Cont...

In The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Albert Schweitzer promotes interesting discussion on ethics.

Ethics is not the domain of the religious which is something that atheists often find an unwielding tenet amongst believers.

"I cannot but have reverence for all that is called life. I cannot avoid compassion for everything that is called life. That is the beginning and foundation of morality. Once a man has experienced it and continues to do so - and he who has once experienced it will continue to do so - he is ethical. He carries his morality within him and can never lose it, for it continues to develop within him. He who has never experiences this has only a set of superficial principles. These theories have no root in him, they do not belong to him, and they fall off him...For centuries the human race had been educated with only a set of superficial principles. We were brutal, ignorant and heartless without being aware of it. We had no scale of values for we had no reverence of life."
Albert Schweitzer

This quote is part of the Schweitzer chapter dealing with reverence of life and the concepts of morality and ethics.

Science adapts to new discoveries and seeks the truth in evidence. Some who hold religious power are not always as willing to re-evaluate evidence as it arrives.

Some time ago I read The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh which detailed the activities of various interest groups including the Church and attempts to conceal some of the questions raised by examining the scrolls found in a cave in Qumran in 1947.

The Church's attempts to keep secret the details of the investigation into the scrolls does not bode well for transparency and truth. That is the sort of thing I meant by my comments relating to honesty and truth. I do not mean it to define Christian or other beliefs as untruthful or lies, as clearly they are not to those who live by those doctrines.

This discussion has taken some interesting twists and turns.

George says:

>>one cannot convincingly argue about religious models of reality if one has only a superficial understanding of what a 21st century educated e.g. Christian believes<<

The suggestion here is that it is just as impossible for a non-theologian to believe in God, as it is for a non-scientist to believe in photons.

Surely, a reasonable alternative to being educated oneself, is observation.

I observe the way Christians see the world, and reject it as being incredible. I observe what scientists describe is happening around me, and accept that they are not falsifying their experiments.

Dan S de Merengue adds:

>>My point, and it’s a pretty simple one, is that science can only deal with that which can be observed.<<

Theories are continually being developed from extrapolations of "that which can be observed". Not all of them will stand deeper scrutiny, but all of them add in to our understanding of what goes on around us.

So, if theories of multiple universes sound unbelievable to you, that's perfectly ok. They are after all only theories.

But the reason so many people trust science, is that at its most basic level, it is perfectly understandable. The fact that some people go on to be superlative mathematicians or physicists does not lose sight of the fact that they all started where we did: 2+2=4, and pressure and volume are inversely proportionate for an ideal gas.

The starting point, and the end point, of religion is belief in the supernatural. The fact that some people progress from that to a detailed understanding of ancient Aramaic scripts does not alter the basic fact, that first, you suspend disbelief.

At five years old, I probably don't question too much what is involved in turning water into wine, nor why taking two oranges away from three leaves me with one orange.

But I can repeat the latter experiment as many times as I like, and still reach the same conclusion.

Which I guess must be why I need a degree in theology, to believe in God?

Pericles, scientific naturalism (ie: The natural world is all that there is) uses science to gain all knowledge and claims that the only knowledge worth knowing comes from science. But that's self refuting, because science can't tell us that you should only use science to gain knowledge.

What I've read lately about recent studies in consciousness, the mind-brain connection and near death experiences have put scientific naturalism to bed in my mind as a viable way of understanding the world.

Basically, scientific naturalism says that we should only believe things that are repeatable and observable. But if miracles do occur, for example, why on earth would they be repeatable? At the end of the day, science itself involves a lot of faith based assumptions. Honest scientists admit this, and it's only dogmatic closed minded fundamentalist naturalist scientists like Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins who deny it.

Are you sure that's logical, Trav?

>>Pericles, scientific naturalism... uses science to gain all knowledge and claims that the only knowledge worth knowing comes from science. But that's self refuting, because science can't tell us that you should only use science to gain knowledge.<<

Surely, that isn't what "science" is telling us at all?

It merely claims that "the only knowledge worth knowing comes from science".

This claim does not in any way invalidate other means to acquire knowledge. And it certainly does not discourage the acquisition of knowledge from any other source.

I can claim that the only music worth listening to is 1950's bebop. I can invite people to evaluate that claim and make their own decision. If my evidence and justification is strong enough, you will understand my position and agree with it. If it lacks credibility, you will reject it.

But it certainly isn't by any means "self-refuting".

The real meaning of their claim - and I suspect that you actually do understand this but choose not to - is that all non-scientific knowledge relies entirely upon a subjective assessment of evidence. Therefore, it is highly likely that non-scientific evidence will in every instance be less reliable than the scientific.

>>What I've read lately about recent studies in consciousness, the mind-brain connection and near death experiences have put scientific naturalism to bed in my mind as a viable way of understanding the world.<<

That is a good illustration of what they mean. You choose to believe that there are other dimensions that conventional science cannot track. The reason they cannot track it is because it relies upon your belief in non-trackable experiences.

The fact that you choose to believe them does not in any way invalidate the scientific approach. All science is saying to you is "I choose not to believe you".

The difference is not that science's claim is self-refuting, but that your claim is, and can only be, entirely self-justifying.

Dear George,

“those who wish their self to cease to exist when they die - usually atheists - will probably be granted their wish.” - George

Do you see the same fate for Satanists (whom presumably believe in God) and say Murray Gell-Mann (an atheist), who from a theist’s perspective has reasoned himself into the wrong corner? The latter is really is not sinning against the Holy Spirit, as is the former. The former is truly exercising free will. Yet, for the latter, learning is a moderating variable preventing the same conclusion reached by the theist.

When I have tried unsuccessfully to entice Sells into discussing first century history using legitimate citations, there is reluctance. Here, his free will seems to act to deny history, cultural anthropology. What is counter intuitive (only) is promoted wrongly (from the frame of the sceptic) to the counter-factual: e.g., other non-canonical gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which atheists and agnostics claim physically exist. Again, in the case of the Christian Trinity, other religions have trinities, herein, for a person coming from Mars, there does appear to be adequate differentiation to claim the Christian godhead is special.

It is like claiming "my atom of Hydrogen is the only atom having electrons, neutrons and protons", wherein there is no recognition of the Periodic Table. Else put, other religions have trinities, saviours and virgin births, a configuration very near mine; yet, mine is the only true configuration.

Moreover, "I believe only in Hydrogen and will not accept that Hydrogen and the other “false” elements are fundamental". In this frame, Hydrogen is not a consequence of quarks and in this respect is undifferentiated and,I cannot be shown even fundamental particles have been built (like religions in Wells’ god factories).

Whereas, atomic scientists can build mathematical models of fundamental particles, cultural anthropologists can build beavioural models of religion.

Oliver

Pericles, my argument isn't against science per se, just the philosophy of scientific naturalism. This is a philosophy perpetuated by those with, generally, scant regard for the limitations of science. Whether or not you personally share that lack of regard for the limitations of science, I'll leave you to figure that out.