...Continued

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, “I'm willing, Lord. I'll do whatever You want me to do.” Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions, limitations and agendas.

And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.

The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting sh!t dead wrong.

This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realise that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.

If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a Mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

If the world does come to an end here or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was: That we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it.

That's it. Grow up or die.”

[End quote]

As for my “Generalisations”, I try not to generalise too much.

Continued...

...Continued

For example, I’m happy to acknowledge the difference between George’s undefineable and unknowable version of god and the bearded old man that creationists believe in. But I’d grown tired of adding the “Of course, not all Christians are like that” qualifier at the end of everything I say a long time ago. The more moderate and sane Christians choose for themselves the same label as the lunatics, so it is not my responsibility or anyone else’s to continuously put qualifiers at the end of points that we are trying to make succinctly.

‘Non-believer’ and ‘atheist’ are the same thing too, by the way.

<<Or are your non-belief previous statements on OLO, not as set in concrete as you would have me believe?>>

I’m always open to any objective evidence if it can be provided. As I’ve said before, I care about whether or not my beliefs are true, so if a god exists, then I want to know. But we’ve had nearly 2000 years of Christianity and still nothing.

<<The key is to look around and observe not only nature but people and their ways of life.>>

I agree. In fact, despite how wrong it was for my parents to indoctrinate me, I’m very thankful that they did as it gave me the unique opportunity to experience both sides of the coin and understand where Christians are coming from.

<<The 'key' from 40 years ago were people and experiences that opened my eyes to God and Christianity literally!!>>

Yes, but if you lived in India, it would be Vishnu and Hinduism; If you lived in an Islamic country, it would be Allah and Islam. Do you honestly think you would have discovered Yahweh in ancient Greece?

As for your mentioning of ‘young souls’ and ‘old souls’, I don’t really believe any of that stuff, but I wouldn’t dream of ever overtly scoffing at it because I don’t believe there is any harm in it like there is with religion.

I don’t do any of this because I like being a big meanie.

George,

<<I can see your [Oliver’s] arguments that tilt the scales in favour of the Sagan alternative, however I think there are other arguments that will tilt it the other way.>>

Do you have any other examples of arguments that would tilt the other way?

The Gasset quote could too easily be interpreted as: “We can convince ourselves of anything if we really try hard enough. Especially if we have a predisposition to believe the things that we are trying to convince ourselves of.”

Besides which, truth is essentially just a verifiable fact. We can’t just “yearn” our desired version of it into reality, nor should we have to have a specific “mental space” for it - or presupposition for that matter.

AJ Phillips

Interesting posts. I find particular emotional resonance with your observation:

>> For example, I’m happy to acknowledge the difference between George’s undefineable and unknowable version of god and the bearded old man that creationists believe in. But I’d grown tired of adding the “Of course, not all Christians are like that” qualifier at the end of everything I say a long time ago. <<

Me too. There are many Christian posters here I genuinely like and respect and I am aware I probably offend without meaning to. However, both the 'progressive' Christian and creationist Christians have to have faith - for there remains no proof for any religion let alone the one they were born into. And both argue strenuously and often in a manner I can only describe as a verbal sleight of hand.

I find your posts very clear and compelling. Please forgive if you have already provided this information, but you stopped believing in religion as an adult?

Apologies WAU, but stating your children are old and young souls, respectively, proves nothing except that is what you believe, but it does divert one's attention from the origin of the universe.

And this has to be a classic from George:

>> You use the elusive term “evidence”. <<

That was practically a Zen moment when I read that. Evidence is an elusive term? How do police investigators ever catch the bad guy?

And I never get my questions answered, like why would a superior being want to be adored and worshipped? Wouldn't s/he be above that sort of alpha behaviour?

Seems to me that Religion demands respect, while Science earns it.

LOL AJ you are a character and made me laugh with your closure.

I agree with many points you raise; it is the generalisation element made by so many that I occasionally address reading peoples excellent posts including yours.

Fair enough AJ. It is a fact of course as we all know; religion in most countries for centuries has been the major oppressor, cause of war conflict and hatred and we would be better off without fundamentalism and religious impositions.

Dear Oliver,
Obviously I have to withdraw my claim that you were comparing two physical theories. I do not know of any quote where Penrose would compare Hartle-Hawking (or other physical theory) with religious constructs, or anything related to religion: When he mentions “the Creator”, “acts of God” it is just a figure of speech, like Hawking’s “mind of God” or when somebody says “thanks God, I am an atheist”.

Again, as long as you stay within science (physics), I have nothing to add (a do not feel enough of an expert).

>> is God an explanation for existence? … We can then ask is there a better case from the weak theories of pioneer physics to explain Causation or for a divine agency.<<
These are legitimate questions, and although my answer is by now obvious to you, I feel more affinity with those who opt for “explaining Causality” from within physics, than for those, who do not ask the question or find it meaningless, though even their position is legitimate.

You invite modern physics in support of the claim that the physical world is its own cause and purpose. I think the strongest argument for this - physics or no physics - is that the non-Sagan assumption of an external cause and purpose is superfluous (Occam’s razor).

The “quantum enigma” feature of modern physics - that somehow involves consciousness, which would be new to physics but is an obvious “playground” for the phenomenon of religion - might support the non-Sagan assumption. Another “argument” I offered was a reference to the Münchhausen parable.

>>unless the goal posts are moved <<
The goal posts affect only the “God of the gaps”, i.e. the idea of God needed to explain natural phenomena. The God contemporary educated Christians believe in is beyond the realm where these goal posts have to be moved by those who identify Him with His projection, shadow, known as the “God of the gaps”.

>>god allowed the self-creating universe.<<
This is how I see it. God though being the Universe’s cause and purpose “allows it to be itself” (Polkinghorne).