Sells,
For some reason, and again, you appear to seriously strike a nerve – emanating from your so called lack of rationale, apparently. But, and I agree, the struck nerve is more from the raison d'être as found in the mind that is closed. Interestingly, as we broach the subject of science, virtually every one of the great pioneers of modern physics - men like Einstein, Schroedinger and Heisenberg - were spiritual mystics of one sort or another, an altogether extraordinary situation. The hardest of the sciences, physics, had run smack into the tenderest of religions, mysticism. I would wonder if there are many on this forum who would dare ask, “Why?” Some probably dare to ponder but ne’er are brave enough to confront the hardened cynic (quite understandably).

Max Planck, universally recognized as the father of modern physics and who formulated the Quantum Theory, wrote something some decades ago quite pertinent to the current environs found here, “Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but – which is even worse – also any prospects at a better future.” (Planck, 1958)

Einstein, too, would enjoin, “The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations.” (Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years)

Sells,

If the article is about freedom of speech, be honest.

Has not the Church enjoyed not only freedom to put it's own views, but the power to persecute those who differed in many countries for many centuries? Has not the church also enjoyed a long period of mainstream (secular to you religionists) law supporting all sorts of law that has no basis in other than peculiar religious doctrine?

If a few athiests want to talk it up at the church's expense, my suggestion is: suck it up.

In previous posts you have the hide to deride atheism and, of all things, deism and paganism, your most most nearly close supporters given that "god" doesn't seem to play by the rules in books written by mere prophets. You also attempt to discuss "the" trinity, little realising that the question is not whether "the" trinity exists, but whether any supernatural being, of any sort at all (including leprechauns) might happen to exist.

Cheers and good luck in completely reorganising your belief system.

Rusty

Relda,

I note that most historical figures lived in times when to not publicly profess a religion was to be at least exiled or put to death. I wonder how much their professed faith is worth?

I have no doubt that Newton and Kepler (as examples) were devout. I also believe that exceeding this they were intelligent in a way no church could completely cow. If their minds had not been clouded by the Christian sects of their time how much more might they have seen of the universe? Not having to scramble to fit what they plainly saw to some bizarre doctrines with their origin in 4th and 5th century politics? They were as chained as eugenicists working in Germany were by the ruling concepts of their time.

The later scientists you mention have great faith, but were similarly not led by the chemistry of the world but by the limited vision of prophets. Do note that many Christan "morals" have their roots in Greek ethics.

If any Deity exists, it spent more time on the concept of the atom, than all the prophets and all the great theologians of all time have spent in imagining (with no data) and making up (with even less) what "god" thinks.

I think every chemistry student is closer to "god" than any saint ever born.

Rusty

>> For some reason, and again, you appear to seriously strike a nerve – emanating from your so called lack of rationale, apparently.

reida, don't play dumb.

Rusty,
Current scientific figures now live “in times when to not publicly profess a religion” seems the far safer option for their reputation. How much is their professed faith worth? From Galileo to Michael Polanyi there are numerous and brilliant scientists professing a faith - there is a noted consistency of ‘tacit knowing’ (i.e. 'knowing' without data).

Perhaps you can grasp Schroedinger and his cat paradox (to which I’ve referred elsewhere on this forum) … or perhaps not. Schroedinger denies Materialism (i.e. the theory that matter is the only reality). Schroedinger affirms that human consciousness is absolutely different from the material bodily processes: “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

Commentators such as Robin Williams, who pretend science, deserve criticism and their grave error in a technically directed cultural drive, as pointed to by Schroedinger, is “ [ they see as the highest goal] the possibility of achieving an alteration of Nature. [This goal] hopes to set itself in the place of God, so that it may force upon the divine will some petty conventions of its dust-born mind.”

bushbasher,
The ‘state of play’ in this discussion can only be described as “dumb” where little serious effort is made for intellectual engagement. Putting aside our religion or intellect, however, faith doesn’t preclude the simple minded... quite to the contrary, as in the case of a child.

Relda,
I too am far from convinced that materialism is all there is, however the material world is far in a way our most pressing reality--arguably the only one we need concern ourselves with. The trouble is, I think, human "desire" for the transcendental is a luxury that diverts way too much energy from more pressing earthly concerns. It's not just that thanks to this fascination people are inclined to despise material reality and humanistic discourses--or that humanity can rationalise its material impact--but also that our capitalist system responds to the demand. Religions, philosophies and mysticisms of all kinds are commodities, pushed by corporations, little different from drugs and alcohol, that flatter consciousness, channel away intellectual energy and retard human development. Not that I'm not suspicious of perhaps Robin Williams's brand of positivism; the debate should not be polarised--materialism or transcendentalism--but materialism should be guided by and answerable to ethical/spiritual values. Neither should transcendentalisms (paid for by surplus production) be over indulged in--but taken in moderation.
It's incumbent upon humanity, not to alter nature for the sake of it, but to improve the material conditions within which God suffers us to suffer. This "self help" on a grand scale should, once again, be harried by concomitant developments in guiding ethics. Herein positivism is certainly at fault, driven as it is by technocratic pragmatism rather than aspirational humanism.
Desire for the transcendental should be tempered by our more practical, earthly obligations. I can't believe God wants us to despise this reality.