All Comments (47)

It's a great achievement that those of the faith and atheists / agnostics can coexist and discuss their most cherished topic. Think about other places where religious people are persecuted and other societies, places where a mere question of a cultural ideology would result in imprisonment, torture or even death.
Constructive discussions between religion and non religion are too rare in this world if we are to consider ourselves civilized. We must remember one important lesson that I've learned a while ago. Social development must progress faster and further than the pace of technological development at all times. It wouldn't take much effort to imagine a socially dysfunctional civilization possessing advance technology. I consider this the worst societal characteristic imaginable because war, genocide, slavery, exploitation and xenophobia would most likely be their principal activities.
What's most grateful is that we're capable of achieving this delicate and imperative feat. A continuous open, psychologically and socially mature discussion must be made so all parties could learn valuable lessons that would only make them wiser. What's more to remember is that we notice an endless diversity of fashion, art, architecture, entertainment, and even enterprises; we must realize an even greater diversity in people. Throughout history, nations and their respective languages and cultures engaged into fierce rivalries for centuries for which the human causalities were totaled in the millions. The European nations have engaged into unprecedented and prolonged conflicts with each other, which the worst outcome ranged from the colonial period to the war in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Despite a long history of violence, Europe’s pursuing a full fledged union that would one day unite Europe into a single great nation. Another rivalry I remember very well was the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union were both capable of wiping each other’s existence off the face of the Earth along with the rest of humanity for that matter! However, both the Soviet Union and the United States and their respective allies won the Cold War by restraint, adherence to the truth about the consequences of nuclear war, common sense and self control.
Today we have a new challenge, unlike those that befell upon us in earlier times, this challenge is rather unique. We face a diplomatic challenge that doesn’t require battles in the field or in the oceans. It requires a worldwide inter cultural education where ideology has no place in fulfilling this pending era of mystery and intrigue. Although learning is a lifelong endeavor, for as long as we're willing to collectively search for answers to our questions and ultimately discover the truth and abide by it worldwide, then humanity’s social progress will always be victorious just like it was when the Cold War ended in peace.

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!

Hi. Just letting you know that I enjoyed your site. universal, tremendous, small nothing comparative to memorizing

" I’ve seen myself, I know my thoughts. I’ll be the first to tell you that I’m no saint."

Here, Mr. Palau states, that he is no saint. Mind boggling statement from a supposed "born-again" Christian. There are 61 verses in the NT that clearly define all Christians as saints - hagios (greek) meaning 'holy' - not holier than thou. In other words, Christians are made saints niether by some ancient ecclesiastical rite after death, nor by their OWN good works, nor by looking down on others.

The NT saint is he who has placed his FAITH in the sanctifier, even Jesus Christ. These people are by no means 'perfect', these are they who have become NOTHING, so that the Perfect One, the Son of the Living God, is welcomed to become EVERYTHING IN THEM... Christ in you, the hope of Glory.

Mr. Palau, if you would have said, "I am no saint, if it were not but for the Grace of God," then this would be a true and humble statement.

Yet, when a reknown teacher as yourself, a teacher of babes indeed, makes such a final statement as 'I am no saint' your dogma sends a clear message to your audience that you are not a believer in the atoning work of Calvary. It speaks loudly of a gnostic undercurrent that denies the effacacy of the shed blood of Jesus Christ to make a saint out of the vilest of sinners, such as you and I.

The Master
Many centuries ago there lived a woman who was a great spiritual teacher. She drew many students who wished to learn what she revealed. They formed a group of devoted disciples. After many years of study the disciples left and journeyed to other lands, hopeing to spread the teachings they had learned.

The years went by and one day the disciples returned qnd sought out their old teacher. Once they found her, the disciples posed a question to the Master. "We have", their spokesperson said," traveled to many lands, and discovered many different teachings that are unlike the ways you have taught us." The master calmly nodded in acknowledgement, and the disciple continued,"Therefore we are confused, so can you tell us what is the true religion?"

The master looked up with a patient smile and replied," All of the religions of the world are like individual pearls. Each of them formed from a different grain of sand, in different waters, under different conditions." Then the Master looked directly at the spokesperson and spoke softly. saying," But if you ask me which is the true pearl, I will tell you none are the one true pearl, the truth is the thread that runs through each pearl holding them together as a necklace, and that is the truth you seek."

anon

Place a raw crystal cluster in front of you...see what that crystal looks like on one side, then turn the crystal and pay attention to what the new side looks like. Look at all sides of that one crystal...it is one thing made of many facets... each side different but making a whole.

keir

To Fern: thank you for pointing that out. To clarify, you are speaking of the composition of something (we are organs but we are also water) v. its essence (we are humans, a tree is a tree, light is light). I can't be a human and a car. I can be fingers and toes.

To Justin: no offense but you are not thinking logically. If, as we both agree, that God gives us a way to know Him, then wouldn't it be a bit mean of Him to leave all those generations in the dark? Not to mention very illogical. Don't you think God is smart enough to make certain that what He taught the apostles wouldn't get screwed up? How are we humans to trust God if we can't even trust Him to make sure His message is protected by capable folks? And, if gave it to incompentent people before who is to say Joseph Smith didn't get it wrong? See the things that just don't make much sense? I would love to chat more mikemackin@hotmail.com

Thanks,
mmackin

The source of truth is an interesting question. Mmackin asked an interesting question:

"So why would God create all this and then not give us a way to find out the truth, not give us a way to find out it was Him?"

I believe in God, and believe everything that is good and inspires good is from God.

I believe that God spoke to prophets in ancient times. I believe that he spoke to Moses, that Christ, the Son of God came to earth, and that the apostles were empowered by Christ to act and teach in the name of God. I believe that the death of the apostles began a period of time when God did not speak directly to man as he did previously. I believe that as a result, many different dogmas and doctrines appeared. I believe that is way there are so many different forms of Christianity today!

I believe that God began again to speak directly to man when He and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820. God revealed to Joseph important truths which had been lost since the death of the apostles of Christ. Think about what that means--God has spoken to mankind again!! I know that this is a bold statement, but I believe that it is important and that it is true. I invite all to learn about this prophet Joseph Smith, what he has done, and then ask God himself if it is true.

For more information see josephsmith.net or www.mormon.org

>Want an answer to those eternal questions? >Forget the dogma; seek a conscious connection >instead, and perhaps ye shall find.

Conscious connection with what? The problem with your argument is that as soon as you label an object of your faith, or belief, or connection, you have created a "dogma".

Belief or faith is never wrong by itself. The question is what do you have faith or believe in? Nazism, sadism,etc -that's a bad belief.

But general faith and belief are like happiness. Is it wrong to be happy? No. It's good to be happy. Unless you are happy about exterminating jews, or torturing infants. Then your happiness becomes like a repugnant belief. It is always the object of our faith or happiness that we should be debating about- not the faith or happiness itself.

Let me solve this whole dilemma. "Love the Lord thy God... and love thy neighbor as yourself." If you can do both you won't ever have a problem getting along with people.

> mmackin:

I agree with most of your post but have a comment about one line:

> Two things that are opposite objectively can't both be true.

Actually they both can be true.

One example was the argument about the nature of light. Is light a particle? Is light a wave? How can they both be true? Now we know that there is a resolution to the paradox and they both are true depending on your frame-of-reference.

It is hard to disagree with what Mr. Palua has written. Unfortunately, it does leaves the difficult (and interesting) questions untouched.

It is obvious that any fruitful discussion requires mutual respect. But what is mutual respect. When we discuss abortion, is it respect when one party is doing everything he can to legally impose his views on everyone else? When we discuss evolution, what does it mean for science to respect "intelligent design"? Does that mean a scientist has to grant the assertion that intelligent design is science when it is not? If there were an agreed notion of truth, then perhaps these question would be easy.

Science has one great advantage. It has an external adjudicator for disagreements, which happen all the time. That adjudicator is a complicated combination of fact, evidence, and reproducibility, complicated but it works over time. I don't know of any such standard for religion. How can a Muslim and a Christian, for example, find a path to a common truth? It is very nice to say that we should be able to discuss religion as a search for truth just like science, but religions have very different meanings for "truth", unlike science. If the meaning of "truth" is the subject of the discussion there is a problem. What is the true meaning of "truth"? The question itself is circular.

Platitudes like truth and respect are fine and one can't disagree with them. But they don't help to solve the problem.

Religions use metaphor and ritual to explain the human condition and our culture. It offers views into our psychology and can guide us in the conduct of our life. It can make us think beyond our ordinary lives to how we are connected to the universe and each other. It is manipulated by the political structure that governs it and the authors who sometimes twisted the words of the great prophets. It pre-dates our species. The early attempts of religion to explain the natural world did not have the benefit of the scientific method. The language of religion can bring insights into the human condition and the awe of existence. Religion and science together can bring insights into existence that as of yet, neither can do alone.

Since the fall of 1998, I have spent a great deal of time in the atheist, catholic, christian, jewish and islam chat rooms of America Online. Believe it or not, I went there with an agenda :) I went there to test a new found faith from the one I had grown up with, and had preached about for approximately 20 years. I sum up my new message by telling others that I still preach, but that I have dropped death and hell from my outline. As you might well imagine, I had many vigorous conversations which ended in enlightenment for me, and I assume for others as well. Enlightenment did not come with convincing proof or arguments, but instead with clarifying questions about the beliefs held by participants, and how those beliefs coincide with the participants other stated beliefs expressed during the conversations.

Lessons learned?

--contradiction is not an ingredient of Truth...

--beliefs are not "know"ledge...

--all beliefs are NOW either likely OR unlikely, not correct OR incorrect, until they become "know"ledge...

--"know"ledge of beliefs may be designed OR naturally existent as temporarily un"know"able here in the human dimension...

What do we "know"...? What is Truth...?

--Do you doubt that you exist(Sgt Schultz?), on a spinning speck of dust in the middle of inifinity?

--Do you doubt that your body is temporary?

--Are temporary bodies undeniable "proof" of death in such a place as this?

--Is nowhere a contradiction to anywhere?

To quote (with a reinterpretation) my favorite saviour...the way? the Truth? theLife? I am! I exist! (how about you?)

If the universe is a test of our faith, what are the questions? www.heavenlyindustries.com

"there" should be "their"... please forgive this and the other spelling errors. LOL

To John Morgan...

1. You are correct, communist atheists did indeed perpetrate untold horros upon millions. I would dispute the view that the Nazis were atheists though. Many of them were deeply religious, just not in the peace and love vein.

I suppose I should have qualified my statement about atheists to apply to the "average" atheists. Indeed it is only the extreme in either camp which wishes to force their views on the rest of us. It just seems to me that there are many more extreme people in the religious camps than in the atheist camp. I could be wrong of course but that is my perception.

2. Dialogue IS possible but only if the parties involved admit that there might be something in there own doctrine which might need to be changed. If neither side will budge from their rigourous interpretation of there own view that is an argument, not a dialogue.

3. Very true, scientists cant be as dogmatic as the most hardcore religious person. They can be zealots themselves. A pure scientist though, conducting pure science knows and admits that only something they can measure and observe repeatedly is "true". All else is theory. From a scientific point of view, most religions would fall in the realm of theory.

Sgt Schultz
"I KNOW NOTHING!"

Agnostics are not hedging our bets we are just honest enough to admit that short of personally observed phenomena we cannot be sure of anything (and even that might be an illusion)

Two things that are opposite objectively can't both be true.

How can a tree also be a lake? That is the silly thing about claiming we all have our own truth.

Now if something created everything then that thing gets to decide what things are, what truth is. The truth is we need oxygen to live. We don't get to decide that truth for ourselves. Truth is something we ascent to. As in science, we don't create truth, we discover what it is.

Truth also is meant to be discovered. You don't build a chair and then not share them with people for their use. You say, "here is a chair I've built for you to sit in."

So why would God create all this and then not give us a way to find out the truth, not give us a way to find out it was Him?

enjoy.

I am shocked at the level of cynicism and self-righteousness among the responses from atheists and agnostics on this page. As a scientist, I am humbled by the vast extent of what we don't know and cannot discover from the scientific method. Yet, I am even more amazed by the elegant and beautiful design of the universe. That said, you can only discover truth by examining your soul and discovering love for God and your neighbor. That leads me to Christianity.

As for the other points in the dialogue:
1. Please don't tell me how atheists don't try to force their world view on other people. The great mass murders of the last 100 years were committed by Communist and Nazi atheists. It is religious people who have been persecuted in recent times, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
2. It is absurd to deny the possibility of dialogue just because someone holds a "dogmatic" view. Dialogue must start from a foundation in which individuals hold actual views to be true, even if they are in conflict. God save me from the people who would have us believe nothing in the name of communication and compromise.
3. Finally, don't give the scientific community too much credit on the dogma issue. The most hard-headed, dogmatic people I've ever met are scientists who hold to their views (often in contradiction to their own evidence). Being prideful, stubborn or even violent is not a religious trait; it's a human one.

First, I commend Mr Lalau for his effort to have a conversation with a Chinese athiest. I suspect though that neither of them budged one iota from their doctrines. The purpose of conversation and dialoge is to communicate your views and stance and find common truthes that each share and to uncover flaws or misconceptions which can be corrected or compromised on. I sincerely doubt though that either man admitted any flaws in their doctrines, much less changed their views toward any middle ground. The viewpoints of these 2 men are too different and the doctrines too rigourous.

It is nice that they became friends but that friendship must be based on issues that neither hold too closely to be willing to compromise on, perhaps their fondness for pizza or liking Ingrid Bergman films.

Mr Palau speaks of being willing to listen with an open mind and admits that everyone has a "presuposition of truth". He even admits that he "is no saint". and that we should "hold our dogma with an open hand". However, The most telling reason that true dialog normally doesn't take place (between any 2 or more people holding extreme views) is found in Mr. Palau's last statement...

> in the end, we know our main goal is the
> same – to find truth. It should be no
> different with religion – only the
> consequences of our decisions are much greater.

Here he shows the moral superiority and certainty of people who hold any religious view too strongly (aka zealots). The zealot knows they ARE right and you are wrong! The zealot knows that any petty truths you may hold are less important than their ultimate truth. And since it is central to their dogma, it is imperative that the zealot bring you around to their way of thinking. Their viewpoint can permit no other action, since by not trying to save you they would have failed in their responsibility to their deity.

Committed atheists are just as dogmatic and sure of their worldview. The only difference is that they 'normally' do not feel compelled to force that view on anyone else (since at worst they simply view religious zealots as people who are going to be very surprised when they just go POOF after dying).

The dialoge that everyone seems to want is only possible if both sides of the conversation are willing to admit that some part, any part of their doctrine might be in error and that there may be some truthes available from the other side.

Sgt Schultz
"I KNOW NOTHING!"

Agnostics are not hedging our bets we are just honest enough to admit that short of personally observed phenomena we cannot be sure of anything (and even that might be an illusion)

I have never heard of most of these panelists, so I always read the biography provided.

Preacher Palau's bio reads like the best flackery I was taught to write as a Broadway
Show publicist, back in the early 60s. 21 million? 5.5 million? 70 countries? 42 nations? (My editor would have caught that one). But what I like best is the "...authored close to 50 books...and...countless articles." (My editor informed me, early on, that only the stars are countless).

In my experience, a prolific author of fiction might lose track of exactly how many books he wrote -- for instance, Zane Grey. But even Zane, if he wanted to, would give you the exact number. But most of us are not too interested in the exact number of books written by a prolific author of fiction, and I guess Preacher Palau is aware of that.

Authors of fact, such as scientists, rarely have published a large number of works. No, they can put their truths onto a few pages. James Clerk Maxwell did, and without his work we would have none of the electronic devices we use today.

But, I glanced through Preacher Palau's article anyway. The number of "shoulds" and "requireds" rather put me off from reading it too closely -- especially after the hype in that bio.

Thanks for that. It's nice to know there is at least one evangelist that is interested in listening to other points of view.

Religion is a deeply human need, and true religious experience is a deep sense of awe and wonder at our very existence, and the universe we find ourselves in. It is profound, and it ultimately can't be expressed in words.

All religions point to this experience, and all religions have arisen from this same need to express what each of us understands intrinsically in our core. That there is truth, somewhere.

In this sense, religions serve to draw us sketchy maps, but it is scientists who are humanities explorers. They are the ones who have the faith to embark upon a journey into the unknown, to face the abyss of uncertainty, confident that there are answers and that we can find them by searching. True faith is not about certainty, it is about doubt.

Religion serves us well when it gives meaning and motivation for our search, but it serves us poorly when it insists that no search is necessary because the truth is already revealed, by some person, or by some clumsily literal interpretation of a religious text.

I hope that those of us who have true faith will win out in the end. False certainty will lead us nowhere.

honesty and religion don't go together. if a religious person could be honest and admit the facts, then we could have honest dialog

A member of an informal coffee house discussion group consisting of Catholics, Jews, Methodists and skeptics, I find that "benign neglect" of dogmatic assertions accompanied by respectful listening goes a long way to having mutually beneficial discussions about deeply held beliefs. All of us some times feel need to assert our deepest convictions; every pschotherapist knows to not flame back but to listen respectfully. I find it amazing how much paying attention to views we don't agree with defuses discussions with those of different convictions, and I find these people often are then more willing to listen in return. We need to learn to listen, to negotiate, to more forward with those objectives we have in common rather than fall into fruitless angry debate. Frankly, I believe those who stubbornly refuse to listen deserve their isolation.

As an engineer, I have some understanding of the need for logic. I'm sure like so many others in this age, I have been conditioned of its necessity in order to feel comfortable with any hypothesis or theory.

Most, if not all, of what the intellectual world speaks of as 'scientific fact' really amounts to making statements that match and predict our observations. Everything, even the light from a distant hill, is subject to our perception. The brilliance of human insight, along with our ability to observe in increasing detail, continually refine these theories over time. But the 'fact' remains that all practical science is theory - always subject to being proven inadequate, always subject to refinement. A modern Newton must forever yield to the next Einstein.

Also speaking as a person of devout faith, however, I am continually surprised by the ease with which my brethren intellectuals so quickly disregard their dearly held methods of observation, postulation, and testing when pondering life's ultimate questions.

Framed appropriately, spirituality addresses the questions that science cannot. 'Why?' Yet there is still plenty of evidence to examine, and theorems to postulate and explore.

As for evidence in this spiritual realm, we are actually provided the most intimate thing that we can observe - ourselves. In fact, the reality that the overwhelming majority of human beings in today's modern world actually 'believe' in Something Else presents us with overwhelming evidence that a spiritual realm actually exists.

To observe this reality, we need not see with our eyes or measure with a stick, but listen instead to our souls. Some spiritual theories seem to match these observations better than others. I suspect all of them have room for refinement as they seek the ultimate truth.

The world could use more help in answering these most relevant of all questions. It could certainly use the thoughts and skills of intellectuals. The world has everything to gain in this dialogue, as do we all as individuals.

I offer my praise to Luis for his heartfelt, sincere, and worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

Hi Nick,

The way that I feel the New Testament is true is by the number of authors included in it which all agree on the same thing.

The four-Gospels were written by two Jews and two Gentiles, Matthew wrote to the Jews, Mark wrote to the Romans, Luke wrote to all Gentiles, and John wrote to those who believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, which was both Jews and Gentiles.

The professions of the authors was equally diverse, Luke was a physician and knowledgeable in many facets of science, Matthew was a tax-collector, one of the most hated professions in all of Israel at the time, John was a fisherman, and Mark appears to have been discipled by the Apostle Peter at such a young age as to never hold a non-religious position.

The history of Jerusalem matches the history of the New Testament perfectly, and the authors had unique understandings of both King Herod the Great and his son, King Herod Antipas. The daughter of the second King, Salome', is written about in several non-Biblical works. The Bible says that at the hour of Jesus' death, the sky turned dark like an eclipse, but no eclipse happened that day, yet in Europe, more than 1200 miles away, Phlegon of Tralles, a Greek Historian, wrote that during the that time, a darkness surpassing anything that had ever been seen occurred. Tertullian, a Christian Scholar, writes that in the records of Rome there was a notation of an unexplained worldwide darkness. The Bible says that a major Earthquake occurred through Jerusalem, which apparently went as far North as Nicaea in Turkey, as a major Earthquake was recorded at that time. The historian Josephus was the main historian in Jerusalem at the time directly following Christ and his reports authenticate the people and culture during the writing of the Epistles.

The number of authors in the New Testament proves that they all believed the same things, there are seven authors in the New Testament, with no contradictions in chronology or ideas.

The direct followers of Christ died extraordinary or martyr deaths as recorded in extra-Biblical history. It is hard to believe twelve men who did not believe that Jesus was God would die in such painful ways for preaching as crucifixion on an x-shaped cross, crucifixion upside down (as requested by Peter), beheading, spearing, stoning, hanging, or marooned on a desert island. Their deaths do not prove that the NT we have is accurate, but it does prove that they believed very strongly in Jesus Christ.

I think that the best reason we can trust the New Testament is the prophecy of the Messiah in the Old Testament. Forgive me for not having the exact numbers in front of me, but in the Old Testament, there are 127 undisputable prophesies for Jesus as the Messiah, as well as over 200 more which range from probably prophecy to too ambiguous to say, "Yes it's a prophecy" but not enough to say, "You're crazy, that has nothing to do with the Messiah." It would be impossible for even the best writers ever to live to fit 330 prophecies or literary agents into a book so short as the New Testament and for it to flow perfectly, let alone seven authors!

Based on these facts, I feel that it is easy to say the New Testament is true, and the writers inspired by God.

This conversation is going no where. There is a maddening similarity to all the posts on all the questions and in the responses to all the panelists. There is a (small?) chance that we can move on if the Christians and Jew, the major "Believers" in this conversation, could get beyond the stage of telling us what they believe, we know that already, and begin to tell us why they believe what they believe. Stating that the Bible is the word of "God," literal or inspired, won't cut it. Whatever we may think of the reasons the atheists/agnostocs give, at lest they lay out why they are not "Believers."

Interesting. So evangelist Luis, you have spoken to a big Chinaman? Did you find common ground to get the missionaries out of jail? Bush couldn't.

Any interest the Chinese have in religion can only be in possible people control using it. I'll bet they have debated that and drawn the proper conclusion. Now take one look at the land of Islam and tell me the people there are either under control or controllable.

Religion is pure frustration and it shows where religion rules. When the absolute truth, the word of God no less is a lie, frustration flourishes. The Bible, the basis of all three great faiths is a proved hoax, frustrating.

We can't prove there is no God and you can't prove there a God, because of your specification of God. We can prove by a greater preponderance of the evidence that Moses made a deal with the devil, your specification of the devil. It's on the web for you to see at http://www.hoax-buster.org The truth that will set you free from the hoax is just a click away,, if you want to be free from the lie.

Common ground among those who embrace different versions of the lie is logically possible. However, I have no faith Muslims are in a negotiating mood at this time.

A flaw that both sides of the science/religion debate make (as do several posters here) is that Science tries to describe HOW things work. That is demonstrable; Religion tries to answer WHY things are the way they are. That cannot be demonstrated.

As long as this difference is remembered, the debate can indeed be informative and fruitful.

Mr Palau,
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement:

"What divides our world today is the continued narcissistic stance that I’m right, you’re wrong, and I’m not willing to talk about it."

This attitude was a major reason for the stagnation of my faith for so many years--the unwillingness to even discuss any other possibility with someone who didn't believe as I did.

Great article.

Will

To Luis Palau:

This particular panellist hits the nail on the head when he says:

"What divides our world is lack of open, honest, truth-seeking dialogue about our faith. It’s what has divided our world from the beginning."

What can I say. That sounds fine on paper but how does it come about that his dialogue with Zhao Qizheng has not resulted in arriving at a common mind?

Palau says that about his dialogue with Qizheng:
"We take science seriously. We discuss it, debate it, and disagree on it."

But this should surely not be the case. If they did look at scientific evidence with an open mind they should by now have achieved a notable level of agreement. Most Christian evangelists reject the occurrence of evolution and I assume that Palau is in the same category. But the fossil and DNA evidence for the occurrence of evolution is available label for all to see. So, if the two of them are not in agreement on its occurrence it is surely a csse of "none so blind as those who will not see".

What mind-numbing excrement. Intellectually dishonest and totally detached from objective reality.

PS: Atheism isn't a religion.

All dogmas should be muzzled when taken out in public. ;-)

Yes, I believe there is a creative force or prime mover. (Can I prove it? No. Can anyone disprove it? Never.)

I'd be inclined to wager that "He" isn't some white haired geezer up in the clouds, with a bushy beard, barefoot, draped in a big bedsheet. But suppose "He" were? Maybe that'd be a good thing! It'd mean there wouldn't be a sign hanging on the Pearly Gates: "No shirt, no shoes, no service!"
Gee, then I might have a chance after all.

The problem isn't religion contending against religion -- nor religion struggling against 21st century science -- these are false dichotomies. The true struggle is this: Dogmatists of all stripes vs. those whose minds are not slammed shut. That's why dialogues like this, between people of goodwill, are so needed.

By the way, you betcha there's an alternative to dogmatism, fundamentalism, ritualism, parochialism -- yes, even to "belief" and "faith", those oft-derided words:

Spirituality.

Want an answer to those eternal questions? Forget the dogma; seek a conscious connection instead, and perhaps ye shall find.

I agree whole-heartedly with this article. The real problem is a problem of respect. When we forget to give respect to one another all other religious, moral, and secular teachings are meaning-less.

Our world is deeply divided and is is deeply connected. When we begin discussions with an attitude of respect for the other person, anything is possible.

Mr. Palau, you have my deepest respect for your well written article.

> The flaw of the religious mindset it that it does
> not take science seriously and believes that only
> religion can answer the existential questions
> listed by the author.

There is nothing in the religious mindset that necessarily dictates that science will not be taken seriously. Science tells us about the world; it answers the questions "how", "who", "what", "where" and "when". It cannot answer "why" or, in other words, "is there intrinsic meaning in life". The problem comes in when someone's a priori assumption is proven incorrect. Failure to accept that science has proven a pet theory wrong and therefore that one was wrong is a mistake.

> Faith itself doesn't mean a thing without the
> adoption of and adherence to one of the
> so-called divinely inspired books.

I can and do believe in God and believe that all the world's major religions are paths to God. I also believe that all the scriptures have been altered by men either by accident or by design and therefore do not adhere to any of them. I also believe that if you understand the common elements from the major religions and their scriptures, you're on much sounder ground.

Someone said "there is power in knowledge" so I think listening can give me lots to work with toward resolution and/or understanding.

I'm not a violent person, but if I'm angry, sometimes just having someone listen and understand takes the power out of my anger. I can feel good about the listener for just listening and it really helps. I don't know if this is true for others, or big groups of angry, passionate people - it's just my own thought.

Faith itself doesn't mean a thing without the adoption of and adherence to one of the so-called divinely inspired books. This is exactly this requirement that makes religious conversation difficult.

Okay, now I know what epistemological means. Webster's says "a theory of the nature of knowledge". I learned something today. Cool. Thanks Bill C.

Thanks for your response. I have to look up the word "epistemological" - don't know what it means, but I will shortly.

The violence will definitely continue. There are people in the world who just want to live this way and there's not much that can be done about it. Just my opinion (and we know how those are).

I'm definitely not here to even attempt to fix anything - but just interested in other people's views. Thanks for yours - I sincerely appreciate it.

There needs to be compromise because in the world today religious belief is the driving force behind the violence and discord that this site serves as a response to. As long as we just listen and do not compromise or progress then it will continue. Unless there is some epistemological basis for progress and resolution then the violence will continue. Religious/spiritual beliefs will never provide this because they cannot be engaged rationally.

We need to have a common ground from which progress can be made, not just listening and the stagnation of tolerance.

Bill C: You say "As long as the two participants in a discussion believe that the other is spiritually or morally deficient in his bel;iefs the conversation can go no where."

Why not just be of the mind to allow someone to be wrong, or different or whatever you want to call it. And if I'm in a conversation and find someone feels I am morally or spiritually deficient, I think I will pretty quickly opt out of that conversation. I enjoy open-minded conversation, not one-sided. I can't learn from or share with a closed minded person.

You also say "As long as people believe there is a hell and others will suffer it for their beliefs then how is it possible to have compromise."

Why compromise - just listen.

I get excited about my beliefs and want to MAKE the other person understand ME too, but I try to back off of that and hear the other person - if for no other reason than to learn to listen. Sometimes I've not been a good listener in the past and I can use that exchange as a chance to practice listening.

And lastly you say "You can't hold your dogma with an open hand unless you allow the possiblility that it may be entirely untrue."

I left Christianity because I DID allow the possibility that it was all untrue - and indeed (for me) it was untrue. So, why would I want to think what I believe in now is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Again, open-mindedness is such a great thing to practice.

I hope you'll share more of your thoughts with me. I will definitely read your posts.

Thank you Syrinx, you have pretty much summarized
my point of view.

To "Believer" I say that most people I know
do believe and practice a religion and that
I count some of my best friends and my most
dear relatives in this group.
Just because we disagree on the existence
of God or an afterlife or on the type of
emotional "clutches" we use,
we don't stop valuing each other's contribution
to each other's life. We respect each other
and understand we have different needs. Yet
there are areas where we have many similar
views and needs and we provide help and love and
support and respect to each other.
It is not only possible, but it is enriching.

I suppose if one defines the existence of
God as the most imporant and defining
characteristic of one's life, then it becomes
much more difficult to make friends among those
that don't place the same importance on it.
The same could be said of many other
aspects of life
that people place different importance on.
That is why you can't be friends with everybody
and tend to be friend with those with whom
you share some common ground.

Fundamentalists (religious or atheists)
by definition tend to define themselves by
their adherence to a religion (or lack thereof)
and therefore do have a much more difficult
time dialoging with others that don't share
their priorities.

I am hoping that fundamentalists remain in
a minority.

As long as the two participants in a discussion believe that the other is spiritually or morally deficient in his bel;iefs the conversation can go no where. In order to make actually progress faith and all irrational belief must be dispensed with in favor of reason. As long as people believe there is a hell and others will suffer it for their beliefs then how is it possible to have compromise.

You can't hold your dogma with an open hand unless you allow the possiblility that it may be entirely untrue.

This is my favorite response among the perhaps 10-12 panelist responses I've read in full or skimmed. I very appreciated this section in particular:

True dialogue requires a humble view of ourselves and a respectful, even loving approach toward others. It requires a willingness to hear another point of view, to hear another’s true feelings, and to discuss differing opinions in an open and honest manner. It requires us to hold to our dogma with an open hand, weighing the reliability of what we believe on a daily basis.

Simple and clear words, but hard to live out in daily life. I hope this forum will be a part of teaching us all better how to do just this.

Great to see Luis Palau as a contributor here.

I started asking questions a few years back. As most people (I think)I just followed along with what my parents had taught me. They go to an Episcopal Church. I never asked questions, because you know your parents are right (right?). Well, as I said, I started asking questions. I now consider myself a Pagan and enjoy not being a part of organized religion.

I found out that most Christian holidays are actually Pagan holidays (Christmas, Easter). The Christians didn't like all the partying the Pagans did, so they Christianized them. The Christmas tree, the mistletoe, gift giving are all part of pagan history. Easter (actually Ostara) is about fertility, the earth coming back to life, etc. I find all of this interesting, fascinating and lots of fun to discuss. I find Christians don't want to hear it. Therefore, dialogue is difficult.

Honesty is very important, and I agree, humility has to be in there for there to be discussion. What I know is only the very tip of a huge iceberg and I want to know more. So, I'll keep searching and learning.

One of the things I love about the Goddess of my understanding is that she simply wants me to acknowledge her and continue the search. I feel her love as I take the journey.

Thanks for providing a forum for discussion. I am enjoying reading and learning.

Nick

Look for "Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis, 'The Case For Christ', Faith' by Lee Strobel and 'Evidence that Demands a Vedict' & 'More Than a Carpenter' by Josh McDowell. The theme is pretty much the same in all. Also, you can try the works of Josephus, a secular author who wrote about the church and Christ outside the Bible. Also read 1 corinthians 15 if you have a bible or borrow one.

Mr. Palau presents a compelling case for respect, conversation, and truth. Funny...that's exactly what Jesus Christ stood for. The way he interacted with individuals sets the standard for the way each one of us wants to be treated. Can we do the same, particularly in our discussions about HIM? That is what Mr. Palau challenges us to do. And I'm up for the challenge.

I have read the Bible,and particularly the New Testament. The story about Jesus is a great story and I would like to believe it if I knew that it is a true story. I am sure that some historical information is accurate. But what evidence exists that would be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt that the New Testament is a true story?
I like clear cut evidence that I can verify. I have asked this question before and received lengthy philosophical arguments which I didn't understand, so keep it simple and on point.
I believe that there is a GOD. I have examined evolution and I think that there is a GOD who started life on this planet.
Nick Pecoraro
nicholaspecoraro@earthlink.net

"We take science seriously. We discuss it, debate it, and disagree on it. But in the end, we know our main goal is the same – to find truth. It should be no different with religion – only the consequences of our decisions are much greater."

I was waiting for the duration of the article for the author to show his bias. He obliged. The flaw of the religious mindset it that it does not take science seriously and believes that only religion can answer the existential questions listed by the author. But the fact is that faith is no more than speculation and if one is looking for answers to and progress from those o'so important questions it will never be found unless we recognize faith for what it is. Unjustified conjecture. Science provides the only common ground for argument. Reproducible physical evidence. Any question we cannot answer with such evidence we must pass over in silence as Wittgenstein suggested. Faith will get dialogue no-where because it serves as a trump card to all reasoned debate. "No you can't tell me that's wrong. It is a matter of faith." As long as that kind of response is permissible dialogue will founder.