All Comments (40)

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

Apologies on the repeat posts, I refreshed several times and it looked like they hadn't gone through...

Veritas vos Liberabit,

yup, I do. I pointed out that your only argument for a lawgiver is the far too literal usage of an descriptive analogy. You have responded by changing the subject.

Moral laws being "given," would defeat their purpose. Either rape is wrong or it is not: if it depends on god's will, then it doesn't mean anything in a moral sense, it's just a synonym for "whatever god wants" or "whatever god's nature is like." Worse, it makes it impossible to talk about God being good, because it is then simply a tautology.

"Please Plunge offer us something better than natural laws are observed realities. And can you tell me what a natural law looks like? If empiricism is the only way we can know things than please tell me what these natural laws look like. I cannot see them so based on empiricism they must not exist."

Natural laws are not, in fact, objective things, they are principles that come about based on observation and inference. I don't think you really know what you are talking about if you think it means anything to talk about whether they "exist." What you need to do is actually study empiricism and understand what it is before criticizing it. It is an epistemology, and one with, in fact, a limited scope.

"Please... On what does logic and morality rest?"

Logic rests on formally defined axioms. Morality rests on values, and has no meaning outside of those values.

"On what do these "regularities" rest?"

I can't answer that question, and neither can you. In fact, I'm not even sure the question makes sense. What does it even mean that they "rest" on something? Why would they need to? We don't know.

All we know, and all empirical observation does is judge whether they seem to hold everywhere and everywhen. We can't claim to know more than that, and don't. You obviously do want to make grand claims beyond that, but of course you can't back any of them up.

"Does regularity find its source in chaos?"

I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. However, if you studied the branch of mathematics that deals with chaos, you might be surprised to find that order and chaos are pretty hard to define, and almost impossible to keep entirely distinct.

"What makes it possible for us to conceive that natural laws are realities? Why can we interpret information at all?"

I have no idea and don't claim to. You claim to know, but in reality, you have no idea either. Your proffered explanation, "god" is simply nothing more than you restating that you don't know, but putting a name to it. That's pointless.

If there is a God, perhaps he "gave" us our morals. Or, perhaps he gave us the ability to reason and learn (i.e., "trial-and-error") so that we could develop morals on our own. However, that is the point: it is all just speculation. My point is that without invoking the Bible or some unverifiable attestations of the existence of God, it is possible to explain our sense of morality that is shared fairly universally across the human race. If we say that all cultures had some sense of (a monotheistic) deity before going off and believing in Zeus or whoever, who is to say that Christians have the final answer? Perhaps centuries from now people will say "Christianity is myth since we now know that XXXXX is the one true God"??

Just as we have learned and evolved so that some of things people did in the name of religion in the middle ages were "wrong," the kinds of things that we hold as "right" today may be viewed differently in the future. Changing our views is hard hard enough without religious dogma. I think we should be open to "trial-and-error" and learning, not clinging to a "constant" that may or may not exist (and cannot be defined very well anyway). Quoting the Bible to make your point gets you only so far and is hardly convincing, I'm afraid.

To summarize, I am not saying I object to faith, but I just don't see it as a good or a bad thing. It is what one does with it that is good or bad. This suggests that faith and morals may very well be unrelated. Moreover, I would object to people saying that morality comes from their "interpretation of the Bible," which seems to imply that anyone who disagrees is not a moral person. That is one small step removed from intolerance and bigotry.

Veritas vos Liberabit,

yup, I do. I pointed out that your only argument for a lawgiver is the far too literal usage of an descriptive analogy. You have responded by changing the subject.

Moral laws being "given," would defeat their purpose. Either rape is wrong or it is not: if it depends on god's will, then it doesn't mean anything in a moral sense, it's just a synonym for "whatever god wants" or "whatever god's nature is like." Worse, it makes it impossible to talk about God being good, because it is then simply a tautology.

"Please Plunge offer us something better than natural laws are observed realities. And can you tell me what a natural law looks like? If empiricism is the only way we can know things than please tell me what these natural laws look like. I cannot see them so based on empiricism they must not exist."

Natural laws are not, in fact, objective things, they are principles that come about based on observation and inference. I don't think you really know what you are talking about if you think it means anything to talk about whether they "exist." What you need to do is actually study empiricism and understand what it is before criticizing it. It is an epistemology, and one with, in fact, a limited scope.

"Please... On what does logic and morality rest?"

Logic rests on formally defined axioms. Morality rests on values, and has no meaning outside of those values.

"On what do these "regularities" rest?"

I can't answer that question, and neither can you. In fact, I'm not even sure the question makes sense. What does it even mean that they "rest" on something? Why would they need to? We don't know.

All we know, and all empirical observation does is judge whether they seem to hold everywhere and everywhen. We can't claim to know more than that, and don't. You obviously do want to make grand claims beyond that, but of course you can't back any of them up.

"Does regularity find its source in chaos?"

I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. However, if you studied the branch of mathematics that deals with chaos, you might be surprised to find that order and chaos are pretty hard to define, and almost impossible to keep entirely distinct.

"What makes it possible for us to conceive that natural laws are realities? Why can we interpret information at all?"

I have no idea and don't claim to. You claim to know, but in reality, you have no idea either. Your proffered explanation, "god" is simply nothing more than you restating that you don't know, but putting a name to it. That's pointless.

Veritas vos Liberabit,

yup, I do. I pointed out that your only argument for a lawgiver is the far too literal usage of an descriptive analogy. You have responded by changing the subject.

Moral laws being "given," would defeat their purpose. Either rape is wrong or it is not: if it depends on god's will, then it doesn't mean anything in a moral sense, it's just a synonym for "whatever god wants" or "whatever god's nature is like." Worse, it makes it impossible to talk about God being good, because it is then simply a tautology.

"Please Plunge offer us something better than natural laws are observed realities. And can you tell me what a natural law looks like? If empiricism is the only way we can know things than please tell me what these natural laws look like. I cannot see them so based on empiricism they must not exist."

Natural laws are not, in fact, objective things, they are principles that come about based on observation and inference. I don't think you really know what you are talking about if you think it means anything to talk about whether they "exist." What you need to do is actually study empiricism and understand what it is before criticizing it. It is an epistemology, and one with, in fact, a limited scope.

"Please... On what does logic and morality rest?"

Logic rests on formally defined axioms. Morality rests on values, and has no meaning outside of those values.

"On what do these "regularities" rest?"

I can't answer that question, and neither can you. In fact, I'm not even sure the question makes sense. What does it even mean that they "rest" on something? Why would they need to? We don't know.

All we know, and all empirical observation does is judge whether they seem to hold everywhere and everywhen. We can't claim to know more than that, and don't. You obviously do want to make grand claims beyond that, but of course you can't back any of them up.

"Does regularity find its source in chaos?"

I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. However, if you studied the branch of mathematics that deals with chaos, you might be surprised to find that order and chaos are pretty hard to define, and almost impossible to keep entirely distinct.

"What makes it possible for us to conceive that natural laws are realities? Why can we interpret information at all?"

I have no idea and don't claim to. You claim to know, but in reality, you have no idea either. Your profferred explanation, "god" is simply nothing more than you restating that you don't know, but putting a name to it. That's pointless.

Casey Kochmer,

come on. I'm not pushing a faith, I'm elucidating some basic logical principles. You keep trying to redefine the question asked into some more vague and ambiguous one instead of answering it. You never quite get around to explaining why the middle in a logical binary isn't excluded, just as I said it was.

You either have an big, red, whole apple in your hand at this very moment, or you don't.

You must be real fun in traffic court. "Well, officer, maybe you think I ran that red light and hit that cyclist, but really, I both ran it and didn't run it, hit them and didn't hit them, so really, why are you pestering me with all this. You have your faith beliefs and I'll have mine can't we just leave it at that?!"

Puzzled,

The true God's attributes are seen in all He has made (Romans 1:1). God has written His moral laws in the conscience of man (Romans 2:15). This is the reason differing cultures have similar laws. However, the more a society rejects God the more that society becomes callous to its moral conscience. Don Richardson has demonstrated in his excellent book, Eternity in Their Hearts that all cultures have started with the belief in one creator God and have degenerated into beliefs in multiple gods and the rejection of God. His book is full of example after example of cultures that began with the belief in one creator God. Modern anthology with its anti-God worldview has prejudiced itself against these facts and has blinded itself to these truths.

As for evolving morality I do not see that mankind is any better than it was after the fall. The history of mankind is full of evil. This is discernable because of the law that God has placed in our hearts.

Veritos

I'm not sure where to begin, so I will try to address the notion that our sense of morality has to come from God. First, which God? If morality came from Yahweh and no one else, why do cultures outside the "Judeo-Christian" influence share many of the morals that the "Judeo-Christian" cultures seem to have?

Second, if we did not get morals from God, how did we develop our morals? I think we went through a long process of trial-and-error (God or no God) and that is how many of our societies have evolved. The reason we are here talking about these things is because our ancestors were able to arrive at some working solution (not necessarily THE solution) for dealing with allocation of scarce resources, cooperation, maintaining social order, etc. The ones that developed the "wrong" morals or codes of behavior perhaps did not survive, reinforcing this sense that being "good" may be good for us in the long run.

Plunge,

Do you honestly call what you have laid out above a refutation? Please... On what does logic and morality rest? You have not answered the question. On what do these "regularities" rest? Does regularity find its source in chaos?

Making a statement and tacking Plato's name to it does not prove anything. I would assert that Plato did not trash that God is the source of morality. Morality is not based solely what God says. God is good and His righteousness flows from His nature. The idea of right and wrong comes from Him. The eternal personal God is the source of right and wrong not impersonal non self reflecting nature.

Please Plunge offer us something better than natural laws are observed realities. And can you tell me what a natural law looks like? If empiricism is the only way we can know things than please tell me what these natural laws look like. I cannot see them so based on empiricism they must not exist.

What makes it possible for us to conceive that natural laws are realities? Why can we interpret information at all?

Veritos

"Laws require a law giver."

Why? This is a poor analogy at best, taking a poeticism too literally. Natural laws are in reality more like observed regularities.

Regardless, your proffered theological answers don't accomplish much. Things are bad because someone really really powerful and cool SAYS so? That's the sort of childish nonsense you are offering as an alternative? Plato trashed that argument thousands of years ago.

Stop barrowing form the Christian worldview Mr. Athiest. There is no reason to expect a scientific experiment to work based on a chance universe. This is only possible in a world that has laws (laws of nature). Laws require a law giver. Laws give order to understand things. The lawgiver is God Almighty to whom we shall answer.

"Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist without a cause."

Voltaire

Dancing on a thread of time across a finite space,
I whirl upon a silent song to find a faceless face.

In emptiness I sit beneath a Bodhi tree,
Waiting upon I know not what, to see.

The dewdrops sit upon me as dawn returns from night,
Colour swirls the tear of joy caressed in morning light.

Unmade and made each second, death and life in song,
A being and a nothingness, and only this to long.

BGONE:

"Thanks for pointing out there is another source of truth and knowledge"

Are you kidding? The conclusion above was not supported in Mr. Segal's blurb. He made unsupported assertions that should receive an F in any debate class that is worth anything. I think you applaud him because you would rather believe there is no God. Please tell me what is the source of truth and knowledge? Please answer the questions I laid out above. Please prove that there is another source for reason and morality other than God? We are all waiting…

Veritos

Mr. Segal,

I have some questions for you and I offer them to all the other atheists on this site. On what basis are you trying to reason? Naturalism and Chance? No one has answered this question on this site but has instead dodged the question. Tell me what is the precondition for reason? What does reason require? Is reason the product of chance? Does nature possess volitional creative power?

And on what should one base morality? On cultural opinion? If so, on what basis does one tell the Adolph Hitlers or the slave traders of the world that their actions are wrong? Does chance and nature really create morality? The more I think about atheistic thinking the more I think of its lack of foundation and its foolishness.

Until you back up and answer these questions your assertions hang on the shifting sands of your finite opinions. I would rather rest in God's infinite wisdom instead of man's ever-changing musings.

In Jesus Christ the ageless One in Whom are all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge,

Veritos

OK Plunge to take your statement:
If I hold an apple in my hand

I do not ask: is there an apple?

so your statement is comparing apples to oranges for the question:

Is there a god?

Some people hold god in their hands: so to them its a non question.

Others clearly hold no god their hands: so again a non question.

Others: are confused by some people holding god while others are empty handed.

Some : ply party tricks making a god appear and vanish from their hands. But I don't care much for these street magicians playing three card Monty with deities.

Still others: As myself see all of this, see the people holding god, see others holding themselves, see all the various combinations
and laugh as it's all true. Just depends on the moment and how we choose to be within the world. Its the gift of free will (and thats another debate with the same non answers of it being both)

And in that moment is the universe :) and it's a most wonderful place to play in as a result.

Thats poetry :)

good night and good luck

A very thoughtful article but ultimately all truthful answers lie in science, everything else is just made-up gobbledygook. Science = Truth = Dawkins, Amen.

Ah Plunge you do make me smile

and poetic I have not waxed, nor I have bitten or held any wax apples or not even waffles for that matter.

I have no idea what you mean in the larger sense either, since we have barely exchanged a few dozen lines of words, which could be taken in so many ways. Don't presume I try to read your mind across a modern seer's pool of countless electrons. And now I do wax poetic :)

so peace in your faith. It's never for any person to question another persons faith, its only for us to question our own.

To question another's faith would be a sin indeed! For that is forcing belief onto another and that is the worse form of persecution known to man.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

Discussions of how religion and science agree or disagree never seem to examine the common human basis for these two institutions. Fundamental to both science and religion is a desire to know the unequivocal, absolute truth about the world and its relationship to man. But humans know intuitively that if we rely only on our own reasoning, because of our fallibility the knowledge could be wrong. Instead, in our search for absolute truth we want to appeal directly to what we perceive as an ultimate authority. This is where the difference between religion and science enters. In religion we seek "revelation" of truth directly from a deity. In science, we perform experiments that “reveal” natural truths. The methods applied by the two disciplines are very different and the answers obtained by one often do not satisfy the other. But underlying this conflict is a shared yearning for certainty.

"in not answering it could be assumed one is actually answering the question. The belief of god could be considered to be an AFFIRMATIVE or a negative, and by not answering then you assume you are taking the opposite side."

I haven't assumed anything. If anything, you seem like a non-believer who hasn't given the issue very much clear thought.

"I can both believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time."

I know you can wax all poetic about anything, but the question about God belief is really not much more complex than asking if you have an apple in your hand or not. You can waffle all over the place about what exactly I mean, but frankly, you know what I mean, and if you don't have an apple in your hand, no amount of handwaving about embracing contradictions is going to change that fact.

Alan

At last a rational man.

Joseph Campbell I think once said to a woman when after a lecture of his brought up the subject of religion versus science.

"Madam, the problem is not Religion Versus Science, it is 2000 year old science versus 20th century science." Or something to that effect.

And this is true. Old science becomes dogmatic when it refuses to change and grow with knew understandings. It becomes a Religion.

Astronomy comes out of Astrology. Chemistry comes out of Alchemy. Both began with a quest for knowledge. One grew the other stayed the same.

I once did a study of the common Carpenter's Square and the knowledge that it was historically was based on. I found out that Pythagoras did not create the Pythagorean Theoreom. He "stole" the secret knowledge of the Egyptian Priests. The mathematics that the Egyptians used 2000 years earlier to build the Pyramids had been preserved but was not really being used by the priests. It was now secret and sacred knowledge.It had degenerated into a religion.

Coincidentally, numerology, and the Kabballah seems to have derived from that.

Pythagoras also seems to started his own religion. I understand that irrational numbers were quite upsetting to their world view.

I see religion and science both as philosophies for seeking knowledge of understanding of the universe. One grows and changes, albeit with growing pains, but the other changes little if at all.

I think the lesson here is that knowledge is as living and changing as we are. As we learn more we need to adapt and change our assumptions. Any good scientist knows this.

Newton's mathematics did very well for centuries but was insufficient when applied to the problem of Time, Gravity and Light. Einstein revised much of this or at least added greatly to our understanding. But it changed, and the dogma went away.

But we do have a tendency to want to keep things the way we were taught as children. When we become adults I think most of us hate to take the time and wonder anymore as we did when we were young. So we resist change, especially when it seems to shake the foundations of what we took to be sacred from childhood.

I have encountered menonite carpenters on crews I have worked with who have told me point blank that the Bible tells the world is Flat with four corners. They even quoted a few verses.

This was as a result of a question of theirs as to why we have different time zones, when another carpenter (not menonite) was saying his brother had flown in from California and had jet lag.

I started to explain how the world was divided into 15 degree sections so that as the world turned the sun was always directly "overhead".

To say the least the concept went over their heads and I got some funny looks, as well as a quote of verse or two.

It is funny now but they were serious. I expect maybe the Amish, but Mennonites are I always thought a little more progressive.

im beginning to see that what is known as atheism seems to be a reaction against christian suppression.
there is no scientific oppression in islam- rather it is encouraged as way to validate the miracle of the Qur'an.

Any discussion of atheism and religion must begin with the simple fact that: There is zero plausible evidence that any god (as usually defined) exists, and overwhelming evidence that no such god exists.

plunge i tooka deeper look at your answer.

"This is simply refusing to answer the question, not a "third path." I don't claim to know whether God exists or not, but there is no way to bridge the divide of whether or not I believe it or I don't. Belief in God is an AFFIRMATIVE thing: if you aren't doing it, then that's that: you aren't a believer, no matter how else you might want to parse things"

I noticed something interesting, you bring up a good point. in not answering it could be assumed one is actually answering the question. The belief of god could be considered to be an AFFIRMATIVE or a negative, and by not answering then you assume you are taking the opposite side.

This is not the case. And this can be confusing, as I don't believe it to be an AFFIRMATIVE or a Negative.

One of the contradictions as a Taoist I can hold is, I can both believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time.

Partially because: well God is a word and depending on your definition different meanings can be had.

but more so because life is not black nor white , because it's so much more complicated and simple at the same time. I hold it possible that both answers are true. As a result I am attached to neither answer and instead simply live as myself.

At times I have fun debating the question taking different sides each time and holding firm to the side I take since all my answers are based upon my personal life experiences. Just because I can argue for God or against God doesn't prove or disprove God.

In the end my experience of so many contradictions, falsehoods and truths and the dynamic nature of change and life has lead me to conclude the openness of the possibilities of many distinctly different and seemingly different answers being valid.

which leads back to that light experiment and physics. Showing the question is posed from our human perspective and the true answer is it is so much more complicated and simple at the same time. And outside the definition of the very question. leading me back the third path: The question doesn't matter. The answer is up to you and how you live your own life.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

I'm not sure atheism is in vogue now. I think what's really happened is that atheism has begun to lose its taint, that the public is less willing to condemn atheists per se, and that atheists are now more willing to stand up as atheists and that the public is more willing to accept them as atheists. This is quite different from saying atheism is now fashionable.

Consider that George Bush the Elder recently said atheists cannot be patriotic Americans. Polls still show most Americans would vote against an atheist candidate simply because of his or her atheism. It is the weakening of this attitude, however slight, that some might mistake as atheism becoming in vogue. If this is due to authors like Susan Jacoby, Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, more power to them.

Atheists will never rid the world of religion, and religion will never rid the world of atheists. We need to accept each other for what we are, aside from this particular issue.

Plunge

It's a third path, your response just shows you believe this question has an answer. I choose to disagree. But I won't argue the point since it's one of opinion. So neither one of us would win a debate... unless judge by someone with similar opinions.

Which is also fine, since obviously for the meaning of life you need an answer. Very much peace in the search of your answers.

For myself the question is irrelevant to the personal meaning of how I define myself. I am not Godless, I just don't define myself to a God. I define myself as Casey.

On the double slit experiment. Yes any statement simplified can be poked at and flaws found. I adore the way people take simple analogies and smilies and then try to follow it with full core logic. A problem with language itself and the nature of defining meaning and statements. My statement was a simple example to set up the concept, feel free to concentrate on that and busily miss the point. The same follows true to the nature of God, again do continue the endless debate.

In the end the answer doesn't matter, as it's the way one lives their life which is the final answer to such questions.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

Jove, stop the spam.

casey kochmer,

You are simply misrepresenting the double slit experiment. The issue was whether light is LIKE a particle or LIKE a wave. It is, in fact alike and unlike both in different respects. But these are discussions over the applicability of various analogies, not any sort of refutation of basic logic, as you imply.

It has nothing to do with a logical existential or doaxastic binary.

"As Taoist I do take a third path and third answer to: God exists or God doesn't exist: Which is: It doesn't matter, as either answer doesn't change the way I live my life."

This is simply refusing to answer the question, not a "third path." I don't claim to know whether God exists or not, but there is no way to bridge the divide of whether or not I believe it or I don't. Belief in God is an AFFIRMATIVE thing: if you aren't doing it, then that's that: you aren't a believer, no matter how else you might want to parse things.

How many have fallen for this one? Clicked on

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex expecting something spicey only to find out it was about the demise of Neanderthal man. I had difficulty getting that far mmyself. Maybe he should reduce the lecture and speculation on homosexuality. Sex is everyone's favorite subject until it gets clinical and then it's where doctors alone go but only because that's their job.

One of the few reasonable posts in this entire series.

Thanks Alan: it is startling to see someone being so reasonable in these discussions.

Regarding the fear of the loss of "spiritual values" without religion: I get plenty of spiritual sustenance from Beethoven's 9th, King Lear, the Inferno, Manet, Balinese Dance, African Drumming, Japanese Landscape Painting, let alone the stars and the miracles of the universe. I don't need a church to tell me to live by the Golden Rule. And i do of course know all the major bible stories for their humanistic and symbolic value: most of us have heard of Adam and Eve.

A large percentage of religious teaching and ritual obscures the richer *human* meaning of life, literature, art, and the wonder of the universe. Good scientists are in general much more authentically spiritual than are dogmatic believers, IMHO.

Plunge:

when you say:

"You can't both assert something and also not assert it."

I certainly can and just did in fact. Taoism is very good at this in fact :) one reason I am a Taoist is accepting contradictions and finding truth in that.

The challenge is for you: Like those earlier physicists, devise experiments which showed that light was both a particle and a wave. Depending on how you define and measured light itself.

God exists and God doesn't exist: Both facts are true from there the challenge is to show it as such.

As Taoist I do take a third path and third answer to: God exists or God doesn't exist: Which is: It doesn't matter, as either answer doesn't change the way I live my life.

I live to wonder and beauty each and every day. And the debate of God or no god doesn't change that in the least :) welcome to the world of Taoism...

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

Alan:
    All that you have done, in the latest nonsense you have posted on this web site, is to repeat your failure to understand the problems with theism, and to add to that your failure to understand the tremendous difference between atheism and theism.
    It is true that atheism and theism are both based on dogmatic positions, which is why I choose agnosticism as the alternative. But the difference in the KIND of dogmatism asserted is what matters. Atheists do not assert a belief in a higher power which has handed down all-encompassing rules for human conduct upon which every nation, every society, every government, must be based. Theists do that. Atheists do not demand that any medical or scientific research or practice be based on one set of beliefs based on scriptural interpretation rather than on reason, logic, and evidence. Theists do that. Atheists do not start wars. Theists do that. If the President of the United States had been an atheist - presently an impossibility in the U.S. - the war in Iraq would never have been instigated. The war started because the President and his cronies are practicing Christians who, as George Bush himself explained, are carrying on the war in Iraq because he, George Bush, got a message from a "higher power" that this is what should be done.
    If you are incapable of making such differentiations, Alan, then you are not qualified to be a professor of anything at any institution of higher learning. And you certainly ought to stop making a fool of yourself on this web site.

Thanks BGone

A simply truth is we are limited, a part of the whole. While we have potential to be so much as to touch the entirety of the universe... and yet

Our very nature dictates a point where Knowledge will not be enough.

We are change and as a fire we burn in living. In change we move and are ourselves... At some point the whole thing comes down to acceptance of our nature...

... and even that changes over time :)

Its beautiful for thats meaning in itself, the dance of our own change.

The whole debate on Theism and Atheism is mute in this larger picture of just living your life well and being true to yourself. If God exists or not doesn't change the way we should live and embrace our nature. We have free will and to that end live well.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

Great going Casey. Thanks for pointing out there is another source of truth and knowledge. I thought the supply was exhausted.

Maybe no two people have the same fingerprints yet all fingerprints are the same thing. Keep going. You'll work it all back to a teacup size glob of highly compressed matter. There's just one step left. Reduce that glob to zero mass and with that knowledge you too can create something from nothing.

Think about it. Knowledge will make you God. That was Eve's downfall you know. And if you can't cut the knowledge part then fake it. Eve wasn't faking it was she? God is the best job there is. Rush to the unemployment office and apply for the job of God. Hurry, there's already a crush at the door. Eve did want to be like unto God didn't she? God's a man. That was Eve's downfall.

http://www.hoax-buster.org got that part straight for sure. No woman can ever be God.

"Well why does one have to be better than the other? ... other than to satisfy our own limited capabilities to understand."

It's called the law of the excluded middle.

Either X, or not X. Now, if your point is that "X" (in this case: "God exists") is vaguely defined, and maybe something exists but it is so outside of what we understand as being "God" that we can't really be sure what it is, then you might have a point.

But otherwise, it DOES have to be one or the other, just like any well-defined claim. Either you believe in the existence of something called God, or you don't. There is no logical alternative. You can not be sure if there is a God or not, but still you either then don't believe, or you do. You can't both assert something and also not assert it.

Very thoughtful article.

"I cannot see how stating the obvious fact—obvious for several centuries now--that science has made a religious hypothesis about the natural world superfluous--should be greeted with such scorn."

Segal is right that the idea shouldn't be greeted that way. I've long believed that conspiracy theories originate from humans' natural fear of the lack of control over the universe. Maybe the literalist view of God has the same origin. By "literalist view," I mean the teaching that God is a supernatural being, as opposed to non-dogmatic teachings such as pantheism.

Is it possible to acknowledge religious sensibilities while rejecting the various dogmas' teachings about the natural world? What is Segal's definition of "religious sensibilities"? Would these be more like philosophical ideas as opposed to religious dogmas? Does religious literalism inevitably lead to fanaticism?

I love how silly we as humans can be.

perhaps both theism and atheism are both correct?

*GASP* how can that be so?

Well why does one have to be better than the other? ... other than to satisfy our own limited capabilities to understand.

Perhaps god is like the debate we saw in physics for 500 years about light... is light a particle or a wave .

A debate that ended only because someone answered: It's both depending on how you measure it. Which means light is more than a particle and a wave, it's something which has characteristics of both.

Perhaps God is the same?

But this answer will be sure to upset most people.

Wotever! and Sheesh!

Until a person accepts themselves that person has no hope to understand god.

Peace and acceptance in your way.
http://www.personaltao.com

>>In a global world we should live humbly with our neighbors and valorize only those values which lead to greater understanding and tolerance. It was Martin Buber who pointed out that the world no longer needs religion to explain the material universe<<

And yet, anti-intellectualism and studied ignorance persist. Religion is no longer necessary to explain the cosmos, the diversity of life on earth, or even morality. It's time for the human race to grow up.

That settles it. One or the other must be correct. Atheists or theists, one or the other must be right about the origin of the universe. So all that's left to do is faith one or the other. I don't think so.

Interpretation 1501, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul proves the Bible is the Devil's word. That rules theists out. They all have faith, believe in Devil. Let us hope they are wrong else all but atheists are going to hell.

Science is independent of theism or atheism so we can rule knowledge out as well. No real scientist claims to have the answer to where all this came from. Science does not explain where the teacup full of matter that is all phyiscal existence originated, just what has happened to it, best guess so far since it came to be by whatever means.

Thanks, Dr. Segal, for a helpful and clear-headed response.

Having just finished Dawkins' book myself, I'd like to point out that he goes to some lengths to hypothesize (convincingly, in my opinion) about the origins of our "religious sensibilities," proposing that the underlying "machinery" is helpful to us, but not when taken to the extremes that full-fledged religious belief systems do.

I'm not clear on what "the real value of religion lies in the world of symbols and ideas" means, specifically, though. It sounds like you mean one should not interpret religion as reality - not "mistake the symbol for reality" - which sounds to me like a rejection of supernatural belief. In which case, it seems you may not disagree with Dawkins on his key points, after all.

In any case, thanks for the refreshing article.