmm...that strongly suggests to me that ol' Ari MAY have been being divinely influenced but knew that the God that was influencing him wasn't favored by the cultural climate of the time...so he kept that out of his writings to avoid being persecuted to death.

But, that can neither be proven nor disproven, either.

14. Agreed. They're imperfect and (imo) completely undeserving of any sort of afterlife, really.

Oh, sure...there are some good people who occasionally come along...Ghandi springs immediately to mind...but they are the exception. They are NOT representative of the general condition of humanity. They are the aberrations, if you will.

On the whole, humanity is a worthless mass of animalistic creatures who are so convinced of their own importance due to their self-awareness that they think it's okay to try to wipe out anyone else who doesn't share that very same self-awareness by not being them.

I've frequently said that I'm not so sure unilateral nuclear disarmament was such a good idea...I really think the best thing that humanity can do is wipe itself out before we actually DO figure out a way to start exploring the universe and begin spreading our disease to other planets.

15. But God also gave humanity free will...which means that it should be okay for a woman to have an abortion; she just needs to be prepared to deal with the consequences of such an action.

And Roger, as long as you believe in science and/or philosphy, you cannot be a true nihilist. After all, nihilists don't believe in ANYTHING...not even nihilism.

[cwta eugene]

The Bible was put together in an almost arbitrary fashion by people whom I am convinced had ulterior motives at heart. Now, to me, this doesn't mean that the information contained therin should be utterly discounted. It just means to me that it should be questioned.

Exactly. Take my first post in this thread for instance on the water that was flowing through ancient Egypt during Moses' time. Perhaps it really didn't turn into "blood", but generations later it was turned into "blood" from the original volcanic ash to make it into more of a miracle. Otherwise, many people would be less inclined to believe a miracle happened at all if all the events leading to the release of the Israelites were merely set in place by a volcanic eruption. My point continues to be this though-why couldn't God have created the volcanic eruption?

[ddebil]

Damn! I was getting really into that before I realised my Bonsai had shot up a foot or so. I'm sure the rest was equally insightful though.

[snifferdog]

Do I get a prize for guessing that a thread like this would turn into a big argument?