Dear david f,

>>I see just as much reason to follow the beliefs of the Yanomamo as to follow the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions. I see more reason to share the skepticism of the Yanomamo.<<

I could answer that Randall was probably concerned with scientists who were Christians or religious Jews, not Yanomamo. Seriously, I again appreciate that you present the equivalence of the two kinds of religious beliefs (and reasons for skepticism) only as your personal perspective.

This touches upon the general question of which religion - seen as a system of beliefs (religion, of course, is more than that) - better represents the divine/spiritual. Of course, this presupposes a belief in the existence of the latter that is irreducible to the physical/ material. Without that belief, all such representations must indeed look as equally meaningless.

As I wrote before, I think the question of which such representation is better is even more complicated than the question of which physical theory more adequately represents physical reality. One of the reasons for that is that possible criteria of adequacy involve subjective, cultural, historical, psychological and sociological factors to much more extent than in the case of physical theories.

>> Spinoza … equated God with the totality of the natural world.<<
Calling the totality of the natural (material) world God, is called pantheism. As I see it, for representations of the material world we have science. I am not sure how Spinoza understood what today we call science and its relation to what he called God.

LEGO,

I could reciprocate by writing another long list of simplifications, absurdities or nonsense and claim you wrote it. What would be the point of it? The purpose of my article was certainly not to make you, or anybody, to become a scientist who believes in God. Otherwise, see my response above to AJ Philips.

.

Dear George,

.

I appreciate your interest in this topic and your endeavours to come to terms with it. I know from personal experience that writing helps in such endeavours.

You will not be surprised to learn that my vision is somewhat different from yours though indisputably of vastly inferior value given my quasi-total ignorance of both science and theology compared to your profound acquaintance of both.

I can’t help thinking of all those scientists persecuted by religion throughout history, culminating in Pope Jean-Paul II’s official excuses for the errors of the Catholic Church with particular reference to its wrongful condemnation of Galeleo.

What then is the credibility of declaring, as Jean-Paul II did, that "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Galaeleo had attained truth by flying with his own wings. He had no need for faith in some god in order to achieve truth.

Religion clipped his wings and condemned him to prison (later commuted to house arrest) where he remained for the rest of his life.

It was those who professed to have faith in God who shot him down while he was in full flight. It was only when it became obvious to everyone that the dogma of the Church was ridiculously wrong that it sought to “reconcile” religion with science.

The fact is, religion has no place in science and science has no place in religion. Science does not seek to contradict religion. Nor is it in competition with religion. That is not its purpose. Its sole purpose is to achieve an ever greater knowledge and understanding of reality.

At best, religion sees science as a useful tool and contents itself with occupying the vast domain of the unknown and the unexplained, gladly conceding additional space to science as it laboriously conquers a few centimetres of new territory.

Religion has finally realised it’s stupid to try to compete with science. After all, scientific knowledge is just a mere drop of water in an immense ocean of ignorance. Or should I say faith

.

George,

I thought we had dealt with all this the last time. You bring out the a priori assumption like it were some sort of a trump card, as if to say “Oh well, it’s an a priori assumption - whatcha gonna do, eh?”

<<It was also you I had in mind, when I added “Let me state again the obvious: this need is given by the scientist's (a priori) faith … It should not be regarded as an argument for the existence of God.”>>

Yes, that “need” certainly does come from an a priori faith, but our a priori assumptions are not immune to analysis and nor are they immune to validation. There is still an objective answer as to the accuracy of the assumption. And if, when trying to harmonise the two, the interpretations of our subsequent experiences and observations necessarily become convoluted and obscure, then a revision of the a priori assumption may be necessary.

Here’s a quote from an online dictionary that I think is most apt:

“However, [a priori assumptions have] a negative side: an a priori assumption made without question on the basis that no analysis or study is necessary, can be mental laziness when the reality is not so certain.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/a+priori+assumption)

<<…for a scientist who believes in God's interactions, there is a need to find a suitable interpretation of what may be known from science (through established theories), an interpretation that is compatible with this belief.>>

But the fact that it’s a priori - independent even - doesn’t mean that it is, or should be, completely immune to all observations and experiences that follow; anyone who treats an a priori assumption as such is probably just looking for a get-out-of-jail-free-card for a belief that is otherwise untenable. If it really were that independent, then trying to harmonise the two would be an utterly pointless exercise.

Both science and religion make claims about reality and in this sense they are not independent.

Some references on on the nature of Reality and/or Consciousness & Light or the Energy of Consciousness. Essays which provide a completely different perspective than those provided by the advocates of scientism and the usual dim-witted Christians and their naive reductionist infantile/childish mommy-daddy "creator-God".
How many of the usual dim-witted Christian apologists even talk or write about Consciousness with a Capital C.

http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-7.htm the Three Principles of Truth
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/zero_point.html

An essay which directly addresses the issue of Christians appealing to science or scientism to "prove" the existence of their mommy-daddy "God".
http://www.adidam.org/Content/teaching/print-files/religion-and-science.pdf

An interesting humorous understanding re the limitations of both science as a method of open-ended free enquiry and of scientism as a dismal reductionist ideology.
http://global.adidam.org/media/science.html

In “Of the Divine Law” Spinoza wrote:

“Now, since all our knowledge, and the certainty that removes every doubt, depend solely on the knowledge of God; - firstly, because without God nothing can exist or be conceived; secondly, because so long as we have no clear and distinct idea of God we remain in universal doubt – it follows that our highest good and perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God. Further, since without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is evident that all natural phenomena involve and express the conception of God as far as their essence and perfection extend, so that we have greater and more perfect knowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of natural phenomena: conversely (since the knowledge of an effect through its cause is the same thing as a particular property of a cause) the greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God (which is the cause of all things).”

Spinoza equates being a scientist with gaining knowledge of God.