Reason is ultimately useless?
Funny, from my reading of the Gospels, I found the legendary Jesus to be a pretty reasonable fella.
"Do unto others, as you would have then do unto you"; very reasonable way for people to get along.
"turn the other cheek", forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive..."; how else can you stop the escalating "violence begets violence"?
Shame we can't live up to it.
One thing is certain: if there is a God,the first people to meet and understand IT will be scientists. Those who have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, and become as Gods themselves.
Or dead people.
I'm going with scientists.

" .. the theory of natural selection, like all theories, is made whole by applying personal judgment."

The theory of Natural Selection has been made whole by consensus, including consensus about verifying facts, such as DNA and the way it works, first elucidated by Gregor Mendel.

Reason has given us:

Planes, cars, trains, computers, the Internet, printing, vaccination, safe childbirth, double life expectancies, winter strawberries, camembert cheese, Richard Dawkins and an end to smallpox.

Religion has given us:

The Spanish Inquisition and Cardinal Pell.

Not really such a hard decision, is it?

But what a shame that OO goes on giving its precious column inches to people who can't even begin to construct a logical argument, simply because they claim to represent some particular brand of mystic woo. When is the Mighty God Frazz going to have his day in the sun?

Jon J sums the situation precisely.

It is nearly 20 years since Terry Lane wrote "God; The Interview" which was updated in 2004. In the book Lane, with great humour, demolished miracles and the notion of a God interested in human affairs.

Epicurus, 300 years before the current era, summed the situation even more precisely;
"If god is willing to prevent evil but unable
Then he is not omnipotent
If he is able but not willing he is malevolent
If he is both able and willing
Whence cometh evil
If neither able nor willing
Why call him god"

The author goes too far when he claims that reason is ultimately useless.

But, whatever reason might or might not be, it certainly isn't always objective, and it's application definitely isn't always clear. So I agree with the author that the new atheists need to understand that much.

This is all a little... desperate, isn't it Mr Christensen?

>>Doubtless, numerous unengaged monologues, animated by bitterness and fear more than dispassionate reason, were delivered, yet still no news reports of a final answer for humanity.<<

I don't recall seeing anywhere in the pre-publicity for the Convention, that they intended to determine - or even get a step closer to - the meaning of life, the universe and everything. A topic that holds absolutely no interest for an atheist.

There is no doubt that we humans are, in galactic terms, merely a chemical anomaly, and will exist and disappear in the cosmic equivalent of a blink of an eye. What, apart from your gut feeling that "there has to be something more than this", suggests anything different?

You picked your Hitchhiker quote a little out of context, too. Here is the immediately preceding exchange:

ARTHUR: All through my life I’ve had this strange, unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world… and no one would tell me what it was.

SLARTIBARTFAST: No, that’s just perfectly normal paranoia, everyone in the universe has that

It is also perfectly normal curiosity to ask yourself "why are we here, what is the purpose of our existence. And it is a measure of the arrogance of some folk to actually imagine that there is one. That we are, somehow, rooly rooly important in the context of the universe as a whole. What staggers me sometimes is that even a cursory glance at the scale of the cosmos, its age, its dimensions and some of the things that are going on in it, will tell you that we are pretty insignificant.

As the Book tells us:

"'Space,' it says, 'is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space, listen…and so on"

The very idea of a "purpose", other than to lead a good and happy life, simply disintegrates under the sheer bigness of space.

Actually JonJ

Design has given us :Planes, cars, trains, computers, the Internet, printing, hospitals oh or was it the big bang?

Pseudo science has given us man/ape, abortion, racism, man made climate change and Richard Dawkins.

We must be careful not to misinterpret the author here, when he says "reason is ultimately useless".

The entire article is about the meaning of life, and the scientism of the New Atheists vs other ways of understanding the big questions. So he's saying that reason will leave us agnostic about the questions that children repetitively ask: Why am I here? Why is there something rather than nothing? and the like. Dawkins is on record as saying that questions of purpose are meaningless questions. Christensen is saying that they aren't meaningless, it's just that reason won't help us answer them.

There's no need to engage in strawmen and talk about technological advances, planes, cars and the like. That's clearly not what the author was referring to.

"The entire article is about the meaning of life…" No.

The entire article is about making these two claims:

"…the best secular answer on offer, is a rather lame alternative to the hope and glory of Jesus Christ." And
"Then admit reason is at its best when we acknowledge it's ultimately useless."

Not that I'm complaining on that score – the hint was in the title, after all.

But for those who think an argument was built here, simply substitute the helpfully supplied Xenu reference into the article instead of Jesus and see how much you still agree.

WM Trevor, yes of course Christensen believes Jesus is the answer to those pesky questions of purpose- you're right if you're saying he makes that much clear. But articulating that view is by no means the main point of the article. The main point is about how we get there! ie: The epistemology of the questions of meaning.

To simplify the issue: Do we rely on allegedly dispassionate reason, or do we listen to our hearts and/or rely on personal experiences? I would say a combination of both, whereas Christensen would say purely the latter. That's what the article's about.

>>while arguments regarding the non-existence of God are straw men designed to distract from the unsettling realization that 42, the best secular answer on offer, is a rather lame alternative to the hope and glory of Jesus Christ.<<

How can you justify that conclusion? 42 might be a lame answer: so might Jesus Christ. There is no way of knowing how lame or not lame any answer might be when you don't know the question. We don't: the Vogons destroyed the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass before it could complete its program.

It seems the point has eluded Mark. The problem is not with the answer: it is with the question. When Deep Thought gives 42 as the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything it seems nonsensical and meaningless to the mice - but it is only nonsensical because the mice didn't know what they were asking. It is asking for the Ultimate Answer that is meaningless rather than the answer: and until you actually figure out what the Ultimate Question is Jesus is just as meaningless an answer.

If you've read Life, the Universe and Everything you'll know that Prak's testimony includes the revelation that it is impossible to know both the Question and the Answer:

>>``I'm afraid,'' he said at last, ``that the Question and the Answer are mutually exclusive. Knowledge of one logically precludes knowledge of the other. It is impossible that both can ever be known about the same universe.''

He paused again. Disappointment crept into Arthur's face and snuggled down into its accustomed place.

``Except,'' said Prak, struggling to sort a thought out, ``if it happened, it seems that the Question and the Answer would just cancel each other out and take the Universe with them, which would then be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable. It is possible that this has already happened<<

Cheers,

Tony

Whatever the question, the answer is not Jesus.
Oh, hang on, unless the question is...
I'll take Mythical Figures for $1000 Alex
"Came 2000 years ago pretending to be God, promising so much and yet, to this day, delivering nothing"
Bzzzt, Who is Jesus?

We are told the true test of genuine intelligence is the ability to hold two conflicting views in the mind simultaneously and give equal weight to both. i.e., if you believe a man named Jesus was the personification of God and crucified on a cross, then you also have to hold open in your mind the possibility of the opposite; particularly in view of the lack of objective evidence or actual eyewitness accounts.
The words on printed paper we now rely on as the foundation stone of a BELIEF system, where allegedly written down on paper approximately 350 years after the event; and then shamelessly plagiarized by three other authors? Who allegedly embellished and or revised the account; so that the central character in the greatest story ever told, could fulfil all the predicted characteristics and magical abilities of the foretold Messiah?
Similarly, if the account of evolution were true and had its beginnings in mysteriously magically appearing single celled organisms. There'd be quite massive coke deposits to look at in the remaining undisturbed mantle. Even in the absence of this critical central evidence; it could be true, even though it is as likely as a whirlwind whipping through a junk yard and creating a fully functional and flyable 747.
Well, it could happen if you simply had enough time.
Of course we also confront the very real possibility that neither the endlessly quarrelling creationists and their alter egos, the atheists are right; or as far from the truth as our most primitive cousins, with their fairy tale or mythological explanations of all things not actually understood? Rhrosty.

In four words - what a pathetic rant.

I've no idea who told you this, Rhosty...

>>We are told the true test of genuine intelligence is the ability to hold two conflicting views in the mind simultaneously and give equal weight to both<<

...but it was most likely someone who was trying to justify not being able to make up their mind.

Whether true or not, though, you give a bad example.

>>...if you believe a man named Jesus was the personification of God and crucified on a cross, then you also have to hold open in your mind the possibility of the opposite<<

"Believing" something, and "holding open in your mind" something else, are not conflicting views.

Believing opposites would be considered to be the acceptance of conflicting views, but of course that is logically impossible, and anyone who both believes and not-believes the same thing would be considered unbalanced.

"Holding open in your mind" both as possibilities is on the other hand logically acceptable, being a definition of someone unable to make up their mind. However, whether being unable to reach a conclusion is invariably a sign of true intelligence, I beg leave to doubt.

Perhaps the quote Rhrosty was looking for might've been....

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it".

- Aristotle

Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC

42 is a nonsense answer to the meaning of life as the author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" intended. A semimythical humanoid God known as Jesus is also a nonsense answer to the meaning of life. Some of us face the fact that life has no meaning apart from the meaning that we give it. Others, like the author of the article, find meaning in fairy tales. One of the objectives of the Global Atheist Convention was to make an effort to see that the valuable minds of our young people are not filled with nonsense like Creationism instead of learning to think critically on the basis of evidence. The GAC was picketted by both Muslims and Christians some of whom who apparently believed in the existence of a nasty Supreme Fascist who would condemn all atheists and those who didn't subscribe to their particular mumbojumbo to hell. Hell and other supernatural locales and entities are creations of the human mind which has also occasionally exhibited reason.

Sensible Christians and Muslims went about their business while their more intolerant fellows picketted the GAC. Across the street from the GAC was the Crown Casino where gullible people in some cases were pissing away the family sustenance. There were no pickets there. IMHO the atheists were exhibiting much more moral and reasonable behaviour than the casino patrons.

We really do need to plaster over some peoples navels.

All the time they are spending contemplating on the things, is sending far too many mad.

G'day, Trav... I'd be more inclined towards your analysis if the title had been, "42 a poor alternative to the epistemology of the questions of meaning" - but it wasn't.

Maybe I just regard it as disingenuous to question meaning, having supplied The Answer.

I prefer Gracie Allen's approach to following your heart:

‘I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best.’

Within spatio-temporal parameters of cognition I concur with Pericles here:
<< The very idea of a "purpose", other than to lead a good and happy life, simply disintegrates under the sheer bigness of space. >>

And if we limit “belief” to a matter of propositional logic I again concur with him here:
<< Believing opposites would be considered to be the acceptance of conflicting views, but of course that is logically impossible, and anyone who both believes and not-believes the same thing would be considered unbalanced. >>

Human consciousness is not, however, founded solely on spatio-temporal perception and logical judgement. Those two faculties are invaluable as the basis for the great scientific and technological advances of the last few centuries. But questions about the “purpose” or “meaning” of life arise from consciousness that also admits two other functions: the type of perception which is not spatio-temporal; and judgement which, while reliable, is not based on logic.

Perhaps that is what Mark Christensen is getting at in the concluding paragraph of his article:
<< Want reason to reign? Want pointless hostilities to cease and for people to feel the truth within? Then admit reason is at its best when we acknowledge it's ultimately useless. >>

When it comes to dealing with the question of “the meaning of life” reason in the form of logical empiricism, while perhaps not completely useless, is inadequate .

We need to move towards a better conceptual framework for the understanding of consciousness. This will require the admission of subjective reality.

Mark, I’m sorry but you lost me with your sub heading.

“Atheism is busy framing the answers, but it doesn't understand what the question is”.

Perhaps I’m just the wrong sort of atheist as my view of things is that we are just one of the known 4.2 million biological species on this planet. No atheist left to get on with their own lives has either a question in relation to these matters, or is trying to frame answers. We are not interested, not buying and utterly ambivalent.

It is religious theology that is so insecure about its faith that is needs to be constantly challenged to boost the “faith”. That’s how religion works, get it?

The great debate is a theological fabrication designed to “provoke” a challenge from atheists in order that the proof through your “answers” can get more and more complex. The more complex your answers, the less believable you are. That my fine feathered friend is the point you are missing.

You have a need for answers because you are so insecure, atheists don’t need answers and they especially can’t be bothered with questions. Go figure.

There are times when I consider that these sorts of debates are actually very positive, despite the presence of intractable positions on both sides.

Reason being, is that some amongst those of the religious persuasion are attempting to come to terms with their detractors, and vice versa.

In that, I hope that there are some who wish to grow/evolve and learn further, as I believe that that is a very good thing.

That's all a bit unhelpful, crabsy. Needs a bit more work, I feel.

>>Human consciousness is not, however, founded solely on spatio-temporal perception and logical judgement... [but] admits two other functions: the type of perception which is not spatio-temporal; and judgement which, while reliable, is not based on logic<<

It would help is you could describe a consciousness that is not spatio-temporal, in terms other than that it is merely "not spatio-temporal". If "not spatio-temporal", then... what? Is it in fact discernible at all, given that it does not involve time, or space? I suspect you may be talking in riddles, simply in order to dodge the question, yes?

Also, on what is a judgment that is not based on logic, based? Imagination? On-the-spot invention? Surely, that is far too loose and unpredictable to be a valid basis upon which to form a judgment? It would certainly allow for spontaneity and surprise, but is hardly much of a foundation for a useful life, is it? It definitely doesn't sound "reliable", in any normal definition of reliable, that's for sure.

Introducing subjective reality doesn't help much either.

"We need to move towards a better conceptual framework for the understanding of consciousness. This will require the admission of subjective reality."

SR has been around in a number of guises for many generations. I was hooked on it in the sixties, when I started to understand where Sartre was coming from (I've forgotten it all now, of course, it was just a teenage fad), and while a lot of fun, doesn't actually help much. It's a bit of a cop-out, really, just another way of saying "I don't understand the 'why' of our existence, so I'll describe it in a clever way that cannot be disproven"

Life has no "meaning", except that which we, individually, choose to give it.

"The flip-side, of course, is that partisan treatment of religious supposition in the public square and school system – Darwin is taught exclusively because only science provides Answers – and atheistic counter-proselytizing – you stupid idiot, there is no God – is, in the end, profoundly prejudicial to the stated objective of human enlightenment."

This article lets itself down by being hyper-emotive and just plain misrepresenting the truth. A common factor on this issue.

The fact is your premise that 'there is no God' is being taught in schools is false. You are perhaps deliberately misrepresenting the secularists debate about religion in schools.

I understand in this debate many theists react strongly, protecting their once powerful patch. Losing the ability to influence children may be seen as a threat and quite frankly the reactions by some theists on this issue have hardly been conducted with honesty; nor in line with Christian principles and values which are shared by humans of all persuasions.

It is proselytising and that is at the centre of debate. I have heard no secular group arguing that atheism should be 'taught' in schools and that God should be declared as non-existent. Indeed religion is still taught as a broader (non-proselytising) interesting topic as part of social science and history.

As always, these are matters for families to decide not some dictatorial government controlled program for public schools whether it be pushing atheism or religion.

Why not let people decide for themselves and then to feel confident in one's own choices without the need to demonise atheists or theists (whichever the shoe fits).

Atheism can leave questions that may never be answered;
Religion has answers that may never be questioned.

Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 4:26:40 PM

" ... As always, these are matters for families to decide not some dictatorial government controlled program for public schools whether it be pushing atheism or religion. ... "

I must say *Peli* that I do not agree with your opinion here at all. Reason being, is that I believe that children should be free from anyone wanting to inflict any form of belief system on them at all, especially from their family.

I include in this any particular religious belief and any non-belief system, whether it be a form of atheism or otherwise.

Rather, I would prefer to see children schooled in a global awareness of the variety of believes, philosophies, ethics, etc etc but in an objective and rationale framework which isn't advocating for any particular one of them.

Having said that though, I would include something of a history from our own country and the sources which have given rise to certain principals being enshrined in our legal system.

Additionally, the teaching of the scientific method, the difference between a fact and a belief, how matters are to be evidenced and what it means to be reasonable and rationale.

Only when an individual is of age ought they be able to choose, from their own hopefully informed and not entirely ignorant position, as to whether or not they wish to participate in any form of belief based organisation.

If not, well, when considering the current condition, we still have issues such as certain families churning out homophobes, forced circumcision etc etc, just to cite a few of the more offensive, to me at least, examples of our societal and collective failure in this regard.

davidf
' Sensible Christians and Muslims went about their business while their more intolerant fellows picketted the GAC. Across the street from the GAC was the Crown Casino where gullible people in some cases were pissing away the family sustenance. '

Good to see you being rid of that secular dogma of moral relativism. You must have had a change of heart by judging what is right and wrong.

Dear Pericles,

On the one hand you claim that: <<Life has no "meaning", except that which we, individually, choose to give it.>>

and on the other hand that: <<It would certainly allow for spontaneity and surprise, but is hardly much of a foundation for a useful life, is it?>>

Implicit in the "useful life" of your last statement is that there is a proper use for life (only you claim that subjectivity cannot forward it, only logic), in other words that life has a purpose. The relevant dictionary meaning of "meaning" is: "the end, purpose, or significance of something", so according to your first statement, it is you who chose to give life a meaning, and the particular meaning which you chose can only be forwarded by logic.

This summarises the article!

If your chosen purpose in life is planes, cars, trains, computers, etc., if you consider those to be of significance, then you better stick with objective evidence and logic, but if you seek as the purpose of your life to turn away from the material and be released from the grip of your attachments to it, then belief and hope in Jesus Christ is probably a better alternative (though just one of many better alternatives).

It is a mistake for religion to claim to tell facts about the world - and equally a mistake by anyone to believe that knowing and understanding the world through science can teach anything about the ultimate reality, or God.

Dear runner,

I haven't had a change of heart at all. It is you who talk of false dogmas of moral relativism. You have set up a stereotype of an atheist. When an atheist doesn't conform to your stereotype you take it to mean a change of heart. Perhaps you should question your stereotypes.

All atheism means is a rejection of a belief in a god and the mumbojumbo that surrounds it. Atheists may have strong beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. They just don't depend on a big daddy in the sky or his humanoid son to tell them what's good and what's bad. They don't depend on Zeus, Allah, God or other human inventions to provide a moral compass.

Asking "What is the meaning of life?" is like asking "What is the colour of Tuesday?" It presupposes that there's something it makes sense to call 'life' which has something it makes sense to call a 'meaning'; but unless the person putting the question is prepared to

a) define what they mean by these terms;
b) demonstrate that they actually go sensibly together; and
c) explain how this relates to the way we actually use the words in normal speech and writing,

the whole thing is just a category mistake, like "If you hit a promise with a hammer, will it break?" or "How much do your principles weigh?"

The same applies, of course, to 'purpose'. We can meaningfully ask about the purpose of a task or a journey, but not a life.

That's Okay Dream we can't agree on everything. :)

How would you stop families from raising children as they see fit? Children generally reflect their parents behaviours and beliefs in any case even if implied rather than implicit.

I trust that most children will make up there own minds when entering into adulthood and throughout life, with the benefit of maturity and the onset of self-awareness.

Interference from the State is not a reasonable alternative. Much better to let parents make the decisions, they have one advantage - the bond of love (granted not always evident in all cases).

There are laws to prevent child abuse or forced marriages or circumcision within that framework. And a child raised in a non-theist family is no guarantee of preventing homophobia. There is also no guarantee of preventing child abuse by banning religious teachings. Crimes of child abuse and/or neglect is more influenced by disadvantage and by 'evil' (to use a religious term) than the belief system in which a child is raised IMO. As history has shown, pedophiles can come from a broad spectrum of society and cuts across all beliefs, classes, education and wealth

Pericles writes:
<< It would help is you could describe a consciousness that is not spatio-temporal, in terms other than that it is merely "not spatio-temporal". >>

One example is a non-sensory mode of perception that attends to symbols rather than facts. Thus, the “tree” that I see from my study window and the “birds” that breed in it annually may together be an illustration of how a single human life lived boldly and adhering to a firm point of view can nevertheless bend to endure the winds of change for centuries and become a prolific cultural home and reference point to untold generations.

The empirical observer may perceive a sample of the species Eucalyptus marginata in which another species, Barnardius zonarius, finds convenient nesting-hollows each year.

<< Also, on what is a judgment that is not based on logic, based? >>

It could be based on values. It might use categories like “good” and “bad”. How about aesthetic judgements, based on how “beautiful” something is—a poem, a musical work, the way someone walks?

<< Life has no "meaning", except that which we, individually, choose to give it. >>

If this refers to “life” as an object I think I would agree that it has no meaning in and of itself. But “life” as experience, both recollected and ongoing, is where we can and do seek meaning. And yes, I agree that each individual finds his or her own meaning, although I think relationships in one form or another are essential to the process.

<< Introducing subjective reality doesn't help much either…It's a bit of a cop-out, really, just another way of saying "I don't understand the 'why' of our existence, so I'll describe it in a clever way that cannot be disproven". >>

By “subjective reality” I mean a person’s experiential life. The thoughts and tunes I hear in my head, the feelings I have, my fantasies and dreams— all these really occur. We need to admit that it is so if we are going to find a more valid framework for studying human consciousness.

davidf

'Atheists may have strong beliefs in what is right and what is wrong. '
You could of fooled me and many others. Stalin and Hitler also had strong beliefs in what is right and wrong. Social Darwisn certainly shaped their thinking a lot more than Christ.

spindoc,
>>The more complex your answers, the less believable you are. That my fine feathered friend is the point you are missing. <<
One can read something like this often on this OLO, at least that is my impression. So I am just curious: is this what you suggest one should also tell “fine feathered friends” like Steven Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Steve Weinberg, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku and others who try to explain to the man or woman, with a limited understanding of contemporary mathematics, what is the present state of our understanding of the cosmos and physical reality?

Simple answers to complex questions are usually peddled by zealots, fundamentalists or fanatics of whatever political or world-view “colour”. If, in spite of everything, there is a credible and simple answer to such a question - there seldom is - it usually takes a genius to find it. Of course, poets and mystics might have a direct feel of life’s complex questions, but that is on a different level; not susceptible of rational analysis.

Dear runner,

Hitler was a devout Christian, was not excommunicated and signed a concordat with the Catholic Church. With few exceptions the Christian churches in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis.

The words of Christ have promoted hatred.

http://johnshelbyspong.com/sample-essays/the-terrible-texts/

“No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)

“This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.”

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

Hitler's disdain for atheism, pagan cults and the strength of his Christian feelings:

“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses Hitler's stand against pagan cults.]

Stalin was, personally, a devout Christian, too. He probably did suppress his seminary-training when he entered communist politics, but he did later have a revelation that encouraged his to open churches and theology colleges in WW2, particularly in St Petersburg and, according to is daughter who died in the last year or so in the USA, he remained personally religious for the rest of his life.

There are indications that is the reason he fell out with his fellow communist laaders.

david f,
Jesus quote “No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6) refers to a spiritual reality not a physical. To come to God we need a spiritual identity with the character and attitudes of Christ. Unless one accepts the character and attitudes of Christ he is no where near the character Of God. Ignorance of the spiritual is demonstrated in misquotation by implying a spatial material reality. Your false premise is based on a lack of logic in spiritual reality.

Life has meaning as defined by Genesis 1
1. Humanity reaches highest ideals if its character is the image of God. Admiration and estolling of good character - Love God
2. Humanity takes responsibility to manage well the living Planet
3. Human acts responsibly towards nurturing and providing for family - Love neighbour
4. Rule over the Earth and its resources creatively and responsibly

King Solomon states in Ecclesiastes states: The personal persuit to accumulate wealth, or to merely seek pleasure, to be hungry for power, to posess all knowledge, to be addicted to work, to seek self glory - all is vanity, and is meaningless. He says the conclusion of the matter is: Have respect for God and keep the commandments is the whole duty of man. Eccl 11: 13.

Remember God is spiritual identified in character not physical as identified by science

Dear Josephus,

I don't think there is such a thing as a spiritual reality. Reality manifests itself as something susceptible to sense impressions. Our sense impressions may be amplified by the use of telescopes, microscopes or other instrumentation.

There is no physical evidence for the existence of a spiritual dimension. I have enough trying to understand what exists in reality without concerning myself with the spiritual. Spiritual is a word which I interpret as beyond reality. Therefore spiritual reality is an oxymoron since it combines reality with a concept which doesn't exist in reality.

Your remarks from genesis are problematic.

You wrote: "Life has meaning as defined by Genesis 1

1. Humanity reaches highest ideals if its character is the image of God."

I certainly wouldn't want to be the image of a nasty character who would tell Abraham to murder his own son and then subjects his own son to a tortured death in the New Testament. I am too good a person to model myself after such a beastly entity. I would neither commit mass murder nor incite others to do it as God does in the Book of Joshua.

You also wrote: "4. Rule over the Earth and its resources creatively and responsibly."

Possibly we can live sustainably when we realise we don't rule over the earth but are only one of the many species found on it.

Josephus said "a lack of logic in spiritual reality"

hehehehe

That makes as much sense as saying you're not phylogenetically classifying unicorns properly.

Dear David,

"I don't think there is such a thing as a spiritual reality."

- Indeed there are no separate realities, only one - however, it is not material.

"Reality manifests itself as something susceptible to sense impressions."

- There is no logical reason to believe that the human senses can capture reality: the senses (and the brain/mind) are geared for survival, not for finding the truth.

"There is no physical evidence for the existence of a spiritual dimension."

- Certainly - dimensions are all physical, created by our mental/sensual interpretation of reality.

"I have enough trying to understand what exists in reality without concerning myself with the spiritual."

- Nothing exists in reality because existence itself is an illusion. You may of course research within that illusion as much as you like and find out what exists within it (not that I can see why anyone would want to).

"Spiritual is a word which I interpret as beyond reality."

- In a sense: "spiritual" is a name for what's beyond that which, being deluded by your mind and senses, you believe to be reality, beyond that which is called 'existence'.

Character, attitude and motives are spiritual reality defined by judgments of absolutes, and not defined by the physical, but manifest metaphysically.

To many Germans in his day Hitler's motives were accepted by many, but in the light of Jesus teachings were dispicable terror.

David: Please define by physical science what your motives are in defending your position.

Dear Josephus,

The only motive I have for defending my position is that it is the truth as I see it. Do I need any other motive?

What is your motive for stating your position?

"Nothing exists in reality because existence itself is an illusion. You may of course research within that illusion as much as you like and find out what exists within it......."

A solopist's statement of pure faith as unfalsifiable as many other beliefs around.

You watch too much Hollywood Yuyutsu. Unplug yourself from the machine and get out of the house for awhile.

solipsist

Solipsism is defined as "the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist. Wikipedia claims that it is "the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist": Neither describes my views.

Many things exist, my mind and your mind included and trillions of other things, but surprisingly the self does not. However, while all those things exist, existence itself is an illusion: there is nothing but God.

I'm trying to remember when was the last time I watched a Hollywood movie - it must have been long ago and I think it was because someone gave me a Hollywood DVD as a birthday present and I felt that not watching it would upset them. Anyway, it was a miserable experience.

Seriously, the idea as if one could discern the Truth with a capital T or the Reality with a capital R using their mind and senses is one of the most irrational and logically unlikely notions. Even science recognizes how feeble, limited and inaccurate our senses and mind are, that these were evolved only in order to succeed and survive, so why should the Truth be revealed particularly by using the human's light and sound frequencies and negligent smell faculty? Wouldn't the Truth be better revealed by dogs who have a superior sense of smell and can hear higher frequencies than us? or by bats with their sonar, or by the eagle's superior vision, or by the whale's lower sound-frequency?

Yuyu says "existence itself is an illusion: there is nothing but God".

Oh man, you believers are classic.

So, if the self doesn't exist and everything is God...
tell me what I'm thinking right now...or now...how about now?

Irrational pantheist is irrational.

david f,
With your illogical claims that Hitler was following Christ when he murdered Jesus blood relatives, and your irrational interpretation of Christ's words obviously you haven't got any understanding of the truth. Obviously you cannot honestly represent the truth of God as taught by Christ, merely mouth your own bigotry.

My motive and reason for living I have stated above. It is our spirit that changes and impacts the physical reality, our senses and hands are merely an implement.

Life has meaning as defined by Genesis 1
1. Humanity reaches the highest ideals if its character is the image of God. Admiration and estolling of good character - Love God.
2. Humanity is to take responsibility to manage well the living Planet
3. When we act responsibly towards nurturing and providing for family and community - Love neighbour
4. Rule over the Earth and its resources creatively and responsibly

DAvidf you write

'Hitler was a devout Christian' . Your ignorance is surprising. He could well belonged to the Catholic church with his Darwinian views but his actions and philosophy is the same as the humanist and abortionist today.

You also write

'The words of Christ have promoted hatred. ' They certainly did and continue to. It is usually people who want to set their own morality and are upset about Jesus claims that turns them to hatred. We see it with the humanist, the homosexual lobby and others that reject Christ deity. It was the hatred of those who rejected him that led to his crucifixion. IN the Western world their are few more hateful than the Christopohic ones.

One of the things that the likes of *Joesphus* & *Runner* fail to grasp of their own obstinate volition is the difference between that which is known and that which is believed.

I strongly support the notion that they have a right to hold a belief. However, to read their words, it seems quite plain that they think that what they believe is actually fact.

I seem to recall you mentioning *DavidF* at how uncomfortable it made you feel when stared at in a particular way by a nun. Perhaps she was admiring you as "one of God's chosen people?"

..

If these types of people where to say for example:

" ... Well, we believe in non-corporeal green faeries who occasionally materialise in the garden to "bless" our plants. ... "

then that's fine, but to spout off belief as fact in the manner in which they do clearly puts them in the seriously delusional bracket i.m.o.

Dear Hadz,

<<tell me what I'm thinking right now...or now...how about now?>>

So you assume that God must know every piece of rubbish that's happening in this illusionary existence (not only that, but even how exactly it looks through the specific distorting spectacles of Hadz's mind)? Perhaps next you will want to ask Him which numbers will come up in the lotto, right?

Well Surprise, Surprise - He doesn't know either, nor does He care!

(but go ahead if you're keen, ask an astrologer - that wouldn't be any less rational than asking me or your senses)

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: “david f,

With your illogical claims that Hitler was following Christ when he murdered Jesus blood relatives.”

I didn’t write that Hitler was following Christ. I wrote that he was a devout Christian. If he had been following Christ he would have been a Jew not a Christian as Christ was not a Christian.

Logical or illogical Christians have made a habit of killing the relatives of Jesus. Theodosius, Martin Luther, Torquemada, Erasmus etc. have all promoted hatred for Jews and have supported persecution and murder of Jews. Hitler merely followed the pattern set by his murderous Christian predecessors.

The Evangelical Sisters of Mary, a Lutheran order, admit the murderous Christian actions:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel1.htm

“After the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, the question was raised: How could it have happened? The shocking truth is that the Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of hatred and violent persecution, often inspired by Christian theology.

I feel deeply convicted as a Christian but also as a German, for as early as the Middle Ages Jews were mercilessly killed by the thousand in German cities. Mother Basilea Schlink, founder of our community in Darmstadt, Germany, writes movingly in her book Israel, My Chosen People of how those who attack God's people attack Him, for Israel is the apple of His eye.

Considering the atrocities committed against the Jews in the name of Christ throughout much of Christianity's 2000-year history, how can we celebrate the millennium without first expressing our deep sorrow over the past in a spirit of repentance? By our unchristian attitude and behaviour we have brought shame upon the name of Jesus, making it offensive to His own people, the Jews … And so today it is our prayer that Christians all over the world will be inspired to commemorate the millennium with a service of repentance in a spirit of unity, acknowledging our common Christian heritage. “

The Evangelical Sisters of Mary seek to change the pattern as do other Christians of good will. Others like you, Josephus, choose to deny it.

The main purpose in life, as exhibited by human behaviour, generally, is competitiveness - in pursuit of power and numerical supremacy (through breeding, dominating, colonizing, converting, invading and enslaving, raping and murdering), and of self-comfort, self-interest and self-aggrandizement. Not a very nice picture.

Even in this forum competition is evident, but of course far more seriously and destructively in the world at large - on ethnic, cultural, religious, national, territorial and economic/resource grounds. Though a 'spiritual' purpose in life may be embraced in various religions, the practical reality is that such 'higher' aspirations appear rarely realized in practice, at other than a personal level. In the bigger picture we are all slaves of the political and socioeconomic systems in which we reside, and as increasingly determined and influenced by world affairs and our national interest.

As long as we, or any nation, can maintain security and sovereignty we may remain free to entertain or embrace a wide range of 'spiritual' purpose in life, in values and virtuous practice, in religious and cultural diversity - and diversity may be the safest path to follow.

Whether purpose in life is expressed simply as to lead a good and happy life, or as a 'spiritual' purpose, there need be no conflict of interest - as long as virtuous values are aspired and pursued, in respect for others and their beliefs, with tolerance, compassion and goodwill. Tolerance should not however extend to subversive elements or any abuse of individual human rights.

As the human psyche and consciousness are beyond mere physicality, it may not be unreasonable to consider these as an essence or character of the individual, and thus the spirit of the individual, moulded by experience, learning and self-development. This then presents a composite view of every individual as both a physical and a spiritual being. Possibly, whether we like that idea, or not. Either way, it appears certain that the 'spirit' must be nourished as well as the body, to attain contentment.

Saltpetre,
Great post!

david f,
Please note in your quote these words, "By our unchristian attitude and behaviour we have brought shame upon the name of Jesus, making it offensive to His own people, the Jews".

Hitler as were many others were not Christian in their attitudes or actions. Re-read the sentence so you understand the words.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: david f,

Please note in your quote these words, "By our unchristian attitude and behaviour we have brought shame upon the name of Jesus, making it offensive to His own people, the Jews".

Hitler as were many others were not Christian in their attitudes or actions. Re-read the sentence so you understand the words."

I understand the words perfectly.

Christians may define those attitudes they don't like as unchristian. However, I think it more reasonable to define what is Christian by what Christians do. Instead of confronting their horrible history they will label what they don't like as unchristian. The Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary have confronted Christian behaviour that they don't approve of and have labelled it unchristian. However, at least they admit the behaviour.

Marxists do the same thing. When one mentions the appalling record and the many corpses produced by Marxists, Marxists will say what happened is a distortion of Marx.

Instead of really looking at what they have done Marxists and Christians will deny it by labelling the behaviour as unchristian or unmarxist.

The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians.

You prefer to label Christian behaviour you don't approve of by labelling it unchristian as do the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. The difference between you and the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary is that they admit the behaviour and seek to change it.

david f wrote: "The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians."

Exactly.

Before WWII, Christians where quite happy to look down upon Jews as “Christ killers”, then - when footage of the holocaust showed the world just how ugly anti-Semitism can be - Christianity did an about-face turn and suddenly Zionism was all the rage with a shift of focus on setting-up a Jewish state in preparation for the “end times”.

It took technology a few years to do what Christianity couldn’t do over hundreds of years - despite anti-Semitism apparently being so unchristian.

Go figure.

Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 26 April 2012 5:00:02 AM

" ... As long as we, or any nation, can maintain security and sovereignty we may remain free to entertain or embrace a wide range of 'spiritual' purpose in life, in values and virtuous practice, in religious and cultural diversity - and diversity may be the safest path to follow. ... "

" ... Tolerance should not however extend to subversive elements ... "

I believe that this is an over simplification and in some ways not true.

Case in point is that of the "Original Australians." Now, the *Eddie Koikee Mabo* case achieved a number of things. One of which was the recognition that this country was indeed populated by people at the time of armed invasion.

The legal reality of course is that the *Original Australian's* were considered to be sub-human, and indeed ended up being classified as part of the "Flora and Fauna Acts" of the time.

One legal argument that I support is that at the time of recognition that they were indeed people, that the default position was to refer to the law of that time, which was either to make a declaration of war against them or alternatively to make a treaty.

Some of course would have us believe that to advocate for a reinstatement of the sovereignty of the *Original Australian's* is subversive. I personally do not agree and believe that there is nothing to be feared by this.

t.b.c.

Thus, point being, what is considered by one to be subversive, is quite another thing to others.

As another example, the crowns behavior in the post WWII period included the ongoing refusal to include the *Original Australian's* in the national census and their ongoing theft of children and the destruction of families, amongst their other nefarious deeds, is such, to me at least, to be a compelling argument for the prosecution of those responsible, including the head of state by whose hand did much repugnant law come into being, and also a powerful and compelling argument to evolve our democratic system by say for example, becoming a republic.

Whilst this generation may not be directly responsible, by refusing to seeing to it that justice is done, they do in my view perpetuate the crimes of the past.

Again, some would consider this treasonous and subversive, but my interpretation of the relevant law is(which has extra territorial effect incidentally) it is not legally considered to be so if it is accepted that I say these things with a view to improving the overall condition AND that my calls (and that of others) is not accompanied by a demand to effect change by violence.

Of course, in matters of interpretation there are often considerably varying and divergent views, which is of course why how matters are to be interpreted legally have very strict rules, regulations and guidelines.

'david f wrote: "The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians."

Exactly. '

AJ writing in his usual Christophobic and dishonest view of the world. You really should take off your blindfold. You know that Hitler was acting in accordance to his social Darwinism dogmas which inevitable leads to death. His view of his race fit perfectly with the darwinian dogma.

Posted by runner, Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:29:16 PM

" ... You know that Hitler was acting in accordance to his social Darwinism dogmas which inevitable leads to death. His view of his race fit perfectly with the darwinian dogma. ... "

*Runner* it appears again that your lack of ability to discern in combination with your fundamentalist beliefs lead you to mixing 2 seperate things together.

The Darwinian theory of biological evolution is one thing, but the use of so called race science as championed by the eugenicists to justify the mistreatment of others and establish so called servile races, and or to support the view that some are simply insufficiently worthy to live, leading to those with tatooed skin being turned into jackets and lamp shades amongst other things is another matter entirely.

Yeah, runner. Whatever.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and actually goes against some of the basic principles of it. What you really have a problem with is selective breeding. So if you want to be consistent, then start attacking animal breeders and denounce their dangerous “dogma”.

You won’t, of course, because the ideas behind their specific practices don’t hurt your dearly held religious beliefs - demonstrating that this is all your vitriol is really about. It has nothing to do with reality; nothing you’ve ever said has.

But I’m not going waste any more time telling you what you’ve already been told many times over - only for you to come back the very next day as if no-one had said anything.

'david f wrote: "The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians."

I wonder then why the Christians in the rest of the World at that time opposed him? Were they also uncristian? Were they also setting a pattern for him to follow? Who better represented the values of Christ - love for all persons?

Josephus wrote:

'david f wrote: "The fact is that Hitler behaved as many Christians behaved before him. He followed a pattern set by Christians."

I wonder then why the Christians in the rest of the World at that time opposed him? Were they also uncristian? Were they also setting a pattern for him to follow? Who better represented the values of Christ - love for all persons?

Dear Josephus,

The Christians in the rest of the world did not oppose him. The Spanish Christian government, the Italian Christian government, the Romanian Christian government and many other Christian governments supported him. In many Christian countries that were later to fight him there were groups such as the Cliveden set in England which supported Hitler. The Holocaust was not carried out by German Christians alone but was joined in by Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Croatian and other Christian nationals. In fact most Christian countries were unwilling to take in Jewish refugees from Germany. Hitler's actions in general were either supported or ignored by most non-German Christians. Many Christians outside of Germany shared the Christian tradition of Jew hating. There was very little Christian love shown towards the Jews.

Get your facts straight before you ask more questions.

War is not a good arbiter for your position, Josephus… Otherwise we are left with 'love for all persons' meaning that such love doesn't stop Christians killing a lot of them.

Not that it was much easier in most of the other European wars in the last thousand years – you know, the ones with Christians on both sides – and, according to the combatants, God and/or Christ as well.

Maybe you could direct us to a list of all the self-professed Christians in history who weren't so in your opinion?

>>Hitler as were many others were not Christian in their attitudes or actions.<<

Fail. That's a no true scotsman argument: they're dodgy. You might not like it but Hitler was Christian. So were Torquemada and Pope Alexander VI. You don't have to be nice to be Christian.

Cheers,

Tony

To me personally, it is of little consequence whether Hitler was a Christian. Why? Many Christians have acted and still do act in ways that are totally out of line with Christian teaching.

However, Hitler was definitely not a Christian. He hated Christianity and only used it for political power. Once he attained the power he wanted, his real views became clear.

If you doubt that he hated Christianity, look up the quotes from later on in his life.

Regardless of what he said though, the Nazi's attitude to churches- wanting to destroy them, basically- show that for all practical purposes they were against not only religion but displays of religious belief

Having one nephew an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and the other members of my brother's family Orthodox Jews, whom I love with a passion; Davidf mysrepresentation of Christians is so obnoxious nonsense.

I am personally a supporter of Israeli Christians who through ICEJ show hospitality to displaced Jews returning to their homeland. I like the Corrie Ten Boom family under the Third Reich period are currently a protector of Jews.

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . . Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." (from a letter by Albert Einstein in Time Magazine, Dec. 23, 1940, c.f. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103,00.html)

This article that is desperation masquerading as pomposity.

I went to the convention. Despite the author's hope, it isn't a bitter affair. It is about moving past the limitations religious thinking imposes, which the author demonstrates wonderfully.

The idea that creationists stubbornly stick to their beliefs to dig in their heels against contrary ideas and evidence is wrong. Its a manifestation of faith. Just say they are doing it because faith demands and it be done with it.

Quite frankly, if you find atheists being intolerant and 'militant' (when will we tire of that joke?), it may be more than your views simply don't stack up and you 'feel it in your bones'. Perhaps at some level, you realise faith is actually a silly limitation that prevents growth.

Speaking of which, squirming around trying divert away from taking your religious book's claims at face value is poor. Citing some intangible thing that you know about your particular god that both non-believers and those of another religion smacks of complete lack of awareness
What the author feel in their bones about JC, Hindus, Muslims and ancient Greeks feel about their gods. How does the author know that everyone else's are wrong and theirs are right? There is an infinite number of possible gods. It is most likely the author has it wrong. Reason tells you this. Faith tells you to be more faithful to avoid this conclusion.

We all want to know why we are here. History has many different ideas which include philosophies and religions tackling it.
'Why am I here?' is a philosophical question. It is a scientific question in the sense of the mechanics of it. Frankly, it does that very, very well.

Insanely, many of the religious seem to think this is some sort of gotcha. It isn't. More stupidly, the religious think that if science can't answer a philosophical question, then their religious views are automatically valid. A totally false dichotomy.

Ultimately, the author's argument can be boiled down to 'It may be complete bollocks, but I can believe in fairy tales if I want to.'

BAC,
Your post identifies in You a pomposity with the quote, "but I can believe in fairy tales if I want to" which you seek to demolish in others.

Dear George,

In your post you quoted Einstein’s statement: ´”Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom.” published Dec. 23, 1940.

At that time Pius XII was pope and reigned from 2 March 1939 until his death in 1958.

One question about him was the reason for his silence. He even kept silent when the Nazis rounded up Jews in Rome in the sight of the papal palace. I read “A Cross too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli” by Paul O’Shea, a practicing Catholic. O’Shea mentioned Pacelli’s silence and condemned it. O’Shea speculated that a possible reason for his silence, as near as I can remember, is that he feared and despised the atheistic Soviet more than he did the Nazis.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII the pope was an antisemite:

Pacelli presided ... over the International Eucharistic Congress in ... from 10–14 October 1934, and in Budapest from 25–30 May 1938. At this time, anti-semitic laws were in the process of being formulated in Hungary. Pacelli made reference to the Jews "whose lips curse [Christ] and whose hearts reject him even today".... According to Joseph Bottum, Pacelli in 1937 "warned A. W. Klieforth, the American consul to Berlin, that Hitler was "an untrustworthy scoundrel and fundamentally wicked person.

It appears that Pius XII hated both Jews and Hitler but supported the Nazis with a papal concordat and kept silent about the Jews.

During WW2 Hitler supporting states were headed by Catholic clerics or had a strong church connection – Father Tiso’s Slovakia, Franco’s clerical-fascist Spain and Vichy France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II) tells how the Vatican organised escape routes for fascists after WW2.

The Catholic church supported fascists during the war and helped them to flee after the war. It could not have been done if Pius XII had disapproved.

I know nothing that would support Einstein’s statement. Do you?

Actually, there’s good reason to doubt that Einstein even said any of that.

George’s quote didn’t seem, to me, like something that Einstein would say and it appears William C. Waterhouse had the same suspicions. So he embarked on a little investigation of his own and here’s just a snippet of what he had to say afterwards…

“Having a long-standing interest in verifying quotations, I turned to The Expanded Quotable Einstein, but it does not include this statement. So I wrote to its editor, Alice Calaprice. She was unsure about the statement but kindly referred me to Barbara Wolff at the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem. Ms. Wolff was able to answer my question: It turns out that the Einstein Archives contain an unpublished letter mentioning this topic specifically. Writing to Count Montgelas on March 28, 1947, Einstein explained that early in the Hitler years he had casually mentioned to some journalist that hardly any German intellectuals except a few churchmen were supporting individual rights and intellectual freedom. He added that this statement had subsequently been drastically exaggerated beyond anything that he could recognize as his own.” (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/)

No wonder the Time magazine article contains no sources.

It looks like this is just another popular Christian beat-up like the whole, “Einstein believed in God”, bit that we hear so often.

>>It looks like this is just another popular Christian beat-up like the whole, “Einstein believed in God”, bit that we hear so often.<<

According to the quick search I've just done Einstein did believe in God: just not in Jehovah. I pulled this quote off Wikipedia:

>>It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.<<

I must say I'm pretty chuffed. My religious views are also somewhere near those of Spinoza. It's nice to be in the company of certified geniuses. I describe my views as pantheistic. In The God Delusion Dawkins describes pantheism as sexed-up atheism. I disagree but I can see where he's coming from: for most practical intents and purposes there's not much difference between the two.

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks Tony Lavis. I'm aware of that.

That being the case, however, theists would be more accurate in saying that, "Einstein believed in a God (of sorts)" - not just "God". But they never say this because it would water-down the undue prestige they're trying to afford their beliefs.

Dear Tony,

"I describe my views as pantheistic. In The God Delusion Dawkins describes pantheism as sexed-up atheism. I disagree but I can see where he's coming from: for most practical intents and purposes there's not much difference between the two"

Indeed, no big deal... for Dawkins all that matters is science: classifying what exists and what doesn't - why should he care in the least about petty matters such as what we live or die for?

Josephus,

If you don't agree with my response, thats fine. Can you articulate why?

Josephus,

In reference to god & Hitler, you can do a merry dance but the facts remain the same.
1. Hitler self-identified as a Catholic.
2. Germany was 90% Christian, 45% Protestant, 45% Catholic.
3. Pope Pious was a known anti-semite.
4. Killing jews was quite a christian thing to do and has only fallen out of favour since the Holocaust.

So quite frankly, whether or not Hitler was following god's will is quite irrelevant. The entire german nation identified as christian as were most of the European participants in WW2.
Basically, worst war in humanity was prosecuted and defended by christians. The love of JC, the wrath of god and the commandment 'thall shalt not kill' did nothing to prevent it.

Dear George,

It apparently is common for people who want to express sentiments which they desire attention for to put them in the mouths of notable people.

Voltaire’s ringing declaration, “I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” according to a book of quotations I have was first attributed to Voltaire in 1906. The saying would probably have been forgotten if it had not been attributed to Voltaire.

When I was in California a few years ago my grandson’s baby sitter told me that Darwin on his death bed accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. That is US evangelist talk and I doubt very much that Darwin ever said anything like that. However, it is something that fitted in with what she wanted to believe, and I think she firmly believed it. Her pastor told the story, and he may have believed it also.

When I first read the statement you attributed to Einstein I did not question the statement but wondered what he could have referred to. I have the impression that you are a scrupulous person who would not make up a statement. Since you accepted the statement as actually made and I think highly of your honesty I did the same.

Now, thinking of how I believed Voltaire made the statement attributed to him until I read otherwise I think we may have both been gullible as to the validity of Einstein’s statement. Of course there is the possibility that Voltaire actually made the statement, and the editor of the book of quotations might have added that it was attributed to him in 1906 to cast doubt in people’s minds.

It is difficult to be sure what a person said until we heard that person say it.

In regards to the statement you attributed to Einstein I have now clad myself in the armour of scepticism and resumed my worship of the sanctity of doubt.

Dear david f,

I did not realise quoting Einstein in this connection would open such a can of worms. I was not aware that there were doubts about its authenticity. However, the authenticity seems to be (sort of) confirmed if you care to chew your way through http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=10308#p135848. (The link comes from the link http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/ provided by AJ Philips.)

The quote reflects what Einstein (allegedly) thought about this topic on the basis of what he knew in 1940. Nothing more, irrespective of what those who enthusiastically quote it, or deny its authenticity, want or don't want to read into it . In particular, it does not say how well informed - compared to others at that time - he was.

As for Pius XII and his action or inaction during WWII, this is the can of worms I referred to. It started more or less with the appearance of Rolf Hochhut’s ‘Der Stellvertreter’ (The Deputy) in 1963, and has again become a hotly debated topic since the recent attempts/preparations for Pius’ canonization.

There are many facts pointing in one direction, others in the opposite, and I suspect, like in most such cases, the way we interpret the collection of these facts depends on our a priori perspectives; as you know, on these matters mine is somewhat different from yours.

>>a possible reason for his (Pius XII’s) silence … is that he feared and despised the atheistic Soviet more than he did the Nazis.<<
Well, probably so. It is a fact that Bolshevik, and especially Stalin’s, atrocities (including the Ukrainian famine) preceded by a decade or so Nazi atrocities. At the times of e.g. the holodomor Hitler was still just a big mouth as much as he persecuted the Jews; no Holocaust yet. Apparently - and tragically erroneously as it turned out - Pius and many others saw Hitler as a “lesser evil”.
ctd

ctd
>>I know nothing that would support Einstein’s statement. Do you?<<
I do not see what support you want except the discussions in the link given above. As to an alternative appraisal of Pius XII, see e.g.

“Israel Zolli (1881-1956) was from 1939 to 1945 Chief Rabbi of Rome. After the war, he converted to Roman Catholicism, taking the name Eugenio in honor of Pope Pius XII.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zolli).

Or http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/zpius12.htm.

I am quite aware that these two quotes represent just a minority view among Jews, the majority would agree with your appraisal. Among Christians this would probably be the other way around. However, in both camps those who personally experienced WWII as adults are a diminishing tiny minority.

Tony Lavis,

According to Wikipedia, Spinoza in a letter to Henry Oldenburg states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken”.

Hence Spinoza is usually seen as a panentheist, rather than pantheist, meaning that he sees the (material) world as a proper subset of God, rather than being identified with Him.

So I think it is reasonable to see also Einstein as a panentheist rather than a pantheist, because of his confessed affinity with Spinoza, if for no other reasons. Others see him as a deist.

“There are people who say there is no God," he (Einstein) told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html)

And in a 1930 letter:

“I’m not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein).

One thing seems to be clear: Einstein would not have liked it to be called either an atheist or a theist

Dear George,

Thank you for the reference to Einstein’s faith.

We can refer to Einstein, Spinoza, Augustine, Russell and other figures who have written of their encounters with faith and how they see or don’t see deity and faith.

It is up to each of us to make our decision. Nobody is an authority on faith. We can look to Einstein regarding his view of the physical universe, but I (I hesitate to write we) can regard none of the aforementioned as an authority on faith because there is no way of testing their conclusions. We can only try to be honest in looking at the facts we have available whether or not those facts support our views. I tend to emphasise those facts which buttress my views.

I am awed by the workings of nature and of mathematics. I don’t see how anybody who reflects on it can do other.

I keep trying to learn. At 86 I am tired of hunt and peck typing and am trying to learn touch typing. Although I love mathematics I am unaware of a lot of the workings of much of it. I am going through the two volumes of Polya on mathematics. There are problems in each area ranging from the trivial to those as yet unsolved. csteele mentioned how learning is not confined to books. There just is so much to learn in and out of books. One can have a full life without books, and one can reject life by burying oneself in books.

Right now my first wife is dying. She had a massive stroke and is on a hospital bed in her living room surrounded by some of our descendents. They are keeping me in touch with the death watch in Philadelphia. We will all be memories, and finally even the memory of us will disappear.

And when like her, oh Saki, you shall pass
Among the Guests star-scatter'd on the Grass,
And in your joyous errand reach the spot
Where I made one -- turn down an empty Glass!

TAMAM SHUD

George,

There are a lot of quotes from Einstein, among many other scientists that are promoted in support of the religious viewpoint.

Einstein himself regarded these as mischievious, which I think we must interpret with due regard to the gentle thoughtfulness of the man. Any late 20th century individual would use much stronger language.

Insofar as Einstein may have considered a deity possible it is in the remote and unknowable sense.

I would suggest that any churchgoer who actually tried to model his spirituality on Einstein's views would find themselves resembling an athiest from the point of view of their church.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter,

You might be right, but that does not change what Einstein actually said/wrote that Tony Lavis and I quoted here. However, I agree that Einstein was philosophically (as far as science is concerned) more sophisticated - call it “gentle thoughtfulness” if you like - than Dawkins and many other contemporaries (theists or atheists) who are not as “gently thoughtful” when trying to use (abuse?) science to confirm their a priori held world-view “orientation”, again both theist and atheist.

G'day George,
I thank ye kindly for leading me back to Einstein; a man I have always admired, more for his beliefs than his science, which frankly was and is beyond me.
Your quotes impelled me to read “The world as I see it” -again-, though I fear I can't recall the first time I read it. I feel sure I must have though, as so many of my thoughts and feelings on the 'meaning of life' so closely mirror Einstein's that I'm sure I must have borrowed them, and over time have come (rather immodestly) to claim them as my own.
For instance, the opening paragraph:

“The meaning of Life”
“What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer
this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in
putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his
fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost
disqualified for life.
”

I don't believe there is anything wrong, naïve or immature in searching for meaning or purpose. Indeed, I believe science to be the study of 'creation' (to use the word in a generic sense). To exclude even the possibility of a creator would be -to my mind- 'unscientific'.
What has persistently annoyed me since I was I think about 12, is that this God is infinitely greater than we are, yet some amongst us are gifted enough to understand Its Will and/or Its Nature, Plan, and/or Its desires for us perfectly, and therefore have the right and the obligation to impose those beliefs on the rest of us.
This kind of arrogance is -to me- beyond egregious.

In the short article “Religion and Science”, Einstein proposes 3 progressions in religion; from the most primitive religions of fear (early Old Testament) through religions of Morality (New Testament) to modern 'Cosmic Religion', exemplified perhaps by Spinoza.
Another favourite passage:
“The man who is thoroughly convinced of the
universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the
idea of a being who interferes in the course of events--that is, if he takes the
hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear
and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and
punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, **so that in God's eyes he cannot
be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the
motions it goes through** (This I particularly like, grim).
Hence science has been charged with undermining
morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and
persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious
feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Grim's post sums up Einstein's viewpoint beautifully.

I'm a fan of Einstein because he seems to radiate the best of humanity. He lauded intuition and imagination as the prime movers behind his own discoveries - and spirituality as indispensable to progressive thinking. He realised that for all that man had advanced in modern times, that he was still like a child in his ignorance.

He said, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever..."

BAC,
You are totally biased, demeaning and dishonest about the part genuine followers of Christ have played in history. These last few posts given by Poirot, Grim and George regarding the inspiration of the creation, the universe and ultimate questions of why - have contributed to research and discovery. Faith is intuitive belief in the current unseen that there is a reality beyond the current known; Unexplored universes of Galileo totally accepted by the Church today, the microscopic reality of Louis Pasteur etc

George wrote: “You might be right, but that does not change what Einstein actually said/wrote that Tony Lavis and I quoted here.”

In the same fashion that creationists take advantage of the fact that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist (due to the more ignorant times he lived in) and prop him up to give credence to their views - while completely ignoring the times in which he lived - I think too many theists (and mystics) take advantage of the fact that the socialization of Einstein’s more religious and ignorant times would most likely have influenced his way of wording what he’d said on a few occasions (George’s Einstein quote, “I’m not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist...”, was a good example of this) and compelled him to be more generous to mysticism and religion than he would have been had he lived in our more knowledgeable and enlightened times.

I think this is partially what Rusty was getting at.

Grim’s quote is a good example: “What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer
this question at all implies a religion.”

No, it doesn’t. Not in today’s understanding of what a religion is anyway. And I strongly believe that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would most certainly have used different wording to say what he meant - if he’d even said it (or thought that way) at all. But he was probably using the term “religion” very loosely - like he’d do with the term “God”. Unfortunately, however, theists often ignore these inconvenient details and latch on to them.

Never underestimate the theist’s willingness to misinterpret what we say... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#101967. A lesson Both Stephen Hawking Einstein and have/had learned.

AJ Philips,

"...And I strongly believe that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would certainly have used different wording to say what he meant...."

If you're saying that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would have used wording more akin to that of Dawkins, then I think you're underestimating Einstein.
He strikes me as a man who understood very well the implications for meaning of the words he used.

AJ Philips,

You are close to the mark. All these men grew up in what would be to us intensely religiose societies where the much maligned "secular" was not the norm. Each existed at the very ragged edge of heresy (Newton was *not* trinitarian, yet those who hold up Newton as an axample do not mimic his finely developed stance on the matter).

These men were exceeding bright boys, and I would argue that they would have been exceeding bright boys regardless of their religious background. Both (and many others!) were forced by their intellect and personal honesty to take religious positions just short of those that would prevent their expulsion from influential roles or even attract punishment. Aristocrats could be jailed for not supporting the correct religious views in Newton's time, commoners could suffer much more. Soviet scientists were equally careful to overtly support communism and to oppose it only to the degree they wished to be punished. Einstein could not have been unaware of the religious hysteria that has always been present in the "united states".

Einstein had been socialised to consider "god" as having personal attributes we might comprehend "subtle not malicious" "does not play dice" etc. Yet, knowing what is now known about quantum processes, he could not help but retract one of those statements.

As I said, from the point of view of the church, anybody modelling their spirituality on the remote deity envisaged by Einstein would be indistinguishable from an atheist.

Rusty

George,

Einstein might not use the terminology of Dawkins, but then he was also aware that discussions of physics often involved positions no less emphatically held.

If someone had approached Einstein and daily berated him for not being a flat-earther or some other physical nonsense, I am not certain of the extent of his patience.

Dawkins takes pains in his prefaces to distinguish thoughtful, honestly-held religious positions about what we do not know, from those who (not unlike tobacco companies) tout the same uncertainty as *endorsement* of a singular and usually self-serving fundamentalist/young-earth-creationist view.

Rusty

Poirot,

It depends what exactly you mean by this...

<<If you're saying that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would have used wording more akin to that of Dawkins, then I think you're underestimating Einstein.>>

If by "akin to that of Dawkins" you mean that term I abhor "new atheist", then yes, absolutely. As I've said before, there is not a doubt in my mind that had Einstein lived in our more knowledgable and enlightened times, he would be what so many dub a "new atheist". But that's just my opinion, so it's not a point I care to staunchly defend. 

You would also need to clarify what you mean by "akin to that of Dawkins" though. I have not yet met a detractor of his who understands where he is fundamentally coming from. 

<<[Einstein] strikes me as a man who understood very well the implications for meaning of the words he used.>>

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

Doesn't sound like someone who always understood the implications of the words he used (i.e. "God" in that case). Einstein was exceedingly smart, yes, but he was still human and we all make mistakes. 

You also ignore the all important 'context' of the times that I mentioned.

Rusty,

Very well said.

It's all about context and it's just not good enough to simply conclude that, "oh we'll, that's what he said... too late now", as George had effectively done.

The context of the times is everything.

The following argument ensued after a few beers at the bar:

1. Jesus was a tall and well-built Nordic blonde - just like me!
2. No, Jesus was a black, agile negro-featured - just like me!
3. Wrong, Jesus was Middle-Eastern, rough and brown-skinned - just like me!
4. Forget it, Jesus was a Jew, small and hunch-backed - just like me!
...

The way you quarter and serve Einstein here reminds me of that argument.

Being a "deeply religious nonbeliever" is valid, consistent and not surprising: belief in the existence of God is only one religious technique among many - like any other technique, it is suitable for some and not for others, so the fact that Einstein did not use it does not detract from his religiosity. I have no doubt that Einstein was deeply religious - just like me!

...
(for those curious about the end of the above argument, the three other men confronted the Jew and said: "Prove it!", to which he replied, "No problem, come with me" and took them to the brothel, there he knocked on the door and when it was opened the lady exclaimed: "Jesus, are you here again!?")

Putting words into Einstein's mouth, AJ? Very Courageous.
Rather like the courage needed by Theists, when they put their words into their God's mouth.
Einstein on Atheism:
 "The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
I think many of the greatest scientists are awe struck, or more appropriately, awe inspired by the intricate majesty of 'Creation'.
This does not automatically make them theists or atheists; merely people capable of appreciating something greater than themselves; struck at the same time by how peculiarly explicable (through mathematics) the universe appears to be, while at the same time tantalisingly unknowable.
Science may have progressed since Einstein's day, but I really don't think the theist/atheist argument has come up with anything earth shatteringly new lately; certainly nothing which would overcome Einstein's “childlike awe”.
Carl Sagan was another, more recent great communicator who shared Einstein's sense of wonder, and described himself as an atheist -with certain reservations. Neither gentleman, I think, would object strenuously to being described as sharing a 'religious fervour' for the wonders of the natural universe.
While neither Dawkins, Sagan or Einstein required a personal, interfering God, the church of Dawkins' universe is a drab, boxlike affair, with perfectly utilitarian stackable chairs.
The church of Einstein's and Sagan's universe has no shortage of stained glass windows and majestic architecture.

Grim,

I would suggest that the "god" that all established "churches" portray is a drab, box like affair, resembling the "churches" themselves.

Dawkins objects to these because they, most especially "fundamentalist" churches that promote "young earth creationism" are barriers to the clear understanding of basic concepts that enable the vision of Einsteins and Sagans.

Dawkins has written at length about the intricacies of the world as understood by several avenues of science, and shown how drab, banal and depressingly futile any literal reading of religious texts and "fundamentalist" religion is in comparison.

Rusty.

Grim,

"...the church of Dawkins' universe is a drab, boxlike affair, with perfectly utilitarian stackable chairs.
The church of Einstein's and Sagan's universe has no shortage of stained glass windows and majestic architecture."

Beautifully put - great post.

Poirot,

Sagan thought well of Dawkins, classing him with Gould and Weinberg in assisting others in the appreciation of the genuine wonder of the universe. (Demon Haunted World, 1996, page 316).

Dawkins rightly criticises "creationism", as did Sagan, as being a force that throws ordure on the very windows you claim to admire.

Rusty

Einstein was a brilliant, articulate man who greatly expanded the boundaries of physics and our knowledge of the universe. He was also taken by the wonder of the physical world and the relations of matter.

However, none of that means that he had any particular insights as to the existence of any kind of God. IMHO God is one of the great human inventions to deal with the mysteries of the universe. It seems to me there can be no experts in that area – only opinions which are based on our exposure to the surrounding culture and our resistance or acceptance of it.

Much more significant to me about Einstein is that he resisted the militarism of his society in the excitement building up to WW1. He was one of the few voices of sanity who saw what it could lead to and spoke out against it. I think that is much more meaningful and important than his speculations about deity.

Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein spoke against the insanity of militarism. Russell wound up in prison, and Einstein in disfavour.

His saying “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” is to my way of thinking worth far more than his observations on our imaginary companion.

He also said, “This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business.”

Einstein concerned himself with brutality and cruelty on earth. I don't think his definition of deity is particularly important.

Dear david f,
Thank you for your sincere words. I think there are no “authorities on faith”: There are authorities in this or that field of knowledge - and I respect them the more, the less I myself am knowledgeable in that particular field - however I don’t think one can talk about authorities of faith, since I think faith (in the widest meaning of the word, including Einstein’s) is a personal matter. There are also moral (or political, etc) authorities, however they apply only to those who are part of their Church, religion, country, political party or so. (I note now that you yourself wrote “It seems to me there can be no experts in that area”).

I think what Einstein, you, I (or whoever) believe about human condition and existence (I am not defining either of the terms) is a result of our education, of our life experiences, emotional and rational evaluations of these, which are all highly personal determinants of our world-view. One can, and should, communicate with others in order to enrich one’s own world-view, but being personal, world-views are never completely exchangeable. Even a convert will have remnants of his pre-conversion times form part of his/her life experience, hence world-view.

I admire Einstein as a philosopher of science, and I have learned a lot from him. I see, so do you, although there are parts of Einstein’s insights that we cannot share with him (those parts are albeit different in your and my case). And I have learned a lot from you, mainly because I can understand you, which I cannot say about some atheists here.

>>We will all be memories, and finally even the memory of us will disappear.<<
Well Einstein is one of those who became an exception. Very few of us are granted this kind of immortality.

Sorry about your first wife. Being “surrounded by descendants” is probably a consolation I’ll not have since I live in Cologne and my only daughter in Melbourne. Nevertheless, I shall have my faith (hopefully), so I do not complain.

Rusty Catheter,

The question is not whether you are right or wrong about Einstein not being “unaware of the religious hysteria” or “socialised” when expressing his views. The question is, why do you have to engage in this kind of speculations instead of accepting what he wrote. Why can’t you accept that Einstein was more of an authority on these matters than you or I, even if you don’t agree with this or that of what he said, like david f and I (and many others) do?

>>knowing what is now known about quantum processes, he could not help but retract one of those statements<<
I don’t know what is your understanding of quantum processes, but I do not think a serious physicist - atheist or not - would be disrespectful enough to impute to Einstein a retraction of his clearly expressed views on whatever, unless Einstein himself announced such a retraction (c.f. the cosmological constant).

>>Einstein might not use the terminology of Dawkins … If someone had approached Einstein and daily berated him for not being a flat-earther or some other physical nonsense, I am not certain of the extent of his patience.<<
Who is it who approached Dawkins and “daily berated him for not being a flat-earther or some other physical nonsense”? And if, how does that justify to twist or qualify what Einstein himself wrote?

Grim,
There is not much to be added to what you wrote in this “duel” of Einstein quotes (and their taylor-made reinterpretations) that I unintentionally seem to have started. I thought it was obvious that Einstein was not a Christian churchgoer, and that he contributed to the understanding that being loyal to this or that Church or other denomination, and being religious in the psychological meaning of the word (whether or not connected with the belief in a God with a supernatural dimension), are not one and the same thing.

No, I actually wasn’t, Grim.

<<Putting words into Einstein's mouth, AJ?>>

And if you’d re-read my posts for what they say rather than how you’d like to interpret them, you’d see that I wasn’t either.

<<This does not automatically make them theists or atheists; merely people capable of appreciating something greater than themselves; struck at the same time by how peculiarly explicable (through mathematics) the universe appears to be, while at the same time tantalisingly unknowable.>>

Well, yeah, I know. But there are many ways to appreciate the wonders of the universe and be awe-struck by it, and far better ways, too, than borrowing unhelpful words that have deeply religious connotations that are open to misinterpretation.

<<Science may have progressed since Einstein's day, but I really don't think the theist/atheist argument has come up with anything earth shatteringly new lately; certainly nothing which would overcome Einstein's “childlike awe”.>>

And I never said it had either. But there is no denying that the more educated and knowledgeable we become, the less religious we are and the less generous we are to religious ideas; especially since our improved means of communications have made us far more alert to the dangers and hazards of religion. These same technological improvements give us a better knowledge (than we would have had in Einstein and Sagan’s times) of how others are misinterpreting us and using what we say to bolster bad ideas.

Nothing has to be “Earth-shattering” either. You made this same mistake in our last discussion when you questioned my use of the term ”enlightened”; seemingly under the impression that we need major breakthroughs to become more enlightened... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036#226495

Now that IS a legitimate parallel with the way theists think - with their insistence on using absolutes (e.g. absolute certainty) when criticising atheists - unlike your point about me allegedly putting words into Einstein’s mouth like a theist would God’s.

All I did was point-out something that was being over-looked - context. You don’t get to put words in my mouth just to accuse me of doing the same simply because you don’t like it.

Rusty,

There is in man a persistent psychological recourse to mysticism and metaphysical expression. Einstein believed it was the finest emotion we possessed.

I often wonder if man had never embraced mysticism and religious expression, if the sublime quality of the kind embodied in sacred architecture would ever have emerged. These monuments most surely represent the pinnacle of man's potential and progress down through the centuries.

Just musing, of course. I'm essentially an atheist, but I'm with Einstein who recognised that: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Dear Atheists,

To claim that God is human-made, is a contradiction: suppose man created God, then man could also remove him - such a removable can only be an idol, not God!

Man keep attributing God with all sorts of things: Father, Creator, Deity, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, or even Existing and on the other hand "human-made" or "imaginary companion". These are obviously all figments of human mind and fail the test of reality and logic.

However, the world would be very boring if all we talked about was science. Have you never called your sweetheart something like "princess", "shining-knight", "honey-bunny", "bumble-bee", "turtle-dove", "beetle", etc. or in contrast "bitch", "witch", or "gestapo"?

One must consider the context. Calling one's beloved "turtle-dove" does not express an expectation of them flying. How would you feel if mocked "hehe, lets see her flying and bringing you an olive-leaf from the supermarket"?

As it is so difficult to grasp God, we tend to use intermediate nick-names. All that matters is not whether the names we call God are scientifically-correct (obviously not!), but whether they are generated out of love and devotion, or out of fear and hate.

For [non-abused] children, to call someone "Father", is an expression of trust (or they could use "Mother" just the same).

To call someone "Creator" is to express our gratitude and feeling of indebtedness.

To consider that a physical description, is shallow and ignorant: both for the worshiper and for the antagonist.

Believing things about God is often a religious technique (though not the ultimate) and can be very effective for some people. For example, believing that God created the world 5772 years ago, is a test of faith and one's ability to suspend one's dependency on the evidence of the senses, thus procuring a detachment from the world and thereby closeness to God: If personally that belief doesn't bring you any closer to God, then ignore and don't believe it. For you, looking at the night sky and sensing your body's insignificance may prove a better religious technique.

Pity some religious-leaders blur the difference between religious-techniques and science.

It does appear that I have stepped on George's ant hill, which is a little strange that most of the recent posts are not wildly divergent.
Davidf, I completely agree with you, as well as Einstein. I don't regard his views on religion as being any more valid than anyone else's; merely the most in step with my own views. Rusty puts it quite well:
“... from the point of view of the church, anybody modelling their spirituality on the remote deity envisaged by Einstein would be indistinguishable from an atheist.”
Except that I don't think Einstein actually envisaged a 'remote deity', but I accept the sentiment.
This is precisely why I describe myself as a de facto Atheist; as I see it, the existence or non existence of a God or Gods is (at least at our current stage of evolution) unknowable, so why get our nickers in a twist?
I also particularly admired Einstein's views on war. In WW2, my father joined a brigade which drove in convoy up to Cape York, and stayed there for the duration, waiting for the Japanese to invade. As a child, I must admit I was a little disappointed that Dad wasn't a war hero, or marched on ANZAC day. As an adult I became quite proud that my father was prepared defend his country, but not prepared to invade anyone else's.
But I probably admire Einstein's humility most. I think (at the risk of putting my words into his mouth) he would have been the last to suggest his views on religion were more valid than anyone else's.

Too right hasBeen plaster in the navels. I cant believe all these people wanting to intrude on an otherwise joyous life by obligating oneself to some kind of grand purpose.

Maybe they aren't joyous like me.

Maybe it's some kind of strong inner-parent problem people have developed.

Does it ever occur to you lot you cant see the wood for the trees?

Speaking of trees, does it help if you considered both Adam and Eve were monkeys? I always thought that would help but religious people give me funny looks when I suggest it.

I think really you people should look to children if you're interested in some kind of answers. Not because they came from any kind of define intervention or spiritual place or anything like that, just that they haven't been swayed by any kind of ideology or had any conditioning, or been knocked around much at all, so they can truly see.

They generally don't have any kind of ulterior agenda. Nice people they are. Sometimes it's a bit hard to think at their level, but we should aspire to reach those heights.

I reckon I'm balanced as I both believe and not believe in Jesus. I believe he existed, but I don't think he's in a position to do too much for me now. I cant for the life of me see how he could possibly 'die for my sins', seeing as though my sins happened way way after he died, and isn't that a bit of a imposition for one person to have to be a scapegoat for eternity?

If Christians were really Christian-like they should let him off the hook. 'OK Jesus, we can stand on our own two feet now, and take some responsibility for our actions'. It's the least they could do after so many years.

Maybe Jesus isn't really a big martyr control freak and it's all a big misunderstanding. Wouldn't that be funny.

I was thinking of you lot the other day and I came up with conclusive proof about this god idea, but I've forgotten what I decided now.

Grim,

I agree that Einstein's humility shines through. To me, it is probably the greatest virtue, especially when demonstrated by one as celebrated as Einstein.

Yuyutsu,
You've gotten yourself into a knot and effectively diffuse god into nothing.

Man has created your god (the idea) and is removing him. Atheists, agnostics and every other religious believer is the evidence of that. So if god can be removed, then god is an idol.
If god is not to be an idol, you have to demonstrate why it cannot be removed.

If I understand correctly, the next couple of paragraphs are trying to express an inability of man to accurately describe god, but as long as the inaccurate descriptions with inaccurate attributes are for the right reasons, its ok.
So we get to a point where god is non-describable and non-quantifiable. Thus god is completely indistinguishable.

What I can read into the paragraph of religious technique, if I may paraphrase, believe the impossible as it brings you closer to god. Or not, as that also brings you closer to god.

So all up, god is real otherwise its an idol because idols are gods that aren't real. To feel closer to god follow religious thinking, or not. Since god is indistinguishable from anything else, it doesn't matter what attributes or words are used to describe god, or not.

I'm not real sure i'm convinced.

Grim,
>>Einstein's humility shines through. I think (at the risk of putting my words into his mouth) he would have been the last to suggest his views on religion were more valid than anyone else’s.<<
Exactly. Could you say the same about Dawkins? If not, this is the difference between the two I have been referring to in my post above. Perhaps it is also related to the fact that Einstein’s views on religion are respected (and quoted) by many contemporary atheists AS WELL AS many (religious) Jews and Christians.

G'day George,
Your point is well taken. Although “the God Delusion” is one of the few books I have bought in recent times (my library card is my most valued possession), and although I agree with most if not all of the arguments Dawkins puts forward, no, humility is not a word that springs to mind when I think of Dawkins.
In fact, I think Dawkins has all the makings of a fine 'fire and brimstone' preacher.
Except for one small attribute, of course.

Dear George,

The attitude by religion to Einstein's and Dawkins' areas of scientific interest differs. The Vatican and other representatives of mainline religions have accepted scientific cosmology. Mainline churches accept that the world was not created in six literal days, that the earth orbits the sun and that the sun is one of many stars. Galileo was under house arrest by the Catholic church partially because of his insistance that the earth orbits the sun, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 since he thought there could be many solar systems. No significant religious figures currently deny the findings of Copernicus and Bruno. At least one Catholic cardinal currently denies evolution.

There is still an ongoing battle about evolutionary biology with 'faith' schools in the UK and other places teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design. Einstein was passionate about the view of the universe he could see, and Dawkins is passionate about evolutionary biology. The relativistic universe is not under attack, but evolution is. Einstein's passion has been accepted, but Dawkins' is still under attack.

One can find justification in the Bible for an earth centred universe. Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

There is not the same acceptance of evolutionary biology as of cosmology. If Einstein's scientific findings had been under attack by religion he might have had the same attitude that Dawkins has.

G'day Davidf,
your argument is perfectly reasonable, but I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant. We are still discussing Theism v. Atheism, are we not? Or have we moved to Creationism v. Evolution?
As someone posted earlier:
“However, none of that means that he had any particular insights as to the existence of any kind of God. IMHO God is one of the great human inventions to deal with the mysteries of the universe. It seems to me there can be no experts in that area – only opinions which are based on our exposure to the surrounding culture and our resistance or acceptance of it.”
I would have thought humility was an attribute of personality, rather than strength of belief.

Dear Grim,

I was responding to the difference in Dawkins' and Einstein's attitudes toward religion. Einstein's scientific theories are not under attack by the theists whereas Dawkins' are. Therefore my post was relevant to atheism vs. theism. If theists left evolutionary biology alone I doubt that Dawkins would feel so strongly about atheism. Theism is one thing, and the Bible is another. I see no reason that a person could accept the existence of a God and completely reject the Bible. Why should they be put together? My atheism stems from a rejection of a Bible. The arbitrary, brutal God pictured there is no god I can worship. All the other gods I have heard of also seem unreasonable. However, maybe somewhere there is a reasonable deity. Such an entity could have no relation to the Bible or Koran.

Right now one of my concerns is the intolerance of theists. My youngest grandson is bullied in school partly because his father is an atheist. In an ideal world people would accept what other people believe. Atheists would accept theists, and theists would accept atheists.

Unfortunately Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions which seek to have everybody believe the same as they do. I am glad there are two missionary religions as they can act as counterweights to each other.

There are also missionary atheists. I wish there were no missionaries at all. I would like to see a world where people could make their beliefs known without anybody else getting their knickers in a twist about them.

However, when religious belief conflicts with scientific findings I regard science as pre-eminent.

david f,

Thanks for bringing some perspective to this thread (something that has been sorely missing in the last couple of days) regarding Einstein vs Dawkins. Rusty touched on the same point too, but unfortunately George chose only to address a very literal interpretation of what he said. 

It's so easy for us to all sit here and - smug in the knowledge that a brilliant, early 20th century scientific mind said some stuff that makes us feel good about our worldview - so pompously attack those willing to put themselves out there in defense of what their life circumstances and times have lead them to believe is right. But until we put ourselves in the firing-line for something we believe in too, then we're all just pontificating.

david f,

I think there would be plenty of people who believe in 'a God' (not necessarily the Christian God, but even many of these also) and who reject the Bible - or at least refuse to take it literally. I expect the same would hold for some Muslims, not taking the Koran (Qur'an), at least all of it, too literally. (Some in both camps seem to pick and choose, and interpret meaning, at will.)

It seems certain that all fundamentalism, all closed-mindedness, is retrograde, if not outright divisive and destructive. Wish it could be otherwise, with all scripture being benign and having only one intent and purpose - that being for people to lead good, ethical and responsible lives, in harmony with one-another and with the natural world.

That is my God - the God of peace, harmony and respect for all life. The universe, the cosmos, is great; and if I interpret Einstein correctly, his great love was in both admiring and in trying to understand, to comprehend. I think we should do no less, and with a mind open to all possibilities - but always in a positive way.

Dear BAC,

God is not an idol.

Early man believed that his own creations - wood, stone, metal, silver and gold statutes, were gods. In time, as man's understanding of God was refined, physical aspects of those man-made gods were shed off one by one. First the gods were placed above the clouds so no-one could see them, then material, texture and family-connections were gone too, so the first monotheistic god of the early Jews was believed to be of no visible form, but he still had human-like emotions and until Maimonides (12th century), most Jews still believed that he has a body and a size (1/3 of the universe). Maimonides preached against those beliefs, but even he still believed that God exists, gave the Torah to Moses and can be physically heard by prophets. With the advance of science and logic, we can finally remove the last primitive/superstitious attribute of God - existence.

Indeed, seriously comparing God to objective matter is an insult to His holy name. Only objects have attributes, only objects can exist - how shameful was it to reduce God to the level of an object!

So you want me to demonstrate why God cannot be removed? but that's too easy - only things that exist and take space can be removed.

That doesn't mean that "God is nothing" either - nothingness is also a physical attribute, so it is nonsensical to try attaching it to God.

God isn't an idea either - the fact that we also have [various] ideas of God (or gods) has nothing to do with God Himself - these are merely mental objects.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Regarding religious techniques, you got me right - any method which brings one closer to God is valid, but there is more to it: some methods work for some people and other methods work for others - there is no "universal" method. So yes, for SOME people, believing the impossible is helpful, for others it isn't. it DOES matter what attributes or words (if any) are used to describe God, but it also depends by whom.

I did not claim that God is real (that would be a meaningless statement, only objects can be real), but rather that there is nothing but God. So if anything whatsoever (including ourselves) is real, then it is God, if there is any reality whatsoever, then it is God.

How do you tell whether there is a reality or not? Unfortunately there is no objective/scientific way, but you can experience the reality of something for yourself, directly and subjectively: even one thing would do, so why not start with yourself (it's probably the easiest)? Are you real? Take the time to look inside, who you are, what you are: Once you experience yourself (or any other thing) directly, you will also know clearly what I mean by God (but unfortunately there is no way you can explain it to others).

Dear david f,

Whatever you mean by “attitude by religion”, or “attack by religion” is this not some unjustified generalisation? True, one of the most vociferousI deniers of evolution are the (American) Christian fundamentalists, and they do not touch Einstein, or cosmological theories, perhaps because of the mathematics involved. As a student I once came across a book in the University library (published in German in the thirties!), harshly criticising special relativity theory, one “argument” being that Einstein was a Jew (no God involved here). It was obvious that the author had problems with understanding Minkowskian geometry.

Thus, I agree that there are more zealots attacking evolution theories than Einstein’s relativity theories. However, besides the mathematics, is it not also because Einstein - unlike Dawkins - never claimed that the scientific theories he was the author (or supporter) of somehow led to the conclusion there was, or was not, a God; not even indirectly by associating his gravitation theory with such basic questions that - if at all satisfactorily answerable - lie outside the competence of physics? People, if they do not like a conclusion (about the existence or not of a God) would often rather attack the premise (e.g. evolution theory) than the "implication", that in fact is no implication only a non-sequitur.

Even Pius XII made this mistake, claiming that because of the Big Bang, there was a Creator, until the very author of the theory, Georges Lemaître, pointed out the non-sequitur to him. Had Pius XII kept on claiming that Big Bang implies God, he probably would have received the same kind of reactions that Dawkins complains about.
ctd

ctd
I think that is the main difference between Einstein - who did not need a Lemaître to point out the non-sequitur to him - and Dawkins - who does not want to see his non-sequitur because he sees only the zealots emotionally reacting to his non-sequitur by attacking the premises. Dawkins would have as many sympathisers among (scientifically savvy) Christians as Einstein has, had he restricted his rhetoric only to the defense of the theories of evolution against these zealots instead of making sweeping generalisations about religion.

The zealots might not be that zealous and anti-science without religion, as there would be no Hiroshima without mathematics and physics, and probably no gas chamgers without chemistry. Nevertheless, we do not attack mathematics, physics or chemistry because of that, only the abuse.

>>Right now one of my concerns is the intolerance of theists. My youngest grandson is bullied in school partly because his father is an atheist.<<

I think I understand what you mean, but am disappointed you had to formulate it this way. The problem is bullying at schools, not theists or atheists. As you might remember, I grew up in Stalinist Czechoslovakia, and at the age of 10-12 I was also bullied (by a mob led by the son of a local Comrade) for not willing to renounce Jesus (or God, I don’t remember). Nevertheless, it would never occur to me to put bullying in connection with atheists. I do not know of an adult theist or atheist who would support, or even encourage, bullying at schools

Yuyutsu,
Thats pretty close to a perfect definition of pantheism.
:)

Viewing Jesus of the New Testament we see he taught against Jewish religious orthodoxy by his practices and teaching e.g. "love your enemy", compared to the zealots who gathered against Roman occupation. He was able to accommodate gentile Romans, Assyrians, Samaritans and Africans etc in his Church. This managed to have him ostracized from the religious community and called a heretic because he stood out against established religion for a universal truth. He was radical in his time in an endeavour to bring about social and religious change. However his message and actions were based on human dignity and positive views.

George,

Coincidently, I was reading a biography of Einstein when this thread began.

Einstein did experience opposition, suspicion and ridicule in the twenties from different quarters. From "Einstein - A Life in Science":

"...not everyone was happy with Einstein's theory. Opposition to it in the early 1920's fell into four categories: ignorant ridicule, philosophical incomprehension, resentment by other physicists and political opposition.
First there was the harmless jibes of the non-scientific media who found the whole idea of relativity alien to what the man in the street would call "common sense".....The second category comprised a number of philosophers around the world who did not understand the basic precepts of relativity, and endeavoured to create their own interpretations which they then demonstrated to be false...The third group was...made up of experimental physicists who, to a greater or lesser extent, resented the sudden fame of a theoretical physicist whose ideas they saw as a flight of fancy....[But] the only dangerous and completely unreasonable opponents of relativity were those motivated for political reasons...the first attack came from a group who euphemistically called themselves the "Study Group of German Natural Philosophers". They were a bunch of anti-Semitic fanatics with an eye for personal gain and self-publicity. Their apparent leader was a man called Paul Weyland....As an anti-Einsteinian, Weyland had influential friends and through these contacts and the sheer venom of the group's attack on Einstein, he presented a very real threat...The activities of the Study Group of German Natural Philosophers would have been almost laughable in other instances. But in the climate of growing anti-Semitism, they made Einstein's life very uncomfortable for a period..."

Einstein bemusedly wrote in an article for "The Times':

"....By an application of the theory of relativity to the taste of readers, today in Germany I am called a German man of science and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be regarded as a "bete noire" the description will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English."

Dear George,

You wrote:

“However, besides the mathematics, is it not also because Einstein - unlike Dawkins - never claimed that the scientific theories he was the author (or supporter) of somehow led to the conclusion there was, or was not, a God; not even indirectly by associating his gravitation theory with such basic questions that - if at all satisfactorily answerable - lie outside the competence of physics?”

To the best of my knowledge Dawkins has never claimed that his scientific theories led to the conclusion that there is no God. In “The God Delusion” Dawkins makes clear he refers to God as a supernatural being. As a scientist Dawkins does not deal in truth but in falsifiability. Any scientific theorem is only held provisionally. It must be abandoned when there is evidence it is not valid in all cases. Dawkins contends that neither the existence or non-existence of God can be proven. However, he also contends that the probability of the existence of God is small. He avoids making a conclusion. However, he does not bring his scientific theories into play in guessing at that probability.

Dawkins does bring his scientific theories into place in denying the literal truth of the Bible. That is a position that some religious believers share.

He titles Chapter IV of “The God Delusion” “Why there almost certainly is no God.” In “The God Delusion” Dawkins deplores the fact that there is such ignorance of the Bible that people are unaware of biblical and religious references when they run across them in literature. Dawkins is outraged that religious beliefs are pushed on little children who are not old enough to make reasonable judgment. I feel the outrage is reasonable.

One of the posters asked that a book on Creationism be read before Creationism be criticised. However, Creationism rests on the belief that the Biblical account of Creation is valid. If one rejects the basic premise on which a work is based it is a pointless exercise to read the work with the purpose of evaluating the validity of its argument.

continued

continued

It works both ways. People sometimes attack religion by equating fundamentalism with religion. People attack Dawkins and other atheists on the basis of reading attacks on them rather than reading what they wrote.

I have no argument with people who subscribe to some faith because they are convinced that it is true if they do not claim there is evidence to support their faith when none exists.

Immanuel Kant examined the proofs for God’s existence and found them all of them fallacious. He wrote that he was morally certain there was a God. From the Collier Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“… the belief or faith Kant proposes as a replacement for discredited metaphysical knowledge can neither be strictly communicated nor learned from another. It is something that has to be achieved by every man for himself”

Josephus wrote: He [Jesus] was able to accommodate gentile Romans, Assyrians, Samaritans and Africans etc in his Church.

Dear Josephus,

I just did a search in the four Gospels and found no mention of Assyrians. Please cite where Jesus accommodated these disparate peoples you cited above.

Paul threw the new sect open to all, but I don’t think Jesus ever made an explicit appeal to non-Jews according to the New Testament.

>>Paul threw the new sect open to all, but I don’t think Jesus ever made an explicit appeal to non-Jews according to the New Testament.<<

When I read this I immediately thought of this sketch from That Mitchell & Webb Look. I think you'll like it david f.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs

Cheers,

Tony

Returning for a moment to the original topic (yeah, I know, how boring), I'd like to make an observation.

"While OK to inform Tom Cruise, after beating various arguments to within an inch of their lives, that Scientology is a load of bullsh!t, it's another thing altogether to accuse him of being irrational should he continue to accept that eons ago a galactic warlord called Xenu brought aliens to our planet, placed them in volcanoes and then vaporized them with bombs, causing their souls (aka thetans) to disperse and attach to us humans."

I have been puzzling over the author's intent in this paragraph. It appears to be a defence of Tom Cruise's belief system, advising us that we should accept that he is perfectly rational in holding to his beliefs, however difficult for us everyday folk to accept.

Presumably, the author feels the same way about God authorising Moroni to apprise Joseph Smith of the location of information regarding his relationship with America, and Jesus' visit there.

Not forgetting Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, of course.

Or the Zion Full Salvation Ministry, the Church of Bible Understanding, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, Heaven’s Gate, the Children of God, Branch Davidians etc. etc.

I guess my point is, at what point does the author expect us atheists to suspend our addiction to logical explanations - or "literalism" as he sneeringly describes our innate disability to experience the "sensing of the answer in one's bones".

Where, to employ the phrase du jour, should we draw the line?

Jesus makes appeals to people of faith no matter their nationality Luke 4: 24 - 30. Naaman the Syrian and the widow of Zarepath neither were Jews but Gentiles considered by Jews as antagonists which stirred up the crowd at Synagogue; that they wanted to stone him.

In his parting words he authorises his disciples to go into all nations Matthew 28: 16 - 20.

>>Jesus makes appeals to people of faith no matter their nationality Luke 4: 24 - 30.<<

But the take-home message from Luke 10:30-34 is still that Jesus was a racist pig.

Cheers,

Tony

Josephus wrote: “Jesus makes appeals to people of faith no matter their nationality.”

Josephus, I think you put your finger on a problem. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and other people of faith don’t need Jesus since they already have a faith, and Christian missionaries are trying to get them to abandon their faith for another. If they do become Christian, that probably puts them at odds with their family and their community. This creates conflict.

Vinoba Bhave, an Indian sage, advocated vertical conversion. Look deeper in your own faith for answers before you seek them in another. If you can’t find them in your own faith they may not exist.

Matthew 19: 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

The above indicates how Jesus doesn’t care if he breaks up families. Unfortunately there is quite a bit of hypocrisy when Christians talk about family values. Family destroying gods should be avoided.

People without religious faith don’t need Jesus since they probably don’t want any faith. Most likely they’ve thought it over and decided they don’t need a faith. Missionaries of any kind are really harassing people. It may be a mild harassment. I have felt harassed when some Bible basher has come on to me with their mumbojumbo,. I have told them I’m not interested, and they sometimes say with an idiotic smile, “I’ll pray for you!”

Josephus also wrote: “In his parting words he authorises his disciples to go into all nations Matthew 28: 16 - 20.” In practice that sometimes has had horrible results and is a major harassment. Charlemagne gave the pagan Gauls the choice of Christianity or beheading. Other Christian monsters have followed suit.

Far, far better and wiser than the words of Jesus are the words of Vinoba Bhave and those of the late, great Jimmy Durante, “Why doesn’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?”

david f,
The whole concept of people with a message they feel will better peoples lives you believe,“Why doesn’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?” Tell this to advertisers see if they believe you.

Tony Lavis,

>>But the take-home message from Luke 10:30-34 is still that Jesus was a racist pig.<<

Irrespective of anything covered in the article or posted on this thread, the above is uncalled-for and totally unjustified, AND I CALL UPON YOU TO MAKE A RETRACTION.

Furthermore, in my copy of the ST JAMES bible, Luke 10:30-34 conveys the parable of the Good Samaritan (and continues in 35-37 if you wanted the full message). If this is what you intended to quote, I fail to see where you find any racism or offense. A poor show on your part, altogether.

Anyhow, all this swordplay of bible quotes isn't very impressive, in my view, since it is the overall message and impression which is important, rather than snippets. Snippet seeking can be very misleading.

david f, your interpretation of Matthew 19: 29 is also misleading and narrow, in my opinion, for from this I take the message of 'having the courage of your convictions' and thereby 'attaining a fulfilled life'. Although I do concede the passage lays it on a bit heavy, insofar as suggesting one should abandon family, home and hearth, if necessary, in order to maintain one's faithful service. But, my interpretation would place this as a possibility only in the event of no other course being available (as eg where one is subject to severe disparagement and punishment in that environment, because of one's beliefs - as say in a household of thieves and cutthroats).

Live and let live - or as david f quotes “Why doesn’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?” - but tempered with a due regard for the beneficial works various faiths perform in this world, such as the likes of Mother Theresa and the Sisters of Mercy, Buddhist medical monks, housing for the homeless, caring for unwed mothers and women escaping abuse, nursing homes, orphan's homes, youth outreach and mentoring; most of which is provided with little if any 'proselytizing'.

Example is the best inspiration for a good, meaningful and constructive life, and, ultimately, preparation for death. Only my opinion of course.

Josephus:

Unfortunately the message of Christianity has made people’s lives worse in many ways. It has justified and supported slavery, imperialism, censorship, massacres, anti-Semitism, colonialism and other manifestations of human oppression.

From the time that Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire it has used political power to oppress.
In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on Pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce anti-Pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed Pagan temples.

He issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any Pagan ritual even within the privacy of one's home, and was particularly oppressive of Manicheans. Paganism was now proscribed, a "religio illicita". He is likely to have suppressed the Ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration is from 393.

Christianity has often been an enemy of learning and science. Some think the Dark Ages began when Christian monks murdered the brilliant Hypatia, a pagan astronomer, philosopher and mathematician who refused to adopt Christianity.

Servetus, a brilliant man, who discovered pulmonary circulation was burned at the stake in 1553 in Protestant Geneva for doubting the Trinity. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome in 1600 for his insight that the sun was one of many stars.

Gaileo died under house arrest for maintaining that the earth goes around the sun instead of being the centre of the universe.

Christianity is still fighting science by promoting Creationism and Intelligent Design.

The people and churches of most Christian nations have supported their armies going forth and slaughtering the peoples of Christian and non-Christian nations.

The Nazi Holocaust would probably not have happened had not the Christian Germans been conditioned by centuries of Christian hatred to accept Nazi policies toward the Jews.

You made a good comparison, Josephus. Advertising and Christian missionaries have been very effective at selling useless and harmful products.

Saltpetre,

In my opinion the deleterious effects of Christianity far outweigh its beneficial effects. The services you mentioned often come with a lot of proselytising

No shortage of supposition (or maybe suppositories) here. I love it.
I think some of us may have lost sight of the fact that the Holy Bible is all about the Jews, and only the Jews, at the very least up the point of the crucifixion.
IF there was an historical Jesus, then I would suggest an objective reading would indicate he was a Jewish reformer. His goal appeared to be to reform the Jewish religion rather than start a new religion in his own name -at least in the beginning. It's entirely possible, as suggested in JC Superstar, that his own fame went to his head and the message changed. I think a large number of modern Christians could accept this, based on the idea that until the resurrection Jesus was entirely human, as evidenced by his dying words, “Father, why have you forsaken me?”
As a reformer, naturally he would want to tear the children away from the faith of their fathers. That's what reformers do.
I would contend that Jesus did not start the Christian religion. That was the work of Peter, Paul and the others. Keep in mind that nobody's a leader, until someone chooses to follow him.
It should also be clear that those followers had their own axe to grind, and their own message to peddle. Apart from the fact that it was followers who wrote the gospels in the first place, clearly the message of the churches differs radically from the message of the Bible, in many respects.
Witness the Pope in Rome, surrounded by material wealth that could only be the envy of Kings and Potentates, while worshipping a mendicant rabbi, who scorned materialism.

Dear david f,

>>Dawkins has never claimed that his scientific theories led to the conclusion that there is no God<<
If I could contradict you with a quote I would not have posted that long sentence that you also quoted, where I mention association etc. I was trying to explain why, in my opinion, there are many more theist scientists who respect (though do not necessarily share) Einstein’s views on the relation between religion and science than Dawkins’. That is all, apparently you do not accept this explanation, and I am not able to provide statistical or what evidence to support my view of why that difference.

I own only “The Blind Watchmaker”, which is not about religion, nevertheless Creator - a concept that does not belong to science - is mentioned at least three times. As to “The God Delusion” I have only the freely downloadable translation, so I am not going to quote by translating back into English, nevertheless the very Chapter IV that you mention contains the phrase “natural selection” many times.

I am not sure what you mean by Creationism since some people denote by it the pseudo-scientific theory that claims to have arrived at the need of a “creator” within scientific investigations (c.f. the phlogiston), others as a derogative term to describe ALL those who believe in a Creator, a religious and metaphysical concept.

You mention Kant. I never had any subject like Religious Education at school (only atheist, towards a so called “scientific world-view”), and it was only my father - who was a Catholic admirer (and knower more than I) of Kant - who could counteract this education not by telling me that the teacher was wrong, and the right answer was this or that, but by convincing the teenager in me that the answer to questions concerning world-view, evaluation of historical facts, etc, were more complicated, than what the materialist (and anti-Church) teacher was offering, that one had to view many possible answers and analyses, including, but not exclusively, the one offered at school.

david f,
Your bigitory, misrepresentation and dishonesty about the facts of Christ disqualifies you as a teacher of balance and truth. None of the true followers of Christ I know fit into your view of "Christian". I have friends all around the world working in medicine, rehabilitation, education and community development among all nations.

Obviously you sit on the sidelines of life throwing stones of people from the past who claimed to be "Christian" but did not practise Christ's teaching.

I think Grim has put it nicely, including:

>>IF there was an historical Jesus, then I would suggest an objective reading would indicate he was a Jewish reformer. His goal appeared to be to reform the Jewish religion rather than start a new religion in his own name -at least in the beginning.<<

And George has offered a most worthy insight (from his father):

>>..the answer to questions concerning world-view, evaluation of historical facts, etc, were more complicated, than what the materialist (and anti-Church) teacher was offering, that one had to view many possible answers and analyses, including, but not exclusively, the one offered at school.<<

I would contend that human motivations are subject to many and varied influences, not least being propaganda, misleading instruction, peer pressure, societal and political bias and pressure (eg by the state or military), and individual and societal circumstance (eg poverty, famine, factional conflict). Is Shia v Sunni a religious conflict, or one of envy, power-struggle or evil-minded leadership? Complex questions cannot be reduced to simplistic or convenient scapegoats or stereotypes. Similar question may be effectively applied to all conflicts and acts of inhumanity or indecency, including those laid at the door of 'religious zealotry'. Can anyone ever clearly see into the mind and motivation of another? What may be the motivation(s) behind 'sharia law'?

Could either the Bible or the Koran (Qu'ran) be legitimately construed (in toto) as a 'call to arms' in anything but the most myopic, narrow, twisted, biased and/or delusional view?

Tony Lavis,

I am still waiting for that RETRACTION - else your credibility is shot, and your motivations no more impressive than that which revels in wallowing in the mud.

Based on my recollections of listening to what *Dawkins* had to say on Q&A recently and interpretations thereof, I got the impression that he doesn't adopt a position of belief one way or the other. Rather, if there is "non-corporeal existence" that he seeks to evidence the fact.

Notwithstanding been brought up in a "Christian" tradition and having in the past had a religious phase, I prefer evidence based consideration now and not closing my mind off to that which is not known.

..

Re:Einstein, I recall a chapter in "The Dancing Wu Li" entitled:

"Einstein doesn't like it"

From memory, this referred to our inability to do other than predict in terms of probabilities of the behavior of the majority of a group of particles, as distinct from the "good old world" of Newtonian physics.

..

I was interested to see some of the works on Leonardo on display, but dissapointed again in our ABC who did not point out that the reason for the delay in the publication of his works was because it was suppressed by the church. I have been led to believe that Leonardo put his fingers on a lot of significant medical issues such as vascular disease, but that it was a pool of knowledge that we subsequently lost for centuries.

..

In my travels, it appears to me that you certainly get a great diversity in religious belief, even amongst those of the same persuasion, and where there is often an interesting fusion of religious and traditional culture and values. Certainly what seems to be common right across the board between believers and non believers alike, is that once people gain political power, they most often do not like to give it up.

..

*DavidF* I think that there are more important things than family, and note that those who I love and cherish most do not include members of my biological family. That is not to say that I believe that "family" has no value and no place, however ...

>>None of the true followers of Christ I know fit into your view of "Christian".<<

Just like no true Scotsman:

* Ever wears bifurcated pants.
* Ever eats any food outside of the three Scottish food groups: Haggis Neeps and Tatties.
* Ever hates the sound of the bagpipes.
* Ever turns his nose up at a wee dram 'o whisky.
* Ever holds any love for those English bastards.

Which means that Scotland is almost entirely by people who aren't true Scotsmen. Weird... or what?

Joesephus: google 'no true scotsman'. Read the wikipedia article. I realise it will be a shock to your system to read wikipedia instead of conservapedia but I urge you to stick with it. Then have a good hard think about how it might apply to your claims that no true Christian would etc.

>>Irrespective of anything covered in the article or posted on this thread, the above is uncalled-for and totally unjustified, AND I CALL UPON YOU TO MAKE A RETRACTION.<<

>>I am still waiting for that RETRACTION<<

Oh dear. You do have your panties in quite a bunch don't you?

Hasn't anybody told you that Patience is one of the Seven Heavenly Virtues?

>>your motivations no more impressive than that which revels in wallowing in the mud.<<

Hippopotamuses? That is quite possibly the weirdest and least impressive attempt at an insult that I've ever heard. What have you got against the noble hippopotamus?

All things considered I'd rather be a mud-wallower than a tree-hanger. Hasn't anybody told you that Sloth is one of the Seven Deadly Sins as well as fascinating type of mammal?

Apparently you were too slothful to follow my link. So here is it again for lazy people like KNO3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs

If you still don't get the joke then I CALL UPON YOU TO GO FORNICATE YOURSELF WITH AN IRON STICK.

Cheers,

Tony

Josephus:

You referred to my ‘bigitory [sic], misrepresentation and dishonesty” about the facts of Christ.” There are very few facts about Christ. All we have are the accounts in the New Testament which were written several years after his death.

From E. C. Carpenter: “Pagan & Christian Creeds Their Origin and Meaning"

There were Temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth... Societies, large or small, united believers and the devout in the service or ceremonials connected with their respective deities, and in the creeds which they confessed concerning these deities. …, the general outlines of their creeds and ceremonials were--if not identical--so markedly similar as we find them.… I may say roughly that of all or nearly all the deities above-mentioned it was said and believed that:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.

(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

The ‘facts’ about Jesus are mostly the creation of a legendary figure created by incorporating tales of other legendary figures around at the time.Jesus is not a historical figure of whom one can cite facts. Whether or not there was a real Jesus he is so overlaid with legend that we have few if any facts.

Dear George,

I mean by Creationist one who takes the account in Genesis as to the formation of the sun, moon and earth along with the coming of life on the earth including humans as an accurate account. Some Creationists want the findings of evolutionary biology suppressed and replaced by the Genesis account in school science classes. Since there are two accounts of creation in Genesis (Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 and 2:4 – 2:23) and the two accounts differ the Creationists position is obviously untenable. Nevertheless they maintain it and refuse to recognise the account of the development of life worked out by science from fossil and experimental evidence.

I do not equate a believer in a creator God with a Creationist. A believer in a creator God may accept that God has chosen to operate according to scientific principles. One can maintain that a God who could generate a word which saw to his purposes would not need miracles. A miracle would only be required if creation were flawed and needed correction. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would not create a flawed world.

Religious language is pervasive. Even materialists will refer to life as creation and individuals as creatures. The word, creature, has several meanings. I refers to my children as ‘little creatures.’ A woman hearing that indignantly said, “Your children are not insects.”

I think you would agree with me that the Bible is neither a scientific nor historical text and should not be taken literally.

I agree with you that materialism does not and cannot explain everything. I believe that in some scientific and non-scientific areas we simply will not know all the answers. However, we must make decisions in our lives without being sure of the right answers or even if there are right answers. Some of those decisions are bound to be wrong.

You have religious faith. I don’t. However, you don’t seem unreasonable and do not deny fact. I accept that you view the world differently from the way I do, and that’s it.

George,

Post limits delayed getting back.

I do not accept that Einstein was "more of an authority" on matters of religion, particularly the nature of "god". In so far as his notion of "god" happens to not coincide much with anything any church promotes, he has less chance of being wrong than some.

If Einstein was presented with some current facts of Quantum dynamics rather than the then current uncertainties, he would hould of course hold a different opinion.

Dawkins and Einstein had been contrasted earlier. I put it to you that the hypothetical I presented is about equivalent. Dawkins opens one of his recent books with descriptions of genuine Teachers being deliberately derailed by creationist nonsense, And his response is to clearly inform the reader of just how silly creationist nonsense is. Einstein might not use the same terminology about Flat-earth, But I believe he would be severely disappointed to a similar degree. In any case, Dawkins is well within his rights to criticise "creationism", particularly of the "young earth" type.

A point I would like to make is that "Authority" in physics cannot translate to authority in religion. Religion is as optional as wallpaper, as variable as personal favourite foods. Thompson was too a great physicist, his religious views were woeful and I will dwell briefly on this in another post. Feynman did not consider religious questions relevant, or meaningful.

Rusty

Poirot,

I am very familiar with the little aphorism you quote. I find it trite, tiresome, pompous and inaccurate, and it dissapoints me that Einstein said it. It implies a complementarity and equivalence that is clearly not the case, then or now.

Consider:
Religion has existed for a long time, much of that in the absence of any formalised science, its products and traditions are clearly blind? I am waiting for religionists to say so. Many prominent and politically forceful sects have agendas that ignore and often oppose, obfuscate and de-emphasise scientific findings, even those relevant to religious questions. Religion *is* blind!

"Science" as we know it has struggled to influence our society, to overcome long standing bigotry and ignorance on the simplest of topics and often been nobbled by religious institutions seeking to limit enquiry, subject to their own self interest. Science may well be "lame" without religion, but has managed so far purely on crutches. Anytime religion wants to stop being a millstone would be a good opportunity to find out.

Let me consider here Thompson, later Lord Kelvin. His understanding and contribution to physics in his day was paramount. In his ongoing bitter opposition to evolution, his religion led him to simply misuse his position to hound Darwin, making ever more stringent estimations on the age of the sun to repeatedly "prove" evolution "impossible". Turns out in his zeal he missed the next big thing entirely within his own field and it fell to the next generation to point out that nuclear processes made the possible age of the sun easily sufficient for evolution as originally proposed by Darwin. The greatest physicist of an age was not well served by his religion but hamstrung and hobbled.

Rusty

Dear david f,

Thank you for your extract from E.C. Carpenter in your recent response to Josephus (at 6.47PM on 2 May). This places many things in a new perspective. It seems there is a certain continuity, and I'm not exactly sure what to make of it, but it is certainly a feast for thoughtful evaluation.

I wonder though, in your later response to George, if you may reasonably draw some of your conclusions:

>>A believer in a creator God may accept that God has chosen to operate according to scientific principles. One can maintain that a God who could generate a world which saw to his purposes would not need miracles. A miracle would only be required if creation were flawed and needed correction. An omnipotent, omniscient Creator would not create a flawed world.<<

If God exists/existed, I would have expected the Omnipotent to have created those 'scientific principles' (His plan). As for such 'creation' being flawed - why not? I accept evolution as scientific fact, and therefore the Creator could have provided the crucible and the ingredients, but allowed the cake to bake itself. Miracles then would be to impress 'flawed' and imperfect (by a long margin) humankind, perhaps to dissuade same from viewing themselves as Gods? Have not, and do not some now, so consider themselves - almost?

Please do not misconstrue - I'm not arguing for or against God. Just an observation.

Dear Tony Lavis,

Well, you are certainly the man - you've really outdone yourself - bravo, you should be very pleased with yourself - one in a million.

I did view your youtube link - before my initial response - and it was a giggle, quite clever - but I don't see the relevance to your derogatory and defamatory remark. You obviously carry a severe bias - either of anti-religious or of humorous/frippery persuasion.

You are just too clever by halves; the very soul of extravagant witticism.

Bonne chance.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words. I cannot disagree with anything you wrote in your last post, except that you seem to be offering a third meaning to the term “creationist”, usually referred to as “Six-day creationists” or “Young-Earth creationists”.

I don’t know of a serious Christian scientist who would claim the Bible overruled present day scientific theories and explanations. (I will not speculate on why Dawkins can see only a literal understanding of the Bible.) As for millennia ago - when no concept of science, no possible distinction between scientific theories and mythologies, could have existed - that is a different thing. And still a different thing is to treat these texts as fairy tales simply because one cannot imagine/accept any other insight into reality than what contemporary science can offer; an insight into reality that, if suitably interpreted, can be of timeless relevance.

Thanks also for your reference to the E. C. Carpenter book I didn’t know about. The ten points you list - a have no expertise to judge how valid they are - seems to be an interesting illustration, if not argument, that the “myths” that articulate the tenets of (Judaism and) Christianity arouse somehow naturally, in the sense of being the product of evolution - cultural, and maybe also “pre-cultural”. Here, I do not use the terms myth, mythology in the usual derogatory sense but rather, inspired by the historian of religion Mircea Eliade, as “anthropomorhised” models of those features of reality that science has no access to.

I'd be the last to claim to know how God thinks or should think, but it would be somehow natural (pun unintended) for Him (assuming He existed, of course) to thusly - via evolution - place knowledge of Himself into the awareness of His creation, that on this planet seems to have culminated (so far?) in humanity, without robbing it of what we call free will.

Probably one could extract a similar set of ten points that would place another “higher” religion into such a natural position.

Rusty Catheter,
>>I do not accept that Einstein was "more of an authority" on matters of religion, , particularly the nature of "god"<<
That, of course, is your prerogative. As for the “nature of god” part, neither do e.g. Christians. Nevertheless, those of them who can understand Einstein respect his views on the relation between science and religion as inspirational at least.

>>A point I would like to make is that "Authority" in physics cannot translate to authority in religion.<<
Einstein is dead, so you cannot tell him, but if you replace “physics” with “evolutionary biology”, you can tell Dawkins, however I would suggest you first remove the capitalisation and quotation marks in “Authority”.

As for the rest, instead of repeating myself as well, please read what I wrote in my replies to david f

Josephus wrote “Obviously you sit on the sidelines of life throwing stones of people from the past who claimed to be "Christian" but did not practise Christ's teaching.”

Dear Josephus,

There is a Christian saying one should hate the sin and love the sinner. I think that is good advice. Recognise that humans may not be able to free themselves from a certain pattern of behaviour but they may be trying to do the best they can. I see evil in Christianity. I can regard that evil as sin but will try to love the sinner, namely you. You are trapped in the belly of the beast that is your type of Christianity. “Trapped in the belly of the beast” is a reference to Jonah.

Christians of good will recognise the evil in Christianity that has encouraged bigotry and intolerance and are earnestly trying to eliminate it. They even recognise that some words attributed to Jesus encourage evil.

One of the questionable sayings attributed to Jesus is John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Anglican Bishop Spong has pondered on this and has written:

http://johnshelbyspong.com/sample-essays/the-terrible-texts/

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:

“No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)

This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

End of Spong comment

“I am the way.” That recognises no other point of view. It’s my way or the highway.

“no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” It doesn’t how good a life you live. It doesn’t matter how you treat your fellow beings or what good you do. Unless you accept my belief system you are damned.

In a recent Q&A TV broadcast Cardinal Pell said he believed that atheists could go to heaven. His humanity explicitly questioned the intolerant words of Jesus.

Dear George,

<<I don’t know of a serious Christian scientist who would claim the Bible overruled present day scientific theories and explanations.>>

I don't personally care whether and how this world was created (I consider it a material/scientific curiosity of no spiritual consequences), but I was half following this thread when I came across your above statement.

I also don't know of such a serious Christian scientist as you describe, but I once attended a lecture by a serious Jewish scientist and these were his words:

<<<
Nothing should prevent God from creating the world "old", including the geological layers, galaxies departing billions of light-years away, dinosaur fossils, etc. Now I don't personally believe that this is necessarily the case, but it presents a working model which proves that there is no contradiction between science and the bible, and once there is no logical contradiction, different models and different explanations are also possible which have not yet crossed our minds.
>>>

George,

It is of course my perogative, and indeed my duty. Einstein was uncomfortable with people using his "authority" to make points, or to avoid thinking about things for themselves. Many other physicists find religion and "god" to be ridiculous answers to meaningless questions.

The "inspirational" nature of religion to science is questionable at best. Far too many great scientists of all types are atheist for religion to regarded as anything more than an independent variable, a matter of taste and upbringing and mental habit.

Wasn't telling Einstein, was telling you. Dawkins is well aware, he is also aware that findings of science contradict many dearly held religious views clearly and definitively. If religion were a serious intellectual enterprise there would be no need for Dawkins to be concerned. Too much of our religious community refuse to acknowledge, accept or even be truthful to followers about scientific findings and to this extent biblical literalists, young earth creationists and even the pope (re condoms and AIDS) are deserving of his rebuke.

It is not up to Dawkins to coddle the intellectual weakness of these groups, nor any scientist.

Rusty

h, George, you clearly haven't met Dan S de Merengue.

>>I don’t know of a serious Christian scientist who would claim the Bible overruled present day scientific theories and explanations<<

I know that he is particularly tenacious in his views, so he won't mind being quoted here:

"In short I’d say while the creationist view is not in the middle of the theological mainstream, I think it’s slowly heading back that way. (I say ‘back’ as six day creation was the standard view of the church from the beginning of church history, through the centuries of great scientific advancement, i.e. well through Newton’s time, until approaching the time of Darwin.)"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13293#230258

So there you have it. We are heading (retreating?) to a situation where six day creationism once again becomes "mainstream", according to at least one serious, Christian, scientist.

My 2c.
Two functions of religion:
-The existential question: where did it all come from?
-And the moral issue: how do I live my life?

God does not solve the first one, in fact it replaces the universe with something even more inexplicable. At best this is can kicking.

God doesn't solve the second one either, as many religious wars and the misery that was normal human existence until science shows.

God is used as a cloak of virtue by those who's egos will not allow the humble attitude that science and ethics requires. All the prophets must be rolling in their graves. How many times has it been said to ignore the pointing finger once the moon is spotted...how many times "no idols, just truth".
Our progress as a species relies on us getting to grips with reality and religion is not helping!

the denial of God and the acceptance of pseudo science is the faith of those who have rejected the Only righteous Man and have taken on their own self righteousness as demonstrated by Ozandy's post. They want to somehow justify their own godless lives as virtuos.

Funny thing about their faith is they justify killing the unborn in masses and almost always are Christophobic. They have to remind themselves of their dogmas everytime they see a created thing. How true has the Scriptures proved of these times.

Runner's "god" *ordered* a man to kill his own child, and this "god's" greatet "prophet" committed genocide in his name, sparing only the little girls for the soldiers.

Runer also claims this "god" is unchanged. If this "god" is unchanged, I would prefer that no record or monument to it continue to exist, exept infofar as it is prefaced by disclaimers that the subject is obscene.

Got it runner? Your "god" is not fit to instruct me or anybody. Your literal belief in a "god" who orders genocide and infanticide makes you unqualified and unfit to offer advice on whether others should do so.

Hope that clears things up for you runner, either your "scripture" is false, or your "god" is obscene.

Rusty.

Oh dear, it seems runner has all but run out of luck on this one:) Its ok big R, there's plenty of room at the Greens house, and some what more believable.

cc

David f, George, Rusty and others, I cannot leave this thread without saying how sad I think it is that people of (mostly) goodwill can almost come to virtual blows over what amounts, for the most part, to historical and conjectural (or interpretational) irrelevancies.

The reality is that the future is here now, and, despite some minority radical elements, Christianity is endeavouring to come to terms with the 21st Century, and to foster goodwill and an avoidance of all conflict. Sins of the past cannot simply be washed away, but the focus should be on the present, and on the reality that many millions of people feel a real need to believe (or to trust) that there is something beyond this mundane or otherwise meaningless existence.

We all need to know that there is no future in conflict, religious or otherwise, but that any worthwhile future lies in peace, tolerance, equity and compassion. What can best be offered to all those millions, doves of peace, or eagles of destruction? How best then may the words and the manna of peace and goodwill, of a better future, be carried to those millions - through atheist conviction or through a unification of world religion in the cause of peace and the sanctity of life?

At this point in world history, atheism can only offer a hollow victory for those who place their only trust in science and in the ascendancy of the individual. The time of atheism may come, but for the present it remains the privilege of affluence.

Dogs will continue to fight over a bone until they learn that sharing creates a friend and conflict only an enemy. To offer a man bread, and a message of peace, may hopefully make a better man, but only trust may make Samaritans of us all. We need to better know our enemy, and to do our best to make him friend - for a future we would all like to share.

That's a very sad farewell note, Saltpetre.

>>...the focus should be on the present, and on the reality that many millions of people feel a real need to believe (or to trust) that there is something beyond this mundane or otherwise meaningless existence<<

I feel very sorry that you feel your existence is "mundane or otherwise meaningless", it must be a drag.

But there is a terrible, awful contradiction in what you say here. Let me point it out to you.

>>Christianity is endeavouring to come to terms with the 21st Century, and to foster goodwill and an avoidance of all conflict<<

Good for you. But you go on to say...

>>How best then may the words and the manna of peace and goodwill, of a better future, be carried to those millions - through atheist conviction or through a unification of world religion in the cause of peace and the sanctity of life?<<

"Unification of world religion", Saltpetre?

Just the one?

Which one?

Yours, or someone else's?

If someone else's, how would you feel about becoming, say, Muslim?

If your own, how would you go about persuading - say, Muslims - to convert to your specific religious worldview?

Because - and I know this may not have occurred to you - some of the most durable conflicts the world has seen have been caused by exactly this attitude.

"...a unification of world religion in the cause of peace"

Forget unification.

Try... tolerance.

That's how we atheists see it. We are not interested in "converting" people - that's what religious people do, with inevitably disastrous results.

>>At this point in world history, atheism can only offer a hollow victory<<

And religion can offer a solid "victory"?

At what cost?

Dear Pericles,

Does atheism have an equivalent to amen?

Dear Pericles,

Religion cannot be unified, not for the reasons you mentioned, but because it is already unified. There IS only one religion - that which leads to God is a religion and that which does not lead to God is false.

The practical steps which help me come closer to God may be different than the practical steps which help you, but this doesn't make them two religions - rather it is one religion which requires me to take certain steps and you to take certain different steps.

Dear David,

Etymologically, "Amen" is a construct made of the initials for "God Faithful King". As I explained many times on this thread and others, it doesn't mean literally that God is a king, or faithful, but rather it is a declaration that you treat Him as such. Your question then becomes, What/whom do atheists consider as their king - what/whom rules their hearts? What/whom do they trust to be faithful to them under all circumstances?

The autocratic sci-fi geek in me, david f, wanted to suggest Jean-Luc Picard's "Make it so… "

But my more moderate citizen mind-set decided that although in the Battlestar Galactica pantheon this phrase encompasses polytheists and monotheists, it is easily extended to atheists, and would be a good arbiter of all social policy…

"So say we all…"

Dear Yuyutsu,

Buddhism does not lead to God as it is a non-theistic religion. That does not make it false.

<<Buddhism does not lead to God>>

Why, even atheism may lead certain people to God.

Atheism wouldn't, obviously, lead anyone to a notion of God, to an idea ABOUT God, but it is conceivable that it may possibly lead some people to God, why discard the possibility?

I wouldn't like to start dissecting here each and every religious order: any organization is imperfect, but if an organization mostly leads people in the direction of God, then it is worthy of the name "a religion" - and if it doesn't do so, then it is not.

Gee, Yuyutsu.

>>Religion cannot be unified, not for the reasons you mentioned, but because it is already unified<<

That is probably the most naive statement yet proffered on the topic. Not to get too extreme about it, but there are a few folk in Belfast who are short of a knee-cap or two, who might possibly disagree with you.

>>There IS only one religion - that which leads to God is a religion<<

A millisecond's thought will tell you that this sentence is in itself a complete contradiction.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two religions, Christianity and Islam, each of which claims to "lead to God". So, even using your own definition of what a religion consists of, we have contradicted your claim that there is only one.

>>...one religion... requires me to take certain steps and you to take certain different steps<<

You may call them "different steps", but they are the embodiment of what we humans on earth call "different religions". It may suit your purposes to re-define religion to reflect your own prejudices and practices, but it doesn't change reality for the rest of us.

Or for those guys in Belfast.

>>Atheism wouldn't, obviously, lead anyone to a notion of God, to an idea ABOUT God, but it is conceivable that it may possibly lead some people to God, why discard the possibility?<<

Because it presumes that there is a God to be lead to: this is exactly what atheists deny. So they are all going to discard the possibility that atheism can lead to God. They aren't alone: why don't you ask runner if he thinks atheism leads to God?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Pericles,

What you are saying in effect, reflecting over Belfast, is that you believe that Christianity (or at least certain denominations within it), is not a religion. Fair enough - my impression is that Christianity still is, on the balance, a religion, but I may be wrong - it all depends, of course, on the particular method of accounting you use, of which there is a diversity.

<<Off the top of my head, I can think of two religions, Christianity and Islam, each of which claims to "lead to God".>>

They may claim what they like - the questions are DO THEY; LEAD WHOM; and TO WHAT EXTENT.

There is only one religion, but nothing prevents the simultaneous existence of several and different religious orders (loosely called "religions") that lead different people to God (and occasionally even the same person at different stages of their life).

<<what we humans on earth call "different religions">>

So if you call a hat "an umbrella" or an orange "an apple" long enough then I should do the same? What then if you call a Jew "a germ", should I follow that too? I am using "religion" in its original meaning, derived from the Latin "Re-Ligare" - reconnect with God.

Dear Tony,

"Because it presumes that there is a God to be lead to"

There is what there is and things are what they are. You don't need to use the name "God" if you aren't so inclined - The Truth is still the Truth and ultimate reality doesn't change when you use different names or speak of it in different terms.

"why don't you ask runner if he thinks atheism leads to God?"

First because I can already guess his answer, Second because it will upset him unnecessarily, Third because he would probably be correct on most cases (though not all), Fourth because it seems that the belief that God exists is important for his particular path to God, so I have no interest whatsoever in disrupting his spiritual efforts.

Pericles,

What you and others are saying is that Islam could never come to a moderate consensus view of what is the best way forward for humankind, in a 'unified' effort with other world religions and belief systems, to end contempt, conflict and oppressive practices. Similarly, you condemn Christianity on the same grounds.

What makes you so sure? A very big ask,yes, but is it not worth working towards? And your alternative, of dropping all religious, belief and faith systems, in favour of Ethics - a noble objective, but an even bigger ask if coming from a start-point of the demolition of all existing belief systems. Working With something has to be easier than trying to start from scratch.

This is not a matter of supremacy or domination, it is a matter of the future of humankind. Exaggeration? Are you so sure?

How far are we in the West (Western Anglo-Saxon libertarianism) willing to compromise? Or does all compromise have to come from the 'other side'?

It may never be possible to rationalise a common ground between 'strippers' and bikinis on the one hand and burqas on the other, but it may be possible to reach common ground on the rights of women, and to bring an end to FGM, child brides, child-witches, rape to 'cure' lesbianism, and even the scourge of Aids. Discourse and a helping hand, but by whom? Politicians or church leaders? Law and the gun, or progressive social and cultural reform from within?

Maybe I have it wrong, and the only future lies in closed enclaves, and never the twain shall meet? Is Capitalism to reign unfettered as the new 'belief system', or can there be a better, more humanitarian way?

BTW, Belfast is politics.

G'day Davidf
kenoath works for me, although I believe some non ockers find it a little vulgar. (I started to spell it with all the appropriate apostrophes, but decided that was too pretentious.)
Kenoath, Pericles.

I've been away for several days and read some of the recent posts.

1.Ignorance supposes Christians do not believe God and scientific reality are compatable. All reality is the work of his hands, man only learn some principles to evaluate that reality. Science is the study of not the creation of reality.

2. David F is convinced in his mind he has the fatal blow to Christ.
I will answer this later showing its falacy; as I am busy at the moment.

3. Joh:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Joh:14:7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Has a spiritual application not a physical, and must be understood in context. See my previous answer above.

Josephus wrote: "2. David F is convinced in his mind he has the fatal blow to Christ."

Dear Josephus,

You can read my mind? Some humans have a neurotic need to worship legendary figures. These legendary figures are based on myths constructed by other human beings. Christ like Adonis, Thor, Mithra and others is one of those figures. I have no illusions that I can cure that neurosis or any others that you may have.

I doubt that you even want to be cured of your neurosis. Without that desire even a competent practioner is helpless. You'll just have to live with it. Other people do. We who are rational in that respect although we may be irrational in other respects have to live with those who have the Jesus and other similar neuroses.

Sometimes we cannot live because fired by their neurosis they may burn us at the stake. I am glad the secular state curbs their power even though it does not cure their neurosis.

That is a fairly... ummm, energetic misreading of my post, Yuyutsu.

>>What you are saying in effect, reflecting over Belfast, is that you believe that Christianity (or at least certain denominations within it), is not a religion<<

Not a bit. Christianity is definitely a religion. Ask anyone.

Your wide-eyed, idealistic approach to the concept of religion has been frowned upon through the ages. Here's Pope Pope Leo XIII on the topic:

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Immortale Dei, 1885]

But I guess that doesn't worry you, since you believe that even atheism "may possibly lead some people to God"

You don't actually grasp the concept of atheism, do you.

>>I am using "religion" in its original meaning, derived from the Latin "Re-Ligare" - reconnect with God.<<

No you are not. The meaning of "ligare" is "to bind". God is not even hinted at.

Anyhow the etymology of the word itself is disputed. Here's a Jewish scholar giving us the drum:

"Cicero, for example, thought that religio derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text,” religion being a body of custom and law that demands study and transmission."

http://www.forward.com/articles/10776/roots-of-religion/#ixzz1uA8Z3Y6q

>>...if you call a hat "an umbrella" or an orange "an apple" long enough then I should do the same?<<

Back atcha. I suspect you'll find you are on your own with this one.

Maybe I was being too obscure, Saltpetre.

>>BTW, Belfast is politics<<

The Belfast I was referring to is the city in Northern Ireland, where for the best part of the past fifty years, Roman Catholics and Protestants have been killing and maiming each other in the name of their version of Christianity. The city was, and is still, divided on religious lines.

It is of course very PC to describe the violence as "sectarian", and that it only occurs between "loyalists" and "nationalists". But this is merely a convenient fiction, a fig-leaf covering the bred-in-the-bone hatred between the Micks and the Proddy dogs.

This, from less than a year ago.

"Homes in the Catholic Short Strand district were attacked shortly before 11pm, just a few hours after an Orange Order parade passed by the area."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/02/riots-belfast-sectarian-violence

What possible significance can the statement that it is a "Catholic" district have, bar the fact that the Orange Order is Protestant?

The lack of understanding that you demonstrate on the topic of Belfast infects all your half-baked, peace-on-earth ideas.

This is, for instance, horrifyingly typical:

>>What you and others are saying is that Islam could never come to a moderate consensus view of what is the best way forward for humankind, in a 'unified' effort with other world religions and belief systems<<

The fact that you have already decided in your own mind that it is not you, but Islam, who needs to "come to a moderate consensus view" is practically a declaration of war. The good old "my way or the highway" attitude, one that has itself been the source of endless, pointless, religious conflict.

And what is clearest of all, is that you don't even realize the dangers inherent in what you are suggesting.

Dear Pericles,

<<But I guess that doesn't worry you>>

Indeed, why should it worry me if the said Pope was ignorant and probably not even religious? he would be neither first nor last in that predicament; or why should it worry me if one Jew writes an ultra-speculative article in an attempt to portray the world in the light of Judaism (which is not even a religion)?; or why should it worry me if Cicero thought that a hat was an umbrella, just because he was Cicero?

In his ignorance, BTW, Philologos claims that "no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion" - what then about "Yoga", coming from the root "to yoke", same as "to connect with [God]"? or what about "Dharma"? Nay, there is no reason to take Philologos seriously!

<<You don't actually grasp the concept of atheism, do you>>

Atheism means the lack of belief that God exists - nothing less, nothing more.

It is common among atheists to believe that since God does not exist, then there is no point in worshiping Him or in aspiring to come closer to Him - but atheism itself does not necessarily imply that.
Consider Buddhism for example - religious atheists are quite a possibility (I even happen to fall under that category).

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
Irrelevant as the date was selected by the Roman State Church to coincide with existing festivals. The actual date of his birth is a non issue, even as celebrating the Queen’s birthday is a non issue as her birthday is not June 11, it happened to be QV not QE.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
To be a virgin mother means not have intercourse with a man until the birth of the child. Virgin conception was practiced by artificial impregnation in ancient Egypt to ensure the child was from the selected male donor. That meant the hymen was intact till the birth. Mary, who was a dedicated Temple virgin in care of the doves, was not able to stay at Temple once she began menstruation according to Levitical law. Her Priest Zecheriah searched a precedent in Israel history and found Isaiah Chapter 9 of a virgin with child who was to be Messiah. He then called all eligible suitors in the lineage of King David and chose Joseph and his sperm was chosen. Zecheriah was a sympathizer of the Essene community who practiced artificial insemination to avoid being unclean by intercourse with women. The New Testament speaks against the idea of forbidding to marry as the Essene held, as the Essene felt that children would have to suffer the oppression of Rome. Christ was specifically identified by Zecheriah and others as a deliverer of Israel see Luke 1 - 2.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
No underground chamber just a dugout for an animal shelter.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
Obviously no mythology here, otherwise his life would not be celebrated.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
These names were given to Messianic leaders in Israeli history. Isaiah identifies Messiah 600 BC in these terms.

(

Cont,
6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
If you mean he was falsely accused by men with evil intent - right.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
Absolute nonsense as Christ spirit was in paradise Luke 23: 43. This did not occur in Christian scripture till 600 AD by the Roman Church.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.
Christ changed a Jewish covenant celebration of deliverance to have a spiritual meaning of deliverance from sin.

I think you have made your position on religion crystal clear, Yuyutsu, even if that position is essentially negative.

>>Indeed, why should it worry me if the said Pope was ignorant and probably not even religious? he would be neither first nor last in that predicament; or why should it worry me if one Jew writes an ultra-speculative article in an attempt to portray the world in the light of Judaism (which is not even a religion)?; or why should it worry me if Cicero thought that a hat was an umbrella, just because he was Cicero?"

On the topic of religion, you discard the views of the senior executive of the major Christian religion. You ignore input from a scholar of the Jewish faith, and from Marcus Tullius Cicero, arguably the greatest philosopher - certainly the most widely read and respected - of his generation.

It does make me wonder whether you actually listen to anyone else, or whether in fact you are blithely dancing to the rhythm of your own unique drum.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course.

But it does turn any attempt at normal discussion with you into a bit of a one-way street, with you expressing your off-beat views as if they had some kind of particular validity that the rest of us are unaware of.

Your position is that Buddhism is not a religion, which then apparently allows you to describe yourself as atheist.

Which is, again, absolutely fine.

Indeed, one of Buddha's instructions (I understand) is "do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons". So it is obvious that if one of us works on the basis of reason, or rationale, and the other is bound to ignore such primitive processes, we can never reach a position of understanding, can we?

Have a thoroughly enlightened day.

>>I have no interest whatsoever in disrupting his spiritual efforts.<<

We are talking about the same runner here aren't we? As far as I can discern his spiritual efforts consist mostly of posting venomous rants against anybody who doesn't accept his fundamentalist version of Christianity - complete with Young Earth Creationism and a extra serving of bigotry. Constantly. You have a strange take on the idea of spiritual efforts Yuyutsu.

>>Judaism (which is not even a religion)<<

Wait a minute: everything - even atheism - is a religion but Judaism doesn't qualify? How does that work?

>> or why should it worry me if Cicero thought that a hat was an umbrella, just because he was Cicero?<<

Because Cicero was a Roman. Latin was his native tongue. I daresay he knew a lot more about the language than you ever will Yuyutsu. Ignoring his words on the subject of Latin etymology just because he was Cicero seems a bit silly.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Pericles,

Where have I claimed that Buddhism is not a religion?

It is!

Because overall, it tends to bring its followers closer to God.

What I am saying is: "By their fruit you will recognize them", and I believe that Buddhism has a good religious record (and a few bad apples too, just like any other organization).

Buddha's instructions which you referred to were: "do not accept anything on mere hearsay", etc. (http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk204.htm), a good advice indeed for most people - but Buddha was also known to say one thing to one person and the opposite to another, depending on what approach will spiritually benefit the specific listener most. He told some for example that God exists and others that He doesn't.

Dear Tony,

I don't know Runner personally, so unless proven otherwise, I must assume that he writes what he writes with God's sake in his heart, not merely to annoy people.

Atheism is not a religion because in general it does not bring people closer to God. However, some people may come closer to God by riding a camel, and so others may come closer to God by practicing atheism. Only a charlatan, however, will make a general rule out of it, start a camel farm and advertise: "come ride my camels to come closer to God (only $500/hour)".

As for Judaism, it is not a religion - the closest way to describe it is as a national-movement. The purpose of Judaism is not to come closer to God, but to enhance the welfare and success of the people of Israel. As a tactic, Judaism believes that it has forged a deal with the Creator whereby the Jews will follow his commandments and in return the nation will prosper. Even if such a deal is true (which I doubt, but who am I to tell?), this is for a material cause, this is business, not religion!

There are a few who disagree with Cicero - See http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Religion

Well, I wish the very best of luck to those who believe that atheism can provide the answer to all the social ills of the world, at least in the immediate or short term - but I can't see how you are going to 'sell' this to either the masses or the radicals. I don't see how this will fit with sharia or orthodox 'this, that or the other'. Maybe in some generations' time perhaps - but in the meantime?

And, Pericles, I was not pushing a Christian, or any other barrow, and not pushing for a uniform world religion of any kind - just tolerance and an amelioration of radical views to a more humanitarian view across the board (and I did say it would be a big ask, nonetheless).

What social ills? None I suppose, if we ignore FGM and various other abuses of women, child marriage, child witches, and all manner of 'superstitions' resulting in inhumanity and abuse (from our Western viewpoint).

And, I have never excused any of the ills within the Christian church, or attempted to justify the unjustifiable. However, there seem to be other, equally unjustifiable wrongs occurring both within our society and elsewhere in the world, also requiring addressing - or not, if we choose not to give a hoot.

I have no illusions about the extent of inhumanity occurring across the globe (or the difficulties in effecting a solution), but religion is not to blame for all of this - and may be used as a convenient scapegoat in some instances - but I am however conjecturing that religious reform may provide a part of the solution. Kill me for thinking church leaders of all ilk may one day see promise in reform. (And, I hope soon.)

Most enlightened and noble, Saltpetre,

It's probably a fruitless task to fathom the myriad foibles of man. His overlarge neo-cortex in tandem with his mammalian brain exalts him and confuses him. There would appear to be streak of insanity running rampant through homo sapiens leading him on to who knows where.

The point is, Saltpetre, that neither religion nor atheism is an "answer".

>>Well, I wish the very best of luck to those who believe that atheism can provide the answer to all the social ills of the world, at least in the immediate or short term...<<

Atheism is not an "answer" to anything except the question "how do you define the state of non-belief in a deity". It is not a code of conduct, it is not a set of strictures, guidelines, laws or taboos. It contains nothing that affects, in any way at all, "the social ills of the world". It neither improves them, nor worsens them.

And I know of no-one who would claim otherwise.

>>I am however conjecturing that religious reform may provide a part of the solution. Kill me for thinking church leaders of all ilk may one day see promise in reform.<<

If, by "reform", you mean the advent of a universal religious tolerance, that allows people to ignore the fact that different people accept different manifestations of belief in a deity, and instead simply get on with their own lives, then I might be persuaded to agree with you.

However, while there exists even one religion that does not toe that line, intolerance will continue to create create disharmony, violence and death.

And, sadly, I believe that what you see as "reform" is the homogenization of religious belief into one single framework (please correct me if I am wrong). Which, in simple numeric terms, will require the majority of people to relinquish the religion they were born with, and take up another.

And that simply ain't going to happen, any time between now and the heat-death of the solar system.

"...all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins" (Bertrand Russell)

No, Pericles, I may be a cockeyed optimist, but I don't think I'm deluded:

>>I believe that what you see as "reform" is the homogenization of religious belief into one single framework (please correct me if I am wrong).<<

Can't happen - currently, and possibly never - given human fallibility and capacity to live in hope, to be excited by illusion, and to entertain an active imagination - plus of course the great diversity of and depth of commitment to existing belief systems.

I, as you appear, simply seek a watering down of the more extreme and deleterious elements of these belief systems. I even wish the US would stop their continual use of 'God bless America', as I see this as a potential (more probably real) affront to many of those who don't subscribe to the American, Christian God, and as an inherent declaration of superiority - no way to win friends or soothe potential enemies.

I just don't see saying 'there is no God - live with it' as having any real chance of changing anything; just as 'live and let live' really only smacks of 'business as usual' - and that wouldn't solve anything either.

Does anything need solving? Well, on this magnificent planet (of finite capacity, fragility and lifespan) I just hate seeing what a mess humankind is making of this once-only opportunity to create something of which an outside observer might rightly say 'this was truly worthy of their (humanity's) existence'.

Being a mere speck of dust in the cosmos, I can't change anything, but if enough people really care, all things may be possible.

Dear Saltpetre,

"I just hate seeing what a mess humankind is making of this once-only opportunity to create something of which an outside observer might rightly say 'this was truly worthy of their (humanity's) existence'"

After all your profound and balanced posts here, are you trying to tell us that the reason for existence in general and human-existence in particular, is to impress others?

I don't share any such interest to justify being here or to achieve any material goals - existence and creation are merely by-products of our spiritual journey. If humans were not making a mess, then how would they learn?

But they don't learn.

.... at least they've never learned to subdue their savagery toward their own kind.

Dear Poirot,

<<But they don't learn>>

They do, but it takes the time, sometimes a very long time, sometimes more than a lifetime.

<<.... at least they've never learned to subdue their savagery toward their own kind>>

Those who completed their studies moved on and are no longer with us. Others who have not yet learned to subdue their savagery toward their own kind are still here because they need further lessons. Most of us are in between, having just partially subdued our savagery.

Dear Pericles,

I loved your cheerful quote of Bertrand Russell. Given that the fate of this solar system is known in advance, we can come off such grandiose distracting ideas of trying to change it and instead concentrate on learning and performing our respective duties.

Yuyutsu,
Are you telling us that those that have pre-existed us have learned the lessons of life? Such claims are absolute nonsense!

Dear Josephus,

"Are you telling us that those that have pre-existed us have learned the lessons of life?"

No Sir, I was writing to Poirot; I was not trying to tell you anything.

On the subject-matter:

1. "Pre-existed" assumes that we exist and so did they. I already explained that existence is an illusion. In Truth, we don't exist, we never existed, and never will.

2. As for those who identified as people of earlier human history, I guess that a few did learn all their lessons, a few others did not yet learn anything since, while most learned just some of their lessons and not others. I have however no presumption to quantify this.

42 is an excellent alternative to Yuyutsu.

Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 10 May 2012 9:50:18 PM

*Yuyutsu*

" ... Are you telling us that those that have pre-existed us have learned the lessons of life? Such claims are absolute nonsense! ... "

No more non-sensical than some of your beliefs I suspect *Josephus* however, I think that I know what *Yuyutsu* is trying to express here, as I have encountered similar beliefs in parts of Asia which practice Buddhist beliefs and also some aspects of the same contained in so called esoteric Christian beliefs, which incorporate beliefs such as re-incarnation and the transendence and transmigration of the Soul.

Essentially, some of these other beliefs hold that Soul of Humanity (and not just humanity) is in a constant state of birth, death and re-birth and evolving (in part through the "lessons of life" ) back towards its native, non-corporeal/heavenly existence.

Thus, some of these same beliefs (and to bring it little closer to home for you *Josephus* ) do not recognise some family like connection between figures such as *Jesus* and the GodHead that is not also shared by everyone us, but rather acknowledge him as a "Master," for want of a better term, who through evolution reached the point where he (but in a non-gender specific sense) transcended the flesh and conquered death, and no longer is bound "to the wheel of life."

Thus, in those particular belief systems, Jesus whom some call by the title of Christ, is indeed recognised as someone who has proceeded us in terms of his life in the flesh, but unlike the majority if not all of us has "learned the lessons" of corporeal existence/life such that he requires them no more.

In the Greek the word is *Soma Heliakon* (or Solar Body) and one (perhaps fanciful) interpretation of the so called Holy City as found in the relevant Biblical texts.

its been an amasing series of reading ..in this topio
thanks for the info

those who accept that 42 is the answer
[to life the uni-verse/and everything]..to wit materialistic baulderdash

its three questions
but lets egsamin the way of the 42...[tao=the way]
and 42 indicated the same [in masonic numeral code][4=for..2= to[as in going to....[something/someplace/some desire or some hope or fate]

regardless 42 means for going to..

[to wit just like the tao=the way..[to]..something/place/fullfillment attainment..etc...i enjoyed hearing of josepous here[not som much the other topic...but heckl the truth hurts..if its not hurting you hearing it..its not true

life is about accepting..we will evolve/change
just as life changes...[this dont validate evolution change of genus]..

but change as of a spirit..
evolving into ever higher life incarnations..
till we attaion the highest call..our own sol system..and radiate life gods love light/logic/ upon that life we created..[or not]..many are called [so far only 9 solar systems have been succesfully chosen/swedenberg]

we the only one
who can comprehend written word
as easilly as we can make..the thoughts of dead people [yet again come alive]..in writing..[al the rest like the primatives..have angels/demons..acting as trustees..over the lords trust/creation

the universe is our sandpit
[once we get the love light right]