Religion vs Science

Dook · 2004-08-20 23:25:09

Something I read in another post got me thinking about this topic. Some people seem to think that finding life elsewhere in the universe will proove that all religions are false.

In my opinion science and religion agree. Genesis agrees with the big bang, light first, then firmament-stars that create heavier elements and then planets form, Sun and moon, waters, fish, land creatures and birds, then man. I know it didn't exactly happen in seven days but you have to remember an angel or whoever had to explain this to someone 2,000 years ago who did not have our education and vocabulary. Look at all the life on this planet alone, why wouldn't God fill the universe with it?

To me religion is a human creation. God did not say to get all dressed up and go to church every Sunday. The truest religion of all is science for it is finding the clues left by God to the creation and reason of everything.

If you've ever seen a picture of the earth from space I think you'll know that this is not just an accident of physics.

bolbuyk · 2004-08-21 04:09:47

I agree with your last sentence. Beside that, I don't think finding life elsewhere will prove any story of creation to be wrong. There were also people in earlier times insisting God wouldn't be so honest to create just life on Earth. These day's I don't hear that sounds.

Palomar · 2004-08-21 07:51:52

*I've found my "religion"...1960s psychadelic rock music. :laugh: :;): When the Hurdy Gurdy Man comes singing songs of love, I trip out.

We've had similar discussions before. I -don't- think science and religion are the same thing; frankly, I think they are completely different. Science is based on reason, demonstration, objectivity. Religion is based on feeling, faith and subjectivity.

Science can prove or disprove religion. But I don't think the reverse applies.

Carl G. Jung's writings about religion and symbology, etc., is interesting. It's been a while since I've read his material. There are recurrent and/or persistent themes throughout history in art, music, religious expression. The human mind is an interesting thing. I can enjoy considering religious sentiments and ideas in the context of psychology and mythology.

The only religion which holds any particular interest for me is the Catholic church. Their idea of saints, festivals, holidays and the presence of the feminine (Mary and female saints) is appealing. Latino Catholicism (in the area in which I live) is very beautiful and emotive. The icon imagery is warm, inviting, etc. I've visited a couple of Catholic cemetaries in this area. The graves are lovingly and lavishly decorated with ribbons, huge bouquets of silk flowers, mandalas, little statue houses, icon imagery; and the statues and icons (even if small) are true works of art. The festivals are colorful and lively. The old Spanish-style churches are warm and lovely with their humble but pretty stained glass windows, Spanish wrought-iron work (filigree), neat rows of white candles in decorative Southwestern-style iron candle holders, etc. Definite appeal.

Science is greater than religion. It's the highest capability of humankind, IMO.

I've seen sentiments expressed (elsewhere) that it's unfortunate science and religion are discussed in the context of "versus" -- rivalry. I think it's just a "given," considering objective thinking and subjective feeling are two entirely different things. Oil and water. ::shrugs::

But to each their own. And it's just my opinion.

--Cindy

C M Edwards · 2004-08-23 15:32:12

My two cents:

Today, I meet one common definition of "religious person" in that I'm someone who attends a church whose principles and beliefs I agree with, but I haven't always. I was typically run off by the types who considered any questioning of dogma to be offensive, or was offended myself at being harried and/or lied to in efforts at "conversion" and "defending the faith". I've even been called an atheist for reasons that I didn't disagree with, but I disagreed.

You see, I'm a Christian, and believe everything in the Apostle's Creed. I believe that large portions of the Bible are accurate written history, transcribed from an earlier - accurate - oral history. I also believe that science is one of the best ways to look at the world around us, and given the choice between a scientific description of current events and biblical description of current events, I prefer the scientific.

One of the advantages of worshipping an all-encompassing creator diety is that one is allowed to believe God made science possible as well as religion. Everything made by God is a miracle, and science is our best way of seeing it in action.
Science has little to say on the existence or non-existence of God. (The notion that science has somehow disproved the existence of God, just because it disproved the literal truth of some Bible verse transcribed from an old Hebrew song, is a charming religious conviction, but not necessarily proof of anything.) But it has a lot to say about God's creation, and I don't take anyone seriously who is contemptuous of that creation just because the methods of science are the only way to see it.

Palomar · 2004-08-23 15:56:45

(The notion that science has somehow disproved the existence of God, just because it disproved the literal truth of some Bible verse transcribed from an old Hebrew song, is a charming religious conviction, but not necessarily proof of anything.) But it has a lot to say about God's creation, and I don't take anyone seriously who is contemptuous of that creation just because the methods of science are the only way to see it.

*I'm agnostic. There might be a God...can't prove or disprove it. I don't think any book can either. Nature alone could prove or disprove (which is why I'm willing to keep an open mind on the matter).

What's interesting are devoutly religious people who seem contemptuous of the universe (or "creation"). My mother and aunt are devoutly religious. Yet they show little appreciation for many facets of life and in particular think our only astronomical pursuits should involve ground-based telescopes. Probes, rovers, orbiting telescopes...a waste of time and $.

It goes back to the old "If God had intended for man..." types of debates (used by many other folks I've known personally and not necessarily direct relatives). "If God had intended for man to fly, he'd have wings; if God intended for us to know about Jupiter's atmosphere we'd have been put there instead..." on and on.

I can't understand claims of loving the Artist while also blatantly disregarding and brushing off the Artistry and Artwork (and not just relative to astronomy and space exploration, because I realize many people aren't "into" it; again, I'm referring to that attitude towards many facets and aspects of life).

::shrugs::

--Cindy

Dook · 2004-08-23 16:20:57

I know people like your mom and aunt. I think they are afraid of what we will find out there. They're not afraid for us, but for them. They have a narrow view of God that does not accept change or new ideas. I'm not saying that God changes just that our understanding of the universe He created does. If we were to discover life elsewhere, especially intelligent life, many people would realize that we humans are not so special after all. We're just another blade of grass on a large field. Many narrow minded people would have trouble realizing that it changes nothing. The truth is the truth whether we realize and accept it or not. God didn't follow human expectations when He created the universe. He did it His way.

Dook · 2004-08-23 16:29:23

*I'm agnostic. There might be a God...can't prove or disprove it.

There is something that quantum physics has discovered, I don't remember it exactly, but basically it is a vibration at the atomic level. It is perfect to a very large degree, think of a period with many zeros behind it. If it were not so perfect the universe could not exist. The basic property of atoms would be greatly changed and allow nothing to form.

I think God set the parameters, He made the basic laws, then He opened his hands and let it all begin.

Palomar · 2004-08-23 18:53:31

I'm not saying that God changes just that our understanding of the universe He created does.

*Hi Dook: And therein lies another issue.

Please don't misunderstand me; I am -not- "jumping" you. I simply want to express some questions and thoughts:

Why can't God change? Why doesn't God change?

Most -- if not all -- Christian sects I am familiar with believe God never changes. "Always the same yesterday, today and forever" (IIRC, a portion of a Bible verse).

The notion of a Clockmaker God (I'm not assuming that's your stance, just talking and about to make a point) -- ordered, perfect, never changing, always predictable, etc. (the Clockwork God of the Clockwork Universe) -- has a certain appeal to it. However, "nothing is constant BUT change." There is chaos in the universe, and disorder -- and darkness.

Destruction and Creation (not necessarily of divine volition) are part and parcel of life. They define each other and one could not exist or "be" without the influence of the other.

I prefer order and creation. However, I acknowledge that chaos and destruction are the flip side of the coin. I may dislike and abhor chaos and destruction, but they exist.

If there is a God and all proceeds from Him/Her/It -- then it follows that nothing which exists could exist unless it is in God's nature somewhere. Otherwise there's an entire order of existence separate from God. And then what was the origin of that (a separateness) and how could that be?

Again, please don't get me wrong; this -wasn't- directed at you. They are simply considerations, questions, thoughts I sometimes entertain.

--Cindy

~Eternal~ · 2004-08-23 20:49:46

Genesis read as parable illustrates the theological importance, a literal interpretation only weakens Christianity

Dook · 2004-08-23 21:27:07

Why can't God change? Why doesn't God change?

The main theme in the first testament of the bible is "an eye for an eye". In a complete reversal is the theme of the second testament "forgive and forget".

I used to think that this showed an evolution in God Himself. Maybe He was trying to figure out the best policy for these humans He created? But you know, that just didn't sit well with me. God is supposed to be perfect and all powerful and while I do not believe He actually is I just couldn't get myself to believe that He would so drastically change His guidance for us. So what I came up with is this:

God does not get involved with the day to day goings on of the universe. He created the universe with a balance. Matter-energy, light-dark, good-bad... Everything balances the other. On the earth you can see it with the deer. When we killed off the wolves the deer population exploded. As the deer become too many they eat too much of the available food and there is a mass dying of deer. Balance. It may be cruel but how else do you build a system as massive as the universe and have it control itself?

The main problem with this idea is that it contradicts the bible. God is said to have been greatly involved with us. If this is true, then where did He go? I think angels did all the great things in the bible. They tried to teach us to be good.

Also this solves the question of "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?" Because He is not involved, His servants are or were. I believe the angels tried to help us in the past but maybe they backed off after we constantly misunderstood and went against their teachings. Humans chose the golden calf over their involvement. We wanted to make our own decisions so that is the way it is.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 06:29:04

I know I've said this before in a similar discussion, but I'm of the opinion that science and religion need not conflict except when religion strays into the realm of science. They are about different things on a fundamental level. Science is objective, looking at physical phenomena, figuring out the workings of observable systems. It's the realm of the material, the mundane, the "real." Religion on the other hand revolves around spiritual or philosphical matters, things outside the realm of science as they can neither be observed nor proven. Is there a God? Science has not proven it so and cannot prove it to be fallacy. Science can answer how the universe works and exists but it is powerless to determine why on a deeper level.

Unfortunately, religion has a habit of extending itself into the realm of science, and therein lies the conflict. Science disproving a particular religious tenet that exists outside its realm does not negate the entire relgion's validity any more than faith can undo the cold reality of events. All that we survey is within the realm of science, but for many it is not all there is. There is a sense that there has to be more, that all of this can't have happened through accident and that we must in some way continue after our bodies die.

Personally I can't believe that. I'd like to, but I can't make that leap blindly, with no evidence to support it. But I do understand the desire to believe, to know that this isn't all there is.

Palomar · 2004-08-24 08:52:18

Science can answer how the universe works and exists but it is powerless to determine why on a deeper level.
.. All that we survey is within the realm of science, but for many it is not all there is. There is a sense that there has to be more, that all of this can't have happened through accident and that we must in some way continue after our bodies die.
Personally I can't believe that. I'd like to, but I can't make that leap blindly, with no evidence to support it. But I do understand the desire to believe, to know that this isn't all there is.

*Yep (similar past discussions) and I'll try not to repeat myself as well.

Right. Just asking in general: But what if there IS no "why" to all this? In my experience, most people abhor the thought. But just because lots of people favor the concept of a Higher Being (as an absolute truth) and a WHY for everything doesn't mean it is so.

I fully understand the desire to stay young and to never die. I too dislike the notion that what is me may end entirely with death. But it's completely possible that is what happens...you die, that's it.

Formerly I believed in reincarnation. I later realized it was a subconcious carry-over of childhood religious conditioning, i.e. some sort of continuity "MUST" follow death. Then a person challenged me on that -- very bluntly. Was I entertaining the concept of life after death because of fear I couldn't achieve and enjoy what potential and life I know I have in this life? It was a smack to the head. Not long ago I posed the same issue to a friend (he brought up the matter), who reacted very negatively...as I initially did. Thing is, we know we have NOW. Make the most of it, get it while you can...because an afterlife is merely an article of faith.

There's times I would like to believe there's something Greater out there which has my best interests at heart, which cares for and loves me, which seeks to protect me and works to ensure my happiness. During my childhood there seemed to be a few instances of something Greater occasionally assisting in my life. But not often, and I frequently found myself having to take hold of the reins and do things for myself. Based on all that, I really doubt there is Something out there which cares for me and has my well-being at heart; frankly because I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence for it (especially at crisis points when I could have used it!). I only know that as family members, my spouse...and myself. It's not easy or "fun" feeling as if you're alone (with the exception of a dozen loved ones around you) in a big, cold world. But ::shrugs::...seems that's where it is.

I also think *some* (not all) of the "there IS life after death" sentiment is based on -vanity-. Just because we're at the top of the food chain on this planet doesn't automatically ensure a guaranteed Ticket to the Next Life just because we're wonderful or strong or whatever. I think a lot of that goes back to the old "humans as center of the universe" sentiment.

My aunt and mother (and their fellow evangelical Christians) are convinced when they die they'll walk on streets of pure gold, live in a mansion surrounded by gates of pearl, wear heavily encrusted gemstone crowns, etc. etc., because they are "saved." They also believe anyone who possesses real, NOW incredible wealth will lose everything and burn in hell if that person doesn't convert to their belief system. Besides being a covetous and vindictive outlook based on jealousy, it's also an indication (IMO anyway) that it's an emotional balm (in my opinion).

And what a coincidence; just 10 minutes ago my aunt sent me an e-mail attachment pertaining to John 3:16. Yes, I only had 14 years of extremely intense religious exposure...surely I've never heard of the Bible even. They just never give up; you've GOT to believe.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 09:20:20

It's not easy or "fun" feeling as if you're alone (with the exception of a dozen loved ones around you) in a big, cold world. But ::shrugs::...seems that's where it is.

In a way I find it to be somewhat liberating. While I can understand the desire, the need to believe in something greater, I also find the prospect of a supreme being who passes eternal judgment based on rather subjective factors disturbing. Follow these rules, think this way, or be cast into the fires of damnation. When a supreme being does it we call it God and worship it, when men do the same we call them tyrants and fight them. :hm:

Anyway, atheism can be a bit depressing at times, "this is all there is" and all, but I always know where I stand without the prospect of a supreme being who may be benevolent, or may be a sadist, interfering.

Of course it also means that you really can get away with stuff.

Which brings to mind a conversation I had several years ago in which the subject of religion arose. Catholic girl. I answered that I was an atheist, to which she responded with a concerned expression "oh, you must be so sad."

I replied that such a response was similar to a person in a wheelchair watching someone walk by, then commenting "oh, your legs must be so tired."

That was the end of that.

Dook · 2004-08-24 10:38:39

I don't believe anyone goes to hell. If souls are never ending energy why let one go to the other side? I think we are here to learn and experience. Maybe the universe is just a way for energy beings, souls, to connect with something real, matter.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can get away with stuff. You still have a conscience to deal with. I always wondered why we even have a conscience. How does something like that evolve? For example, stealing food from your neighbor would be an evolutionary advantage, less work for you, more work for your food competition. But somehow we know it's not right. Maybe that's your soul talking to you.

God can't help you find your way. That would be cheating.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 10:59:17

I don't believe anyone goes to hell. If souls are never ending energy why let one go to the other side? I think we are here to learn and experience.

I know many Christians who believe this as well, downplaying the entire concept of Hell. This confuses... the Hell out me. I'm curious as to what holds the religion up without Hell. Salvation from what, exactly?

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can get away with stuff. You still have a conscience to deal with.

Yes, which is largely why I still don't steal stuff and kill people. But in a larger sense, if we all simply cease to exist when we die, no Heaven or Hell, then we do get away with it in a sense. No judgment but that which we pass on ourselves.

For example, stealing food from your neighbor would be an evolutionary advantage, less work for you, more work for your food competition. But somehow we know it's not right. Maybe that's your soul talking to you.

No, not really. We can gather/hunt more food working as a group than acting alone, so it's actually advantageous to not steal food from your own 'tribe.' Raiding some other group, on the other hand, is a gain for yours while a detriment to your competition.

So cooperation within a social group and aggression toward those outside it gave us a survival advantage. No need for the whispers of the soul.

Palomar · 2004-08-24 11:11:02

Cobra:
Which brings to mind a conversation I had several years ago in which the subject of religion arose. Catholic girl. I answered that I was an atheist, to which she responded with a concerned expression "oh, you must be so sad."
I replied that such a response was similar to a person in a wheelchair watching someone walk by, then commenting "oh, your legs must be so tired."

*Really excellent comeback, Cobra.

Dook: Being an atheist doesn't mean you can get away with stuff. You still have a conscience to deal with. I always wondered why we even have a conscience. How does something like that evolve? For example, stealing food from your neighbor would be an evolutionary advantage, less work for you, more work for your food competition. But somehow we know it's not right. Maybe that's your soul talking to you.

*The matter of conscience. I've got one. But other people seem NOT to have one (serial killers for instance). Is the conscience evidence of a soul...or is it rather *empathy* and fellow-feeling which some folks seem to have more or less of than others? Doubtless we've all seen vicious killers and rapists on TV, in the news; they show absolutely no remorse and are only sorry they got caught. If conscience = soul, do these sorts of people have no soul? Ted Bundy didn't care how many women he raped, savaged and butchered. He'd still be doing it, if he could. I ran over a mouse with my car a few years ago -- by accident -- and I felt crummy all day long for it! How can such contrasts in the nature of humans be accounted for? Cold-blood killers never mourn their victims...I run over a mouse and I have a rotten day. How can such an extreme exist within the human family?

As for "getting away with stuff"...I don't think Cobra meant that glibly; I take it he was referring to some supernatural entity isn't going to zap you with a lightning bolt (correct if my impressions are wrong, Cobra). However, besides conscience, your fellow humans will also consequence you (sometimes beneficial, sometimes detrimental).

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-08-24 13:09:34

Quite aside from religious considerations, when one thinks of the difficulties we humans already have overcome to make ourselves aware of the Universe to the extent we have--using nothing but our own physical senses, native intelligence, and ingenuity to augment these--one wonders what we are ultimately capable of. Alone in the universe for all practical purposes, don't you all who are aware of this feel an urgent need to preserve life--all life--and get on with our expansion "out there" as rapidly as possible, before it's too late?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 13:31:44

Alone in the universe for all practical purposes, don't you all who are aware of this feel an urgent need to preserve life--all life--and get on with our expansion "out there" as rapidly as possible, before it's too late?

Indeed.

Well, in all honesty I don't suppose I'd preserve all life, but the general sentiment remains. Ever onward.

Palomar · 2004-08-24 13:36:13

Quite aside from religious considerations, when one thinks of the difficulties we humans already have overcome to make ourselves aware of the Universe to the extent we have--using nothing but our own physical senses, native intelligence, and ingenuity to augment these--one wonders what we are ultimately capable of. Alone in the universe for all practical purposes, don't you all who are aware of this feel an urgent need to preserve life--all life--and get on with our expansion "out there" as rapidly as possible, before it's too late?

*Good points, and yes -- what ARE we ultimately capable of?

Trouble seems to be: Are most people (in the West and developing nations at any rate; we can't expect hungry folks in sub-Saharan Africa to care about going to Mars when they don't know if they'll eat tomorrow) even interested in space exploration and "getting on with it"?

Seems to me they're much more concerned about the latest fashion trends and who's winning what medal at the Olympics, etc.

Sometimes it feels trying to drum up enough interest in progress and capability (as science goes) is akin to the old "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" adage.

There's so much pettiness and unthinking herd following amongst we humans...I wonder if we'll ever get a chance to fully demonstrate our capabilities and potential (in a beneficial, progressive manner).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 13:52:12

Sometimes it feels trying to drum up enough interest in progress and capability (as science goes) is akin to the old "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" adage.

Science (unlike religion) doesn't have the capability to really motivate the masses to action.

Scientific progress, in order to gain broad support, must piggyback on something else. No dictator, proletarian assembly or democratic electorate will push hard for anything solely in the name of science.

In other words, we need to make the horse want to drink even if it isn't thirsty, and offering more water just won't cut it.

Palomar · 2004-08-24 14:07:02

No, not really. We can gather/hunt more food working as a group than acting alone, so it's actually advantageous to not steal food from your own 'tribe.' Raiding some other group, on the other hand, is a gain for yours while a detriment to your competition.
So cooperation within a social group and aggression toward those outside it gave us a survival advantage.

*Mmmmm-hmmmmm. And I'm certain you are aware, Cobra, that the social group can be every bit as tyrannical, oppressive and vindictive towards its own members which it deems somehow "odd" or "misfit" as any retributive God ever could. Nonconformity (of even a benign nature) is punished.

And interestingly, sometimes "the other tribe" will accept those who have departed (or been ejected from) their native tribe.

But I really dislike "tribal" talk. And of course The State replaces God in totalitarian societies.

Ayn Rand was, IMO, right about one thing: Individuality is mercilessly and continually attacked in one way or another.

Sorry, don't mean to get off-topic. Society is important...but I refuse to make it God. Not saying you are doing that; just commenting.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-24 14:16:40

*Mmmmm-hmmmmm. And I'm certain you are aware, Cobra, that the social group can be every bit as tyrannical, oppressive and vindictive towards its own members which it deems somehow "odd" or "misfit" as any retributive God ever could. Nonconformity (of even a benign nature) is punished.

Oh, certainly. But again, too much deviance from the social norms of the group could impede functioning within that group, thus degrading the hunting/gathering take of the whole. Again, we're seeing traits that had advantages in our natural habitat that no longer serve any real purpose, but endure nonetheless.

Looking at humanity solely as a collection of smart plains-roaming monkeys now in captivity seems to clarify some of our more baffling traits.

Silly monkeys.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-25 11:46:41

My aunt and mother (and their fellow evangelical Christians) are convinced when they die they'll walk on streets of pure gold, live in a mansion surrounded by gates of pearl, wear heavily encrusted gemstone crowns, etc. etc., because they are "saved." They also believe anyone who possesses real, NOW incredible wealth will lose everything and burn in hell if that person doesn't convert to their belief system. Besides being a covetous and vindictive outlook based on jealousy, it's also an indication (IMO anyway) that it's an emotional balm (in my opinion).
And what a coincidence; just 10 minutes ago my aunt sent me an e-mail attachment pertaining to John 3:16. Yes, I only had 14 years of extremely intense religious exposure...surely I've never heard of the Bible even. They just never give up; you've GOT to believe.

Ah, biblical literalism. It’s a pox on all religious interpretation of science.

Oh, but now you’ve tempted me off on a tangent. I promise to get back on topic sometime this year....

To your aunts’ credit, they can claim their position is supported by the New Testament. Jesus said, “I am the life, the truth, and the way. No man shall come before the father save through me.” (That’s John 14:6 for you bibliophiles.) It’s a statement that I agree with.

Unfortunately, through the blind application of biblical literalism, this quote of Jesus is often mis-translated as “Worship Jesus or go to Hell.” If you compare the two translations, you’ll see that they don’t quite have the same semantics. (Or meaning. Or definition. Or truth.) Taken literally, this mis-translation implies that people who have never had the chance to learn about Jesus, or even heard of him, are to be damned if they never do learn about Jesus, or never even hear about him. And that doesn’t even touch on the subject of informed agnosticism. It implies that God makes disposable souls.

No less a philosopher and religious authority than pope John Paul II has said (without invoking papal infallibility :;): ) that he personally believes that if someone is a good enough person, they will go to Heaven whether they are a Christian or not. Of all the accounts of people so saintly that God assumed them directly into heaven without the indignity of death (Enoch, Elijah, etc.), only one is of a Christian woman, and that account is considered apocryphal (even by theologians ). Clearly one can know God, serve Him and please Him quite well without ever even knowing the name “Jesus”.

Make no mistake: the correct translation can imply the incorrect one, conditionally. However, it can’t be taken literally when out of context because, linguistically, it’s a metaphor. Jesus is referencing other things - including traditional teachings and his own position in creation - that are not directly addressed in those two sentences. It’s still true. Just because something is technically a metaphor doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the clearest injunctions conceivable. However, you have to actually know the background before you can make an informed decision about it. This makes it unpopular with bliblical literalists; hence the popularity of the other, simpler, wrong translation.

The actual statement of Jesus is an instruction, not a threat. Yes, it’s terse. But if you’re trying to leave instructions for someone you’ve never met, to enable them to do something they’ve never done before, you don’t start with the appendix and then move on to the whole manual. You just tell them how to do it. That’s what Jesus is doing in that statement. He’s not passing judgement or casting aspersions. They’re as unnecessary to that bible verse as they would be to a car repair manual. (There are plenty of examples of Jesus passing judgement if you want one for comparison. This isn’t one.)

I'm not discounting John 14:6. Anyone can say “Play around with it and see what you can do.” I’m a christian. And I don’t believe anyone’s going to Hell on the word of Cindy’s aunt. Her interpretation is just wrong.

Thanks for your time.

CME

Palomar · 2004-08-25 12:26:38

No less a philosopher and religious authority than pope John Paul II has said (without invoking papal infallibility :;): ) that he personally believes that if someone is a good enough person, they will go to Heaven whether they are a Christian or not.

*Thanks for your comments, CME.

It would almost have to be...and I don't say that glibly at all. I can't comprehend goodness punished by an all-knowing (and supposedly wise and fair) creator. Punishing goodness is, at the very least, foolish; at the worst, it's an outrage. So I agree with your statement...IF there is a Heaven.

John Paul II: Seems like an amiable man. He strikes me as far more humanitarian than many other high-ranking religious leaders I can think of. He and I share the same birthday: May 18.

To be honest, whether or not there's a God really doesn't concern me all that much. I'm more interested in how others view/perceive the issue. If God's existence could be proven or disproven tomorrow, I don't think it'd phase me one way or the other because it's not an important question in my life.

What I am curious to know, however, is how atheists (one such gentleman is present but I won't call him out by name) can be so certain there is no God. ???

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-25 13:43:32

What I am curious to know, however, is how atheists (one such gentleman is present but I won't call him out by name) can be so certain there is no God.

It's not so much about proving that God doesn't exist as seeing no evidence that he/she/it does. It's Carl Sagan's extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence sort of thing. A universe as complex as the one in which we live, with the conditions for life and consciousness to evolve forming out of cosmic accident is remarkable; but to suppose that an omnitient, all powerful being simply existed out of nothing and created all we see for whatever reason... that strikes me as an extraordinary claim.

The argument for all the factors that must be present for life to evolve doesn't hold up either. We're alive, so logic dictates that we would find ourselves in a universe just perfect for us to exist within. Billions and billions of others may have come before that weren't right and then here we are by dumb luck, we don't know. Not too convincing an argument for divine creation either way.

So if the Almighty himself were to come down to my desk here, proclaim his greatness, fill my soul with the power of the Lord and turn my Coke into Pepsi, I'd have to reconsider the nature of the universe. Otherwise, it's just one more claim that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, only rationales.

But hey, as long as no Inquisitors are running around torching people it doesn't bother me. To each their own.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-20 23:25:09

Re: Religion vs Science

#2 2004-08-21 04:09:47

Re: Religion vs Science

#3 2004-08-21 07:51:52

Re: Religion vs Science

#4 2004-08-23 15:32:12

Re: Religion vs Science

#5 2004-08-23 15:56:45

Re: Religion vs Science

#6 2004-08-23 16:20:57

Re: Religion vs Science

#7 2004-08-23 16:29:23

Re: Religion vs Science

#8 2004-08-23 18:53:31

Re: Religion vs Science

#9 2004-08-23 20:49:46

Re: Religion vs Science

#10 2004-08-23 21:27:07

Re: Religion vs Science

#11 2004-08-24 06:29:04

Re: Religion vs Science

#12 2004-08-24 08:52:18

Re: Religion vs Science

#13 2004-08-24 09:20:20

Re: Religion vs Science

#14 2004-08-24 10:38:39

Re: Religion vs Science

#15 2004-08-24 10:59:17

Re: Religion vs Science

#16 2004-08-24 11:11:02

Re: Religion vs Science

#17 2004-08-24 13:09:34

Re: Religion vs Science

#18 2004-08-24 13:31:44

Re: Religion vs Science

#19 2004-08-24 13:36:13

Re: Religion vs Science

#20 2004-08-24 13:52:12

Re: Religion vs Science

#21 2004-08-24 14:07:02

Re: Religion vs Science

#22 2004-08-24 14:16:40

Re: Religion vs Science

#23 2004-08-25 11:46:41

Re: Religion vs Science

#24 2004-08-25 12:26:38

Re: Religion vs Science

#25 2004-08-25 13:43:32

Re: Religion vs Science

Board footer