Only Man Could Be So Patronizing

To Soja:
Do not disagree with the lack of selfless people. It is so much easier to be selfish. Hope all is well.
Jeff

And talking of selflessness, Kahlil Gibran expressed beautifully thus on giving in the sense of "Agape":

"You give but little when you give of your possessions.

It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.

For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow?

And tomorrow, what shall tomorrow bring to the overprudent dog burying bones in the trackless sand as he follows the pilgrims to the holy city?

And what is fear of need but need itself?
Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, thirst that is unquenchable?

There are those who give little of the much which they have - and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome.

And there are those who have little and give it all.

These are the believers in life and the bounty of life, and their coffer is never empty.

There are those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward.

And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism.

And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue;
They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space.

Though the hands of such as these God speaks, and from behind their eyes He smiles upon the earth.

It is well to give when asked, but it is better to give unasked, through understanding;
And to the open-handed the search for one who shall receive is joy greater than giving
And is there aught you would withhold?

All you have shall some day be given;
Therefore give now, that the season of giving may be yours and not your inheritors'.

You often say, "I would give, but only to the deserving."

The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture. They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish.

Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights is worthy of all else from you.

And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream.

And what desert greater shall there be than that which lies in the courage and the confidence, nay the charity, of receiving?

And who are you that men should rend their bosom and unveil their pride, that you may see their worth naked and their pride unabashed?

See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.

For in truth it is life that gives unto life - while you, who deem yourself a giver, are but a witness.

And you receivers - and you are all receivers - assume no weight of gratitude, lest you lay a yoke upon yourself and upon him who gives.
Rather rise together with the giver on his gifts as on wings;
For to be overmindful of your debt, is to doubt his generosity who has the free-hearted earth for mother, and God for father.

Dear Jeff

This thread has closed, but I will post my response to you since I announced it, even knowing you may not return to read it.

Of course there are selfless human beings, and goodness has immense power (not always apparent) which far exceeds the power of evil. For me the Bible provides a good example of the great power of goodness - how God promised not to destroy a city if there were at least ten good human beings in it (the Old Testament story that is shared by Jews and Muslims too).

But even as a human being, if not as an American, you must admit, that selfless people are the exception rather than the rule. It is the power of the good and selfless people that keeps the world going. My grief of course is that there are not more selfless people.

And not to worry about me running with the wrong crowd. Being a very anti-crowd personality, there is no crowd I could run away from nor is there a crowd I could run with. ;)

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Maurie

I considered this thread closed for discussion, hence I did not want to post a response. But since I announced my intent to post a response here it is, although you may not visit this thread again.

The "funnest" thing I decided to do for my birthday was to take stock of my life - to be grateful for the wonderful things and to beat myself up for the foolish things I have done so far. I didn't get very far with either.

As to the article you posted: It is a typical case of where the same set of data could be interpreted in different ways. As a believer I could interpret it in accordance with my faith in God. It is the same with the interpretation of the Big Bang. The data set is the same, and yet atheists and believers interpret it very differently.

Of course I'm open to the truth of science (Gandhi said "I worship God as truth alone,
", which means that anyone who seeks truth is seeking God). I mentioned that several times. It is just that I'm just as aware of the limitations of science, especially when it comes to applying its method to proving the existence of God. To a believer the existence of the universe is proof of God/a Creator.

Best wishes
Soja

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!

To Richard Dawkins,

I thoroughly enjoyed your book "The God Delusion". I not only read it but listened to your audio version as well. You are to be complimented for a well written book. I also congratulate both you and your wife for an excellent oral presentation of your book. I enjoyed both versions.

In my post addressed to Professor Dawkins 23 May 2007 10:45 PM I wrote: "When I was seventeen years old I wanted to become a Jesuit priest or at least marry one. I'm disappointed when I was told both were not permitted by the Catholic church. So I'm a single lay woman now!"

Since that was a very personal thing to say, which creates a wrong impression, I wish to clarify. It was written as a joke. I NEVER wanted to become a Jesuit priest, nor have I have been in love with a Jesuit priest at any time (although I have known a few wonderful priests), leave alone want to marry one. However that remark stems from an incident when I was seventeen. I accompanied my aunt (a Catholic nun - a novice mistress) to the Jesuit seminary when she went for a retreat. Being the only lay person, I shared all the meals with the religious community. The Jesuit superior of the seminary came around during breakfast and seeing me there tried to be friendly. He said that I talked and laughed like a nun (well I need not explain that nuns and priests try to encourage young ones to follow in their footsteps)! [Being a nun was the last thing I wanted in my life - the idea of surrendering my will to the mother superior frightened the life out of me. But I found that Jesuit priests were more free and I admired the fact that they were intellectuals with a profession in addition to being full-fledged priests. For instance my aunt attended several workshops (to aid her with her work as novice mistress, in the formation of nuns) conducted by a Jesuit priest, who had got his training as a full clinical psychologist in the US.] I replied that I preferred to be a Jesuit priest instead and not a nun. When he said that it was not possible, I said that in that case I would like to marry a Jesuit priest.

The result of being cheeky in that fashion was that my aunt was asked to send me away three days later, when the Jesuit seminarians came to make their retreat, just before making their vows to become a priest! Even though I 'laughed and talked like a nun' it was thought, as a seventeen year old who laughed (not giggled!)a lot (and loud!), I would prove to be a distraction to the young men about to make their religious vows!!!

In 1984, taking time off from Uni, after spending much time at the Christian Ashram of Dom Bede Griffiths and I began to enjoy spending time in the little hut by the river there to be in solitude and experience silence, the idea of spending time as a hermit began to seem attractive to me, although the idea of being married never left my mind. So I went to the Ashram as often as I could until I left India in December 1987, and spent time there when I came to India on visits.

I am still very much a lay person who feels my place is in the world and not living in solitude like a hermit or in a community like a nun/priest. An ocassional retreat into solitude is refreshing, but I couldn't make it a permanent way of life. I'm single and without a partner only because my soulmate is lost in the forest and hasn't found his way to me yet.

As to religious committment: I became a half Benedictine Oblate with an element of the Indian traditionon of Sannyasa on 23 February 1992. (I am, as an Oblate allowed to marry and live in the world like a householder if I choose of course.) Dom Bede Griffiths initiated the ceremony which was witnessed by an Indian nun-sannyasi and three Americans (two religious brothers and a lay woman who was making a one year retreat under Fr Bede). Unfortunately I could not return to India to go through the second and final ceremony one year later. Fr Bede passed away in May 1993.

Sorry for mentioning all that personal stuff to cover up for the silly remark I made in my post earlier. I'm an ordinary lay person - neither a guru nor a Bible scholar.

Dear Andy

Many thanks for the birthday wishes and the kind words. My delay in responding to your post was not intentional.

The issue of God's gender was raised in one of Sam Harris' threads earlier and I gave my take on it. The number of posts on Harris' thread makes it difficult for me to trace my post to do a cut and paste job. So I must repeat what I wrote.

As far as Christianity goes: Jesus referred to God as a male for obvious reasons. Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus (which btw Muslims do too)and hence the father of Jesus was quite literally God. As for God being referred to in the masculine as a convention, it is important to keep in mind the difficulty of any language to come up with a term that includes everything, including all genders. Addressing God as a female doesn't solve the problem either. Someone suggested that God should be referred to as "It" to sort the dilemma. But even that is an unimaginative solution considering God is the uncreated Creator of all life. As to the accuracy of language to denote all things precisely: why is a child, which clearly had a gender when it was a baby girl or baby boy, suddenly loses its gender and become an "it," only to regain its gender once again when the child becomes a man or woman?

Conclusion: To imagine that the term "He" or "She" or even "It" for that matter, in reference to God denotes God's gender in human terms is naive and simplistic. Mystics in all religions have made the point clear - God, even while He-She-It manifests Himself-Herself-Itself in His-Her-Its creation, is in the absolute form, beyond anything a human being can imagine.

As to why I accept and believe Jesus to be male, since I accept Him as incarnation of God - now what does that say about my psychology? Hmm...

It is true that in the history of religions some images of God have been limited and were magnified projection of human qualities and sometimes the god images served psychological human needs. Cults are particularly prone to limiting god to particular pychological needs or human qualities. However God is not a product of psychology, just as the Universe, as we perceive it, is real and not a mere product of our imagination.

I do agree it is necessary to distinguish between what is one's own conditioned voice in the head that one takes to be God's voice, and what comes from afar. The Catholic Church with its area of specialty "Discernment of Spirits" and a psychiatrist should help sort out some of the confusion - separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Being fully aware of one's own conditioning and subconscious drives and motives also helps to differentiate between what comes from within and what comes from afar. Having said that God doesn't speak through angels what He-She-It has given us the capacity to know with our mind, which after all is created in God's image and likeness. To distinguish between the animal-the human-the divine is us and work towards our own evolvement towards the divine in us is our life's work. I least that is the way I understand it. I do respect the fact that others may have a different view.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Jeff

Thank you for your response. I must repeat what I mentioned in my post addressed to Maurie - I needed to take a longish break from The Post On Faith forum due to unavoidable reasons, hence the delay in responding.

I will post a proper response to your comments soon. But for now, this is to wish you a Happy 4th of July (I assume you are American)! I do send my wishes as an Indian-Australian (as one who considers all Americans as brothers and sisters in God, the Creator of us all - I know, I know, that must sound waaaaay too sentimental to you, but I can't help the way I feel) that the American dream comes true for ALL Americans!

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Maurie

Thank you for the birthday wishes and the link to the interesting article.

I had taken a longish break from The Post On Faith forum for personal reasons, hence the delay in responding. I will post a more detailed response to your comments soon.

Assuming you are American, I wish you a very Happy 4th July! I hope too that you enjoy the day immensely. Long live the American dream, and may it come true for ALL Americans!

Best wishes
Soja

To Soja John Thaikattil,
I meant no disrespect.
Jeff

Soja -
Your posts are the most impressive and reasonable on this blog, in my humble opinion, and your position is impressively well founded, but I have a problem with your anodyne acceptance of belief in a He God without any curiosity about what this says about your own psychology. Belief in any god is first an expression of a psychology, whatever referential value the word "God" may or may not possess. I suggest this is worth extended thought to try to get clear as to what is supplied by the self (a loopy stack that reboots constantly, if that makes any sense) and what really comes from afar. Anyway, happy birthday.
- Andy

Anonymous - Oh poor Mr. Dawkins, He sure didn't bless you with good looks did he?

Apparently his looks were good enough for English actress Lalla Ward, who's gorgeous.

Oh poor Mr. Dawkins, I see why you hate God so much, He sure didn't bless you with good looks did he. I would be mad too if I looked like Michael Myers from Halloween.

Soja John Thaikattil,

Happy birthday. Hope you have something fun to do.

I just read an article in the Washington Post having to do with a biological basis for morality (see web-address below). I'm not trying to "convert" you. The article primarily focuses on cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary biology. You might find it interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

Cheers,

Maurie

Sorry, I do not wish to speak only as an American, but as a human. This will be difficult to write without sounding prudish, however, if we look around the world we can see the results of those who are selfless. Most times the most flamboyant of things can be attributed to those who are single minded, yet those things that are truly lasting are built from the vision of those who truly care and understand. Occasionally however, to survive, we must balance selflessness with selfishness, for sometimes decisions have to be made for the good of a few to ultimately be for the good of the whole. One other thought--maybe you need to run with a different group. ;)
Jeff

Sorry, that was: und so weiter...

Maurie Beck:

Many thanks for your nice words - makes a wonderful birthday present for me.

As for the definition of poor morals, I just wanted to make sure the worst kind was covered. I keep hearing about the wonderfully selfless human race that evolves to selflessness naturally due to the survival advantage of being selfless, etc. But where the heck are these people? Most of the ones I see who survive are the "fiesest" fittest, the selfless ones mostly get crushed or pushed aside.

My sense of humour, ahem, surely it is not worse than that of Professor Dawkins in this piece? Being English he has less excuse than me for such poor display of humour, the British humour being famous und so.

The problem we face as humans, as Americans, is what each of us believes is moral. For example, some believe that any sex outside of marriage is immoral. Others believe that sex outside of marriage is ok if they are of a certain age. Some believe that homosexual sex is not only immoral, but worthy of death, others yet believe that we have to remember we are all human. We need to reign in the extremes, and begin a dialogue that incorporates a worldview that allows for what we, as responsible, understanding, realistic humans can accept. In actually, not just what we can accept, but ultimately for our survival—what we need to understand.
Jeff

Soja John Thaikattil,

BTW - There is more and more evidence that our sense of fair play and right and wrong has a biological basis, which is not surprising, since we are social creatures and such sentiments play an important role in group dynamics. See Hauser, M. D. 2006. Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. ECCO press.

Soja John Thaikattil - So, you are still alive, in spite of your "poor" morals? Now, I do not know on what basis you judge your morals as poor (the law of the land, Scripture from any religion, your own conscience, principles of atheistic humanism) or what you have actually done that you consider yourself fortunate to have escaped the consequences of your actions and are lucky to be alive; but have you checked lately what the effect of your "poor" morals may have been on the person who was directly or indirectly affected by your "immoral" action?

When I first read you response above, I thought you haven't much of a sense of humor. Then I read your post on Harris’s thread

"God is dead." – Nietzsche

God's reply: "Nietzche is dead."

LOL. In terms of my poor morals, I was being facetious.

Soja John Thaikattil - BTW how would you or the rest of the society fare if every single person practised the "poor" morals you consider your right to practise?

Without learning the golden rule, I somehow manage to practice it. Go figure. In addition, I also practice the doctrine (though I'm not doctrinaire about it) of "live and let live." I wish others would do the same. Unfortunately, I get a little uppity when some people feel it is their duty or part of their faith to impose their idea of moral behavior on others.

I read what you wrote in Sam Harris’s “Wager” thread. You are obviously a very reasonable person with empathy in your heart.

Scientists rely on evidence and measures of probability to determine what is real and what is not. Belief is not involved.

Some of the people I know say they "believe" in God because they have a strong feeling he exists. I see no evidence for the existence of God, and a very high probability that God does not exist. Therefore, I am not going to waste my time (and money) on something with such a low probability of being real.

Face it, religion is a big business that sells "security" and operates by intimidation. And it makes a pretty good living!

Kudos to Dawkins for standing up to the fatcats of religion.

Maurie Beck:

BTW how would you or the rest of the society fare if every single person practised the "poor" morals you consider your right to practise?

Maurie Beck:

So at least we agree it is possible to be a believer and believe in the scientific method at the same time. The only problem believers like me, who believe in both religion and science, have is when atheists insist we are deluded about our belief in God simply because we believe different methods need to be used to study different realities. The fact that God hasn't turned up in a test tube to the bidding of a chemist, at the end of telescope or under the microscope, isn't proof that He doesn't exist. The Hubble Space telescope is not the best instrument to study the DNA, nor is the electron microscope the best to study the stars.

For a believer the fact that science doesn't have all the answers about the physical universe and may never have them doesn't pose a problem at all - neither in continuing with the scientific endeavour to find as many answers as possible to understand the universe we believe God created and to apply any knowledge in the service of mankind, nor in accepting the fact science is merely a tool and the results it produces, the knowledge it yields, will always remain a work in progress.

As to morals, which has been the domain of religions, you write, "Nor do I think people have the right to impose their "morals" on other people. If people paid more attention to themselves rather than to others who do not share their worldview, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, many religious people in the U.S. think the country is falling into the hands of the devil. I’m sure if there is a god, he can successfully target the sinners while sparing the believers. So far I’m still alive, in spite of my poor morals."

Please read my recent posting on Sam Harris' thread, 'Empty Wager' for my random thoughts regarding the topic of morality in religions (I do not wish to do another cut and paste job or repeat the same stuff here). So, you are still alive, in spite of your "poor" morals? Now, I do not know on what basis you judge your morals as poor (the law of the land, Scripture from any religion, your own conscience, principles of atheistic humanism) or what you have actually done that you consider yourself fortunate to have escaped the consequences of your actions and are lucky to be alive; but have you checked lately what the effect of your "poor" morals may have been on the person who was directly or indirectly affected by your "immoral" action?

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia

I think we've been talking past each other. Apparently we both agree that what people think does not affect external reality (except for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Shrodinger's Cat). Science is a method for understanding natural phenomena. Science does not have all the answers, and probably never will. People do science because they are more interested in questions than answers. Answers, of course, are the end result, but they usually generate more questions. Some people do science because they want to make the world a better place. For example, much of medical research is applied to understanding disease processes and curing human suffering. Other scientists are more interested in figuring out how things actually work. Without the latter, the former would be far less productive.

I don't think people have to make a choice between reason and science on the one hand and a belief in god on the other. Some people seem to think that they have to make such a false choice. I don't. For myself, I don't believe in god, but I really have no problem with others who do, unless they try to thrust their unscientific beliefs into the scientific domain (e.g. creationism or Intelligent Design). Scientific theories, hypotheses, and laws need to stand on their own in the harsh scientific arena, no matter what people think. Nor do I think people have the right to impose their "morals" on other people. If people paid more attention to themselves rather than to others who do not share their worldview, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, many religious people in the U.S. think the country is falling into the hands of the devil. I’m sure if there is a god, he can successfully target the sinners while sparing the believers. So far I’m still alive, in spite of my poor morals.

Reluctant Atheist:

Faith in God is a bit like tuning in to short wave transmission you know. Believers don't have infallible reception, so the messages are received with varying degrees of distortion. We even use our free will to do what we please with the message we do receive, sometimes going so far as to practise quite the opposite of what we know to be right, that it justifiably has atheists convinced religion is a dangerous thing (no attempt being made to clarify that WRONG practice of religion is what is dangerous). What the believers have in common however is that none of us doubt that there is something out there beyond created space and time and form, that something in us is trying to tune in to.

Not much point in trying to describe the beauty of a rainbow to a blind man, the taste of a ripe mango to a person without taste buds, the smell of a jasmine to one who has no nose. A simple, non-evangelical believer like me is convinced that it is God who draws human beings who are open to His reality, to Himself. I feel quite content to leave that job to Him and to evangelicals who feel called to help God in that task.

The desire of believers to join the eite club of atheists, hitting ourselves with books written by Dawkins and Harris - all the mighty scientific arguments expressed in the most powerful language notwithstanding - hasn't worked either. Atheism is too silly in too many spots.

In some ways, I envy Falwell and Phelps. Wouldn't it be wonderful to escape into that world? I've hit myself over the head with the bible and theology, but I can't achieve it. Even when I see that their system is consistent, I can't honestly accept it. It's too silly in too many spots. The harmonizations are not convincing.

yes, Dawkins, you're right. But it's so depressing. Do you have to be so 'witty' about stating this?

Russell D.,

May 24th @ 3:27 P.M. you wrote:

"And of course, I read Playboy for the articles and articles only. ;)"

You're in good company. In the 1960's I worked in the General Counsel's office of a federal government agency in Washingon.

A woman lawyer in our office had a pre-teen daughter who was good friend of the pre-teen granddaughter of Earl Warren, then Chief Justice of the United States.

One Saturday morning the two girls went to the Supreme Court to visit the Chief. Admitted to his chambers they found him at his desk reading Playboy.

In response to their raised-eyebrow looks, Chief Justice Warren told the girls exactly what you wrote above in explanation of what you were doing.

Regards.

Right on Soja!

Maurie Beck:

We have been through this before. Even if 100% at the US Academy of Sciences were atheists, that still does not provide an answer to the origin of the Big Bang, which happens to have a definite beginning. One thing is certain, none of the scientists can replicate the Big Bang either - no universe making technology at the disposal of scientists at this stage to convince me. If in ten zillion years science should advance to the universe making stage, I'm more than willing to revise my opinion, but not based on the science of today. See, I'm open to the "science of atheism!" Explaining the the law of gravity, which is all the scientists do for the most part about the created universe - explain its workings and then use that knowledge to the benefit of mankind in some cases - is not the same as creating the natural laws that govern the universe or the universe itself.

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia - BTW 60% scientists are believers.

In the United States Academy of Sciences I think more than 85% are non-believers, but that is besides the point. Even if 100% of scientists were non-believers or 100% of people worldwide were believers, that would not make anything true, one way or the other. We have been over this before. True descriptions of reality are true regardless of what anyone might think about them. Even if everyone in the world voted that there is no gravity, so
humans can jump off of cliffs and fly, I still wouldn’t jump off a cliff.

BTW 60% scientists are believers.

To Mohamed Malleck, Swift Current, Canada:
Thanks.
Jeff

Cordelia - How did religion evolve? It's instinctive.

Evolutionary biologists (including Richard Dawkins) have a number of hypotheses on how religion originated and evolved. If you want to delve into this more fully, you might start with a chapter in Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, on the evolutionary theory behind religion. Some of the hypotheses include ...

1) Group-level adaptation (benefits groups, compared to other groups)
2) Individual-level adaptation (benefits individuals, compared to other individuals within the same group
3) Cultural parasite – religion benefits its own propagation without regard to the welfare of human hosts.
4) Adaptive in small groups of related individuals but not in modern social environments.
5) A byproduct of traits that are adaptive in nonreligious contexts.

In terms of the origin of religion, the large group of byproducts hypotheses have some support. For example, there is a strong survival value in human beings and other animals to recognize agency and intent, either from predators or other human beings. However, there are many natural phenomena that have only physical causes without any such agency, but where conscious intent was or is ascribed. It wasn't so long ago that storms or earthquakes were thought to represent god's displeasure.

In terms of the religion being adaptive after it originated, the within group and between group hypotheses have some support. In evolution, structures or behavior for an original function are often co-opted for new functions (e.g. the inner ear bones in mammals were previously bones in the jaw of an early reptilian ancestor). Assigning agency could have been co-opted for group level dynamics. Being part of a group, especially in our evolutionary past, would have been a necessity. One last thing; selection between groups has been heavily criticized on group selection grounds, primarily because within groups, "cheaters" who hung back in battles would have received the benefit without the risk. However, I do believe there was and is competition (group selection) among groups (e.g. religious and ethnic strife), but it is an emergent property that arises only after stable groups exist.

As I mentioned above, for further information, check out Dawkins' book and use googlescholar.

How did religion evolve? It's instinctive. The same instinct that makes lesser dogs subservient to the alpha dog is also in humans. Every person depends instinctively on an alpha, usually Daddy or Mommy. Daddy or Mommy introduce us to THEIR alpha, God, whose story we youngsters understand as a narrative, similar to Santa or Peter Pan's. But this same instinct in an animal can be excised with a scalpel because instinct is something physiological, and evolution changes the physiology of beings. This is how evolution molds our response to religion.

Then, as teens, our hormones call and we separate naturally from our alpha to become adults. That is why so many people, in a natural quest for independence, lose their religiosity when in their teens and college years. But when they themselves become adults and parents, and instinctively no longer desire to rely on their parent alphas, they head back to church where their own parents had first introduced them to the narrative alpha, God. Usually, this return to church occurs when the parent's own children start to question WHY. Why is not something the alpha explains well. He's pretty good at HOW (how to hunt, how to kill, how to vacuum, how to study) but not WHY. The alpha's answer to his child's why question is usually, "Because God says so," or "I said so." Which "said so" most motivates the child? Baby Jesus's? Or Daddy's?

Sitting in church, then, with their little childen beside them waiting to go downstairs to make cottonball lambs in Sunday School, the new parents pray to that old alpha who somehow evolves into a totally new being, one that molds itself to the deeper understanding that living longer brings.

And so the same canine trait that makes our dogs "adore" us evolves into the adoration of deity. Unfortunately, despite our supposedly being higher thinkers than dogs, our "adoration" is often not terribly different from the dog's. The dog adores his alpha instinctively to survive. In our adoration, we ask for money, love, health, world peace, all of which affect our survival.

CRH

Old Mick and Tom were into a pint at the pub when the three presidents were shown on the tele kneeling before the dead pope. Mick allowed as how they wanted to make sure he was dead. Tom finished his pint, set the glass on the bar and nodded in agreement.

Of course there are both gods and Gods. What sort of fool would deny that. There are also many other supernatural beings, andgels, faries, lepracons just to mention a few. And they all exist. No doubt about it.

Has anyone ever seen or conversed with a supernatural being? That is the question and not do they exist.

Faith is first and foremost in sacred scriptures. Then it's in men, (not women) who are learned in sacred scriptures. Only those with an abundance of faith, faith rich that have any left for supernatural beings.

The base sacred scripture, the Holy Bible is a proved hoax. That's not much fun though. It's kind of stuffy, academic, egg headed. The humor is best found in interpreting the hoax.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is such an interpretation, not offered as proof of anything. I think it proves that the supernatural being of religions is actually Devil. "The big bucks, (great quanities in coin of the realm) go to those who lead the multitudes to hell."

Moses, the actual father of all three great faiths, (in sacred scriptures) won the biggest prize, leader, (king in most languages) of the chosen people of God, (the supernatural being that lives in fire).

The zenith in humor comes when great men, (GHW Bush for instance) are televised putting money on the being's plate. Clearly, that's the act of buying a ticket to hell.

SJT, I have to agree with Maurie Beck that you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what science is if you think its burden is to provide proofs that particular things do not exist. An infinite number of things do not exist, and yet none of them can be proven by science not to exist. Science is a method for evaluating alternative explanations for patterns that do appear to exist. The bottom line is that there is no scientific support for the supernatural forces you appear to be believe in.

Being mind-boggled by things you don't understand, in large part because you are not familiar with the scientific details that have advanced our understanding of the world, does not qualify as scientific reasoning. It qualifies as assertion built on ignorance. While we all have ignorance about many things, our ignorance does not qualify us to assert things for which we have no evidence.

I once believed
Blessedness was Nothingness.

I now concede
Nothingness is Blessedness.

Now wait a minute, did you mean that I was Empty_Headed, and is that why you used such an unusual Username, as sometimes bloggers have done on the WP On Faith forums? Well, never mind. Anything that makes you happy!

Dear Empty_Headed (Ref post 24 May 2007 12:40 PM):

I feel odd using your rather unusual Username, especially since you made anything but empty headed remarks.

Many thanks for your kind words. Rest assured that I do not take any offence when you, or anyone else disagrees with me about anything I write. How could I possibly take part in a discussion if I can't tolerate being disagreed with?

I do understand the difference between the scientific method and religions. I for one don't read the Bible literally like a science treatise or a history textbook, but I still believe that there are some eternal truths contained in it. It is up to me to use my reason to sift through the contents and separate what is merely a description of cultural norms of the time in which the events mentioned in the Bible took place; to identify the cultural expressions used in explaining spiritual truths; to find out what are merely mythological explanations for eternal reality, and the truly eternal principles which never change with time, like some of the immutable laws of physics. The first chapter of Genesis after all makes a lofty claim - we are created in the image and likeness of God. Now that is a religious revelation that I could put to good use to my advantage when I read the Bible or any Scripture, or for the arguments put forward by atheists for that matter.

Ash:

On 24 May 2007 9:41 AM you wrote, "All your semi-philosophical mutterings seem meant to obscure one essential fact: You have exactly zero evidence that your gods exist. Everything you say is an attempt to dance around that emptiness."

My knowledge of philosophy is exactly zero. My mutterings was supposed to be my cutting edge scientific view!

You have exactly zero evidence that my God DOESN'T exist. You dance around the lack of explanation for how this mind boggling universe came to be, and how the Big Bang supposedly happened out of the blue. I see no scientific achievement that is not first born as an idea in the mind of the scientist. I'm doing nothing more than applying that logic to the origin of the Big Bang. That is not philosophy. That is pure scientific reasoning.

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia - Who decides what “reality” is? Does a scientist alone have the right to define reality, and that too restrict the definition of reality to his own terms?.... What is the definition of “reality?”

As I said earlier "I think you misunderstand science. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. Reality is what science tries to understand and explain, regardless of what scientists, or anyone else for that matter may say or write."

Science is a method for trying to understand natural phenomena. It is a very powerful method, in that it even has mechanisms for initially drawing erroneous conclusions and then subsequently correcting itself concerning those conclusions. Therefore, scientific descriptions (e.g. models, hypotheses, theories) of reality are always accepted conditionally, depending on subsequent information that may require modification of that description or casting it aside for a description that more accurately reflects reality in the context of the new information.

Generally, science only concerns itself with natural phenomena, not supernatural phenomena (god, ESP, demons, fairies, etc.). Some scientists, such as Dawkins, assert that, in fact, science can realistically address supernatural phenomena, as well. I happen to believe the same thing, but many other scientists do not. In this discussion, I have restricted myself only to natural phenomena. From what I understand, concerning Catholicism, the church takes the same approach, drawing a line, as it were, between natural and supernatural phenomena.

Science and scientists never claim absolute knowledge. In fact, the philosophy of science not only excludes such a claim but makes the assertion that absolute certainty or infallibility is impossible. That is why scientific dogma is an oxymoron. Science starts with the assumption of uncertainty and actually never proves anything, but accepts conditional descriptions of reality as I addressed above. That is why previous scientific understanding often is not concordant with what we know today, nor today with future understanding. In addition, science will never claim that it will understand all natural phenomena. There may be some parts of reality that we can never know.

Hello Jihadist,

Thanks for your elegant words. It is always nice reading your writings, because, as a good Muslim, who is also very rational and well-balanced, you have the humility to be awed by the Religious and the Transcendental while at the same time condemning atrocities committed in the name of religion. These days, the atrocities are mostly committed in the name of Christianity against Islam and Muslims. But, in the recent past, atrocities were committed mainly in the name of atheism. In times long gone by, the atrocities were committed by those Tatars and Mongols who ravaged the lands of Islam but then were awe-inspired into conversion to Islam and, yes, they went on to spread Islam to other regions of the world, including China, sometimes but not most of the time, through violent conquest.

All the best.

John G
I know how many books Dawkins has written. That's precisely why I found his off-hand, unserious reply to this question insulting.
However, I am glad to see that this thread has created a chance for some real dialogue, particularly from Tarik, Malleck and Jihadist, whose diversely Muslim views so often get drowned out by certain hateful rantings...

Hello Malleck

Frankly, I don't see how Dawkins and Hitchens are going to convince many Muslims over their respective God Delusion and God is Not Great contentions.

I agree with Tarik in his post here on God. When it comes to God, Muslims are already agnostics in some way, suspending speculations as to how God looks like and ultimately is, to focus on the temporal, and personal belief in God as a spontaneous spiritual and mental discovery and acceptance.

As for religion as a poison or religion is man-made, I agree that that while belief in God is personal, organized religion can be poisoned by misresentation and interpretations of beliefs in the name of God. Belief in God is personal, but dogmas, practices and rites are man formulated and imnplemented.

We also see how Islam as a religion, has its man-made elements and applied to the umma by way of the man-formulated Shariah based on their interpretations and deductions of Muslim scholars and ulema from Suras and Hadiths.

Sucking out poisons posing as beliefs due to institutionalized practices put in place by men as per what they think is for God and in the name of God is interesting and challenging for current Muslim scholars and ulema from Morrocco to Indonesia.

All the best

I think that hard-core scientific research is the backbone of reason that will grow and not be broken. I just hope that it is not corrupted. I hope doctors of medicine do not misuse their titles. I hope politicians do not bend science to their will.

Of course religion is man made. Thank you, Richard Dawkins, for educating much of the world, and making me realize that scientists are in general not conformists. You, Daniel Dennett, Susan Blackmore to some extent, and others have made me optimistic about science and reason. I don't feel that I must be religious in order to be respected. Nature is more interesting than mythology.

Soja, you say, "Belief in God gives more lasting value to this life and deeper meaning to those who seek it."

That's quite an assertion! how do you know that?

Peter

Your neat little conclusion that religion was invented to deal with fear of death has one little flaw: many believers and non-believers are still afraid of death. Lack of faith does not make one particularly brave about death, nor does belief in God make one fearless in the face of death. Belief in God gives more lasting value to this life and deeper meaning to those who seek it.

You need to come up with something better to explain the deep seated yearning of human beings which gave rise to religions in one form or the other from the beginning of human histroy.

Of course man invented religion. Specifically, priests invented religion. And then proceeded to make a very nice living off the story. Most people want very much to live - that desire is programmed into us. A story of an afterlife or even better, a happy, comfortable afterlife, is tailor made to appeal to that innate fear. And I suspect that is why most cultures have some kind of religious stories and all those stories (as far as I know), promise some kind of continuance of life after death.

Priests consolidated Judaism, Christianity and Islam by tweaking or re-interpreting the stories when people started to pick apart the obvious flaws, and by mercilessly employing their power to torture, burn and kill with impunity when the questioners got too vocal.

So if you trace the story back to the beginning, what do you have? In the case of Judaism and ultimately Christianity, first some Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation myths that get tweaked to change the characters from lots of gods to just one, but leave in angels, demons and devils as minor gods to smooth the transition from paganism.

Second, ruthless suppression of any heretics (ie. anyone with enough of a brain to ask the obvious questions, but no so much of one that they would choose to say it out loud within listening distance of the torture pits).

Third, documenting the story in a book (which ensures consistency) and then indoctrinating people from childbirth in the rules and stories it contains (especially the part about giving money regularly to the church)

Fourth, ruthless suppression of any heretics .....

Fifth, an obsessive need to find new subjects (South American indians, Mexico, Africa ...) and while raping their lands of gold, bringing them into the fold.

Sixth, ruthless suppression of any heretics .....

All rather simple really. But a pity that in the 21st century, we still have a large population that believes in magical creatures. Goes to the original statement - normal people are scared of dying and many choose to suspend rationality so they may hide behind the fantasies that are their reward. And once a person buys into a story, any story, they will often defend it to the death. It's one of our species fatal flaws. We just can't always stand to face the facts.

God is nothing like what you can imagine.
This is why any human depiction is despicable.
But anyone can feel his presence.
Its not based on intelligence or wisdom, when it happens it comes not based on piety or prayers.
Its just random chance (or a just reason).

So do not waste your time thinking about God.
Let God find you.

The Creation Hypothesis

(by David J Chalmers, Professor of Philosophy)

The Creation Hypothesis says: Physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time.

This is a familiar hypothesis. A version of it is believed by many people in our society, and perhaps by the majority of the people in the world. If one believes that God created the world, and if one believes that God is outside physical space-time, then one believes the Creation Hypothesis. One needn't believe in God to believe the Creation Hypothesis, though. Perhaps our world was created by a relatively ordinary being in the "next universe up", using the latest world-making technology in that universe. If so, the Creation Hypothesis is true.

I don't know whether the Creation Hypothesis is true. But I don't know for certain that it is false. The hypothesis is clearly coherent, and I cannot conclusively rule it out.

The Creation Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. Even if it is true, most of my ordinary beliefs are still true. I still have hands, I am still in…and so on. Perhaps a few of my beliefs will turn out false: if I am an atheist, for example, or if I believe all reality started with the Big Bang. But most of my everyday beliefs about the external world will remain intact.

Jeff Reed,

I can only fully agree with you.

God (or Nature!) bless people of good will like you and those who TRY VERY HARD to be always of good will, like me.

I do not think he makes any assertions. He is just voicing facts from today. If we look around the world, we can see both the good and the bad that religion has brought upon us. It feeds the poor, and kills others at the same instant. Through history, religion has been both the catalyst for extraordinarily good events, and conversely, extraordinarily bad events. It is time for us to make sure the current and future events are for the betterment of humanity.
Jeff

Jeff Reed,

I fully agree with the first paragraph of what Fred wrote on May 24th at 1:55 p.m.

I very forcefully disagree with the second paragraph, because he makes a sweeping assertion whose validity cannot be tested because the data to accept or reject the 'alternative hypothesis' have been forever lost since the time man first accepted religion and achieved so much progress, against all odds.

Take a look at Fred from May 24th 1:55 p.m. It is hard to make a point that is difficult to deny.
Jeff

Well, faith actually exists, and there can be no faith in the presence of proved certainty. (i.e. "Faith", by definition, requires uncertainty.) Ergo, a god which demands faith must always leave the uncertainty.

FREETHINKR, I think you're right about the origin of religion. It pre-dates Modern Man and we owe it to the Neanderthals for our first insights into the transcendent reality.

Ther is no God and never has been.

Men invented religion to spread the Good Word.

The Good Word was articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each new race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were eventually attributed to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars and assets owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions.

David Koblick,

Yes, you have read the God Delusion. I have yet to read it, though I have read much else by Professor Dawkins.

But, in addition to that, I have read ALL of the works of Douglas Hofstadter, much of Roger Penrose and David Barrow, Ian Stewardt's "Does God Play Dice" and a couple of other books, Roger Lewin's "Compexity", Abraham Pais' "Inward Bound", and ALL the acceptance lectures of the award winners of the Templeton Foundation, plus many of the essays posted on the website "Metanexus.net".

I still hgesitate to say that "All Religion Is Mand-made" before agreeing on a universally-recognised definition of 'religion'

Those who are as categorical as you and Richard Dawkins are just 'established-major-religion-bashers'.

David Koblick,

Yes, you have read the God Delusion. I have yet to read it, though I have read much else by Professor Dawkins.

But, in addition to that, I have read ALL of the works of Douglas Hofstadter, much of Roger Penrose and David Barrow, Ian Stewardt's "Does God Play Dice" and a couple of other books, Roger Lewin's "Compexity", Abraham Pais' "Inward Bound", and ALL the acceptance lectures of the award winners of the Templeton Foundation, plus many of the essays posted on the website "Metanexus.net".

I still hgesitate to say that "All Religion Is Mand-made" before agreeing on a universally-recognised definition of 'religion'

Those who are as categorical as you and Richard Dawkins are just 'established-major-religion-bashers'.

Jozevz et al:

You are one funky dude.

Are you the high priest of atheism?

..Or, are you the rocket man Elton John sang about in 1972 and got lost????

Either way...I doubt you'll ever get your own sitcom...

((((((((and I think its gonna be a long, long time ))))))))))))

No facts in THE GOD DELUSION..just hypothesis...

so, nothing to get confused about

I'm re-reading Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION,
I enjoyed it so much the first time. I recommend it to all those who commented on it, although from the borderline illiteracy some of them displayed, they might find it hard going without a dictionary handy. Trouble is, so many of the true believers' comments imply the well-known attitude of "My mind is made up--don't confuse me with facts."

"The only alternative – that religion is woman-made.."

Ah but you are in error professor! You did not consider that religion may have been started not by man nor woman, but could have been hermaphrodite-made. A true "alternative" if there ever was one.

It may also have been started by monkeys.

There are two human conditions that allow for a person to be both insulting and incredulous towards others of another thought: egotism…and fear.
Jeff

I am thoroughly disappointed that, with the superb brain that Nature (not God or a god) gave him, Richard Dawkins tells us that, for him, the only alternative to the proposition that 'religion is man-made" is that 'religion is woman-made".

I have, in front of me, the research project proposal of David Sloane Wilson (made to the Templeton Foundation and Metanexus), titled “:Competitive Dynamics and Cultural Evolution of Religions and God Concepts”. The various ideas and approaches that are floated, including approaches to the study of the cultural evolution concepts of religion (not obvious from the title, but implicit in D.S. Wilson’s write-up), are not only eminently ‘rational’ and intelligent, but they clearly show a more complex process of the ‘evolution of religion’ than its being ‘man-made’.

The implicit basic idea is that of the ‘meme’. For someone to claim that “the ‘meme’ is man-made” would be very foolish, because, very evidently, ‘complexity’ phenomena are at work, ‘collective’ forces interact which are not simple aggregates of ‘individual’ influences but are functions of these individual influences synthesized by a ‘glue’ that has a dimension transcendent to human atemporal attributes.

In that sense, religion – whether with a capital R, like in Islam, the world’s fastest-growing religion, in Christinaity, the one with the largest number of nominal adherents but least practiced, or in any of the other five or six major organized religions -- is transcendental, more transcendental than “pi” or Napier’s “e” or “i” the square root of minus 1 or even ‘alpha’ and ‘omega’ as in “the constants of nature”.

In the sense that I understand Christopher Hitchens’ and Sam Harris’ argument that “religion is man-made”, I dismiss the statement as the nightmare of nincompoops afflicted with incurable Christiano-phobia and Islamo-phobia. I would hate to have to apply these epithets to Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. Not that they are not asking for it!

Richard Dawkins says that "only man could be so patronizing". Is it not Dawkins who is being patronising towards other fellow human beings who are awed by the Transcendental?

I failed to mention that Pahraohs were both sons of god and sons of Gods. Sons of gods are Gods while sons of sons of gods are also sons of Gods. Well, there is the exception to the rule, Amenophis IV being a woman.

Let us prey:

Hail Mary - hello honey
full of grace - says she's nobility, 'your grace'
the lord - the one in charge, big boss
is with thee - says she's the lord
blessed art thou - say's she's God (read further)
amongst women - there are other female Gods
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus

The last satement says that Jesus is blessed. We know Jesus, (by definition) is God :: blessed must mean God.

The "Hail Mary" was prompted by the anointing of queen Tiye as regent of Egypt by her mother in law, Mutemweya. Coincidently, Mutemweya anointed her son, Amenophis III regent but did not surrender the power of regency to him, kept it for herself.

Mutemweya is Samuel in the Bible, great power without title or office. Amenophis III is king Sol. His queen, Tiye is king David, (anointed while Sol was still alive).

Who is the fruit of the womb of Tiye? Did Jesus come from the house or womb of David? Of course that tells us that the fruit of her womb, Amenophis IV is Jesus.

Amenophis IV led twelve tribes of builders, (Israelites) to the winderness where they built a tabernacle, worshiped, honored, adored and glorified a supernatural being that lives in a ball of fire. That being is the 'man in the sun' AKA, man-on-fire God.

Amenophis IV did every significant thing that both Moses and Jesus did. Same person(s)?

It's a shame Bible schollars can't read, just like the ones who wrote it.

Hey Russell - the Freud is more of an essay but it is dense (or maybe I am).

No worries Andrew, I think we are done trading barbs ;-)

Sweet! I think that Taylor is great (of course I am biased) and I am glad he was recognized by Templeton.

"Catholic Modernity" is a short lecture; check it out after your wife, although I doubt youll like his take on Nietzsche.

Anyway, gotta run and will see you around the boards.

Speed123:

Have it your way. You get what you give.

Speed123:

I might have to check out that Freud book. He has always fascinated me.

I usually just read James Patterson novels. I love the Alex Cross character. But when I can, I try to read anything that has to do with religion and or politics. Believe me, when I am at my family's place in Vegas, you need to be up to speed or they will slaughter you in a decent argument.

I want to read "Jesus and Buddha". That seems interesting to me.

And of course, I read Playboy for the articles and articles only. ;)

A Catholic Modernity - sorry. I've also read The Politics of Recognition.

Speed123:

Now we're talikng man. I've read both of Taylor's books on Hegel, and my wife is reading Catholic Modernity now. Maybe we're discussing the wrong stuff.

Andrew states:

"I'm a really well educated blowhard"

Classic! I wish that Hitchens and Dawkins would admit as much.

Reminding strangers on the blogosphere how "well educated" you are is like constantly reminding people at a cocktail party that you went to havard.

Perhaps it is a bit more sorry...

Dawkins is the man. You just can't beat his arguments. I've never seen him successfully rebutted. The best that "believers' can do is call him "angry" or argue that science is really another religion. Bah!

Hey Russel,

Thanks for the backup ;-)

Actually my favorite topic on here is books, new authors, thinkers etc.

We can all type and yell at the computer until we are blue in the face and not change a damn thing...but give each other tips on ideas, new arguments etc. and you really make a difference.

Right now I am trying to get through Freud "The future of an Illusion" - slow going material. After that I have promised to catch up on Marx.

As for great defenders of religion, check out Charles Taylor a Catholic philosopher at McGill Univ. - any of his stuff is wicked esp. "A Catholic Modernity?" Just won the Templeton Prize for 2007.

Also, Michael Burleigh's new book "Scared Causes" about religion and politics in the 20th cent is a great read.

Finally, for a great critic on modern capitalism check out Ben Barber's "Consumed: How markets corrupt children, infantilize adults and swallow citizens whole.

I would love to hear what you are reading also, Russel.

Thanks for bringing this up!

Russell D:

Over on another thread, I agreed with Speedy on one of posts, but he just gave me his usual BS in return. Hard to respect that Dude. I will try harder.

Yes, My Grand Parents was Prussian. a/k/a VIENNA-ESE!

Speed123:

BTW, Nietzsche is not Austrian - he is German. He was born in what was then Prussia - became the German Empire later.

The Answer is in the Holy comic Fiber of your innate selves. Eclat & "i" is the Game. If any!

Whackjob, blowhard...yada yada yada.

I was calling Dawkins and Hitchens blowhards...

Hope I didnt offended your "educated" self.

Boy, you atheists are hyper-sensitive and elitist!

Showing your colors...and tattoos! Ha ha, Speed you are such a jokester. I can name some good reads - "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene.

V.O.T.E. (((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll, Mitt-ROMNEY for O.U.R.S! )))))))))))

Vote: "Eclatai-On Party" for Gridarian-Democracy and Global Peace! Thank You for saving Yourselves!

Speed123:

Whose books do you read?

As you can see, I have sermized that you are in fact a smart individual with strong convictions, and beliefs. I'd like to know what you consider to be worthy to be read.

As for the rest of you:

I am not defending Speed123, but I am going to point this out. Amidst all of the tirades, Speed can make a good point or two. This goes for everybody. Don't just read the posts. Understand the posts.

You can spew your hatred as you wish, and you are not the first whack job to call me a blowhard, but I'm a really well educated blowhard. Unlike you. Res ipsa loquitur

Proving a point, Luke?

I thought you were showing your colors....as usual.

Yeah, I bet you couldn't guess that I was white and covered in tattoos, eh? Oh wait...I'm not proving my point. Wait, you aren't even Christian are you? My bad...

Redneck?! I am offended, Luke.

I am a blue-blood from the Northeast!

Funny the assumptions that we make...

Science attempts to answer our ultimate questions without regard to the existence or non-existence of God. Science (or human intellect in general) will never be able to prove or disprove the the existence of God. The question of God is a question of faith, which like love means something different to different people, and which some have and some don't. It is moot, therefore, whether God made man or man made God.

What is not moot is the role religion has played in our answer to this question. Much of the strife and evil in history can be directly attributed to the insistence of religion that there is a God and that he, she, it, can only be known in light of its own orthodoxy. I know God; you do not. I am chosen; you are not. I am right; you are not. Ironically (and sadly), as science has shown us that humankind, in all its shades, shapes, and sizes, is more alike than not, religion continues to be one of the last bastions of bias, bigotry, segregation, and, yes, hate.

Ofcourse King Redneck Speed123 has to join in. Inventor of the M-60 shaped Bible! Shoots bodies of Christ! Anyway, I think that logic and faith can battle each other into the ground, but comes out with cold hard facts rather than smug looks and rolling eyes - that is why I am an atheist.

Hey AndrewOR,

Check out the other post...

Also, some of us have jobs; no time to argue Austrian philosphers with you bud...

But I know an blowhard when I see one...

Speed123:

You offer nothing, you argue nothing, you present nothing. You just spew hatred at those with whom you disagree. Why is that?

It should read, "only a foppish Brit could be so patronizing!"

What ever happened to the Beatles?

Now all we get are blowhards like Dawkins and Hitchens...

"Religion is man made." Yes, and so are the pyramids and, perhaps, a few theories, such as gravity and relativity.

There are 4 options, so far. Religion was made by man or woman, God or Devil. If we separate gods from Gods then the list of possible candidates grows, same true for Devils and devils.

The three great faiths were most likely the work of Devil, the biggest one of them all, Lucifer. Then there are a lot of little devils forever horning in on Lucifer's business.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul AKA interpretation 1,501 of sacred scriptures is indeterminent on whether or not it was Lucifer or a lesser evil demon, devil that Moses made the deal with. In any event it's clear that Devil or devil is the actual founder of all three great faiths. Take your pick.

Muhammad and Joseph Smith had sessions with supernatural beings, (wouldn't dare accuse them of lying). Since both rely heavily on the validity of the Moses deal we are left to conclude that Devil/devils aren't finished establishing great faiths yet. We can expect still another great faith any minute as hell has an irrestable appeal, (threaten them with hell, pass the plate and "my how the money rolls in").

It is time for another egomanical Brit to give it a shot: fat, drunk Hitch is in the spotlight now...

Oh, shut up, Dick....you had your turn!

There goes another wonderful illusion down the tubes.

Clank, bulurp, swish, gurgle-gurgle, clank, sqweech, peep.

Next!

Soja John Thaikattil,

Firstly I enjoyed the tone of your comment.

The fact that religion (or your relationship with God) helps you to be the person you want to be is all well and good and fine by me.

I have no issue with that. It’s when people espouse things such as the Bible being the unerring word of God that I have a problem.

You comment that two or three scientists can see the same thing three different ways and they could either be right, wrong or a mix between. You’re right. Absolutely. However the wonderful thing is that no one has ever said that “science” (talk about over generalizing something) is unerring. There are controls for that. We question and surmise, we collect data we hold our answers to the light.

The same cannot be said for those that believe in the Bible. The Bible is the Bible and the Bible is right. How do we know? The Bible says so. Ipso facto pi is now and forever shall be 3.

As I said I thought you were very fair in your comment and I hope that you can accept mine in the spirit it is given.

Thank you.

What?:

Did you consider that the majority of mankind are may not be very bright?

PeaceTroll:

Man didnt make God. God made man. (Just as you, I and the one standing next to us make things). Only those humans who put themselves at the center of the universe and of all supposed knowledge cannot see the correlation.

Man owes God for all he (man) has.

Perhaps a comprehensive study of the atheist thought process by the majority of mankind would make more realize the shallow, creation-degrading, cynical, purposeless thought process that it really is.

PeaceTroll:

God didn't make man. Man made God. Gow owes man for the power that He supposedly has. Maybe you should study the human brain. The mind is a very interesting thing. It can come up with numerous ideas, inspirations, truths, and false truths, all to sooth the person.

@Viejita del oeste

Dawkins has written more than one book on this subject. You have only to go to your public library and borrow one for free. No purchase is neccessary to acquire new knowledge.

Mr. Dawkins,

In your estimation, where does the fault lie in the sordid outcome of man made religion? With mankind, or with the believer's creator God?

Soja,

All your semi-philosophical mutterings seem meant to obscure one essential fact:

You have exactly zero evidence that your gods exist. Everything you say is an attempt to dance around that emptiness.

IF Man is God made,

And man made religion,

then by defacto (indirect I agree),

Religion is God made.

Simple logic dictates.

Wake up now.

Dawkins' answer to this question manages to be both silly and condescending. Is he too lazy to give a real answer, or is he just hoping we'll go out and buy his book to see how smart he really is? If he prefers not to make the effort, he should pass on the question.
The other commenters here are the only reason this was worth clinking on...

Maurie Beck:

• Who decides what “reality” is? Does a scientist alone have the right to define reality, and that too restrict the definition of reality to his own terms?

• What is the definition of “reality?”

• Whose definition of reality reflects the “absolute” truth?

• What is “absolute scientific truth?”

• If there is such a thing as absolute scientific truth, why does today’s science supersede yesterday’s science, as surely tomorrow’s science will supersede today’s science? The fact that science may in five hundred years understand the workings of the universe a little more than it does today is not the proof that the universe was not created. For instance if a fifteen year old understands more about the Internet and computer than it did when it was five year old, is it proof that the computer and Internet does not have an inventor?

• Do some scientists propose all the hypotheses all scientists from the beginning of time to the end of time could possibly propose? Aren’t the hypotheses proposed limited by the ones proposing them? Experimentation and observations can be made only about hypotheses that have been proposed. What about the hypotheses that have yet to be proposed or may never be proposed but on which truth and reality may depend?

• Scientists are as much conditioned by their own knowledge and their perception of reality as anyone else. Which scientist could claim to know the absolute truth? What is absolute truth?

• Big Bang does open the possibility of God from a scientific point of view. Big Bang has a beginning, the beginning of time, space and form, which fits in with the religious idea of an uncreated First Cause which is the Creator of space, time and form.

• The fact that religions (belief in God or Creator of the universe) have biological impact is not proof that religions have a biological basis without a supernatural origin. The mind has an impact on the body, but that is not proof that the mind is derived from the body. It is backwards logic to propose that because the spirit has an effect on the mind-body, that the spirit is derived from the body-mind by evolution.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Marysville - The exciting thing is that we don't have to choose between believing in God and seeking intelligence ... Those who dismiss God as a hurdle to seeking knowledge unwittingly turn their backs on the master teacher who understands everything in the universe perfectly.

And those who dismiss reason as a hurdle to seeking knowledge unwittingly turn their backs on understanding anything.

Perhaps your first sentence implies that it is a false choice if one thinks he/she has to choose between god and reason. I can live with that.

Really Soja, I don't understand why you would say, "I admire your faith that this vast universe with its mind-boggling complexity came to existence from nothing, for nothing and is headed towards nothing, and it has always existed that way."

You must know Professor Dawkins has said no such thing. It's so misleading.

Marysville - you speak with such authority. I can't imagine how you would know all these things about God.

I don't think there will ever be concrete, scientific proof that God exists; not in this life at least. But those who seek to know God, know that he exists and feel the power of it in their lives.

The exciting thing is that we don't have to choose between believing in God and seeking intelligence. The glory of God is intelligence and when we understand God's plan, we just begin to understand all we have to learn about our existence. Those who dismiss God as a hurdle to seeking knowledge unwittingly turn their backs on the master teacher who understands everything in the universe perfectly.

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia - As to scientific conclusions, I do happen to know that two scientists could look at exactly the same data and draw completely different conclusions, both of them may be right from their own perspective or be proven completely wrong by a third scientist.

I think you misunderstand science. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.
Reality is what science tries to understand and explain, regardless of what scientists, or anyone else for that matter may say or write. Scientists generally propose multiple hypotheses and then determine which one has the most support, based on what theory predicts and the empirical evidence (from experimentation and observation) that supports or refutes the different hypotheses.

You cite cases where there is dispute or debate among scientists. For example, evolutionary biolgists (such as Richard Dawkins) are at this time not in agreement as to how religion or religious beliefs originated and are maintained. This is what science does. However, there is no dispute among scientists that evolution is a fact, nor that religion has a biological basis. If you want a decent discussion on the different explanations for the evolution of religion, Dawkins devotes a chapter in The God Delusion to that subject. You might also use Google Scholar and use keywords like evolution and religion.

Dear Professor Dawkins

I admire your faith that this vast universe with its mind-boggling complexity came to existence from nothing, for nothing and is headed towards nothing, and it has always existed that way. It requires much more faith than mine, much less curiosity than I possess about the beginnings and endings of what I can see and feel.

Science is great of course, only I have a problem with making up my mind about whether my world view should depend on the science of five hundred years ago or science of five hundred years from now. As to scientific conclusions, I do happen to know that two scientists could look at exactly the same data and draw completely different conclusions, both of them may be right from their own perspective or be proven completely wrong by a third scientist. Or all three may possess only part of the truth, which is what science is about most of the time. The absolute truths of science are so rare and far between that I hesitate to build my worldview based entirely on it. Science is a good tool, but that is all it is, a tool that can be used for the benefit of mankind. It is amusing when a man of your intellect makes a god out of a mere tool and yet cannot see the good that the role of faith in God, all the misuse of religions notwithstanding, has played in human history.

BTW I'm a forty seven year old Catholic woman who happens to agree with you that the Catholic church should give a greater role to women. When I was seventeen years old I wanted to become a Jesuit priest or at least marry one. I'm disappointed when I was told both were not permitted by the Catholic church. So I'm a single lay woman now!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

This is cut and paste job from a Guest Voice thread:

Dear Professor King

I agree religions evolved, but the awareness of God itself is innate to human nature, because we are created with a receptivity to the spirit of God that pervades the universe He created, and the spirit of God within us in whose image and likeness we are made. The reaching out to the transcendent reality, called God, expressed itself in many different ways in different cultures, and religions evolved from it. Great breakthroughs in consciousness, to the greater reality of God, by individuals led to the founding of great religions.

We did not evolve into spiritual beings, we were created as spiritual beings and our capacity to relate to and understand the spiritual in us and around us evolved with time.

We did not evolve upwards towards God consciousness, but rather evolved inwards into a greater awareness of what has been in us all the time. It is only our minds and intellect that expresses the same reality with a different vocabulary of the times we live in, depending on our level of consciousness, but the reality itself is one and unchanging. One could say that our minds are evolving in the way we understand God, but God Himself, who is Eternal and unchanging remains the same. Buddha and Jesus manifested a level of consciousness which is available to us all if we follow their teachings and example. Throughout history many individuals have reached high levels of consciousness within their lifetime, while the vast majority have lived at very low levels of consciousness and continue to do so even now.

Does science need to explain God? It is a pleasurable activity for the mind, but not an essential prerequisite for a life of faith in God. The scientific method is a tool to discover some aspects of the universe, and improve the lot of human beings, but it may or may not be suited to find the most important aspects of God and faith. So while it is interesting to have explanations of God from as many scientific disciplines as possible, and some of the work may help weed out some superstitions religions, the eternal truths remain and the faithful can rely on them, whether science is able to explain them or not. The way to higher levels of consciousness, as taught by the Hindu Rishis, Buddha and Jesus Christ are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago.

Science and religion belong together and there should be no conflict at all if both are aware of the unique roles of the other - sometimes complementary, sometimes parallel.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Posted April 4, 2007 5:33 AM

PS: As a Christian by conviction, I do believe that Jesus Christ was a unique revelation of God, unlike others like Buddha who evolved to high levels of consciousness through their own efforts, or gained access in varying degrees to the divine by rising above the normal realm of human consciousness - a tuning in to another frequency.

It's about time one of the panelists showed a sense of humor.

Loved this. :)

Russell D and Andrea :)

Good to see y'all finally get out of the room eating cocoa krispies on a question that interest you both.

I'm getting popcorns.

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you trying to tell me it's man-made too???

MV,

You do realize that Prof. Dawkins actually wrote an entire book in answer to this question, right?

You know, I'm almost nearly, fairly, 100% certain that when using the term, "man-made," he was referring to mankind, versus made by persons of the male gender. But a nice answer you gave to completely not have to think or answer the question at hand. Very good, sir!

Though, I suppose a smallish amount of research would have uncovered that there are some religions (even Catholic) that accept women into leadership roles. Would they be considered to be "making religion" at this point? Even in the early Catholic church, women held positions of power. Did they not "make religion" either?

Right-arm, dude, right-arm. Peace!

Dear Richard,

Thank you for speaking truth to power. It would be so much easier for you to acquiesce and demure to religionists. You speak fiercely, sir, and I applaud it.

I appreciate that you bring reason to bear upon these matters. Lord knows it is lacking. It is possible to be faithful in an honest search for the G-d experience and also be unflinchingly steadfast in rigorous rationality.

I admire your work and your intellect. It enriches me in my studies.

sw

Nice. That was a lot funnier than my answer...

"Well, duh !"

*laugh.* :)

Dude,

Can I call you dude? I like how you think.

Well played, sir.

YES! Finally a question we can sink our teeth into!